Texas bill proposes mandatory cancer screenings for firefighters
The Brief
House Bill 198 would require cancer screening for all Texas firefighters.
Screenings would begin in the firefighter's fifth year of employment and focus on the colon, prostate, lungs and brain.
Some have voiced concerns about how these screenings would be paid for as the bill currently does not provide any state funding.
AUSTIN, Texas - A proposed Texas law would require mandatory cancer screenings for firefighters across the state.
On Monday, a Texas House subcommittee on County & Regional Government under the Texas House Committee of Intergovernmental Affairs considered House Bill 198.
What we know
House Bill 198 is also known as the Wade Cannon Act after a Flower Mound firefighter who recently died from cancer.
HB 198 would require political subdivisions to provide free cancer screenings for their firefighters. The tests would focus on the colon, prostate, lungs and brain.
The free screenings would start in the fifth year of a firefighter's employment and then happen once every three years following the initial screening.
What they're saying
State Rep. Ben Bumgarner (R-Flower Mound) filed the bill in November, marking his second attempt at passing this legislation. His first attempt two years ago failed to clear the Senate.
"It was a timing issue. It was. It was heard later on in the session. And this time around we had a low bill number. And it's going to be one of the first Bills heard over in the Senate from the House side. So, I feel really good about it," said Bumgarner.
Among those to testify in support of the legislation was Tim Mackling who worked with Wade Cannon, the namesake of the bill.
"Unfortunately, Wade was too young for our health insurance to cover his cancer screenings. At 31, you go in for a colonoscopy screening, your insurance tends to deny it. They screen at 45. "So, Cannon was caught in a weird situation between health insurance and worker's comp," said Mackling.
By the numbers
Between 2002 and 2019, cancer caused 66% of the line-of-duty deaths of career firefighters, according to data from the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Research by the CDC/National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety determined that firefighters have a 9% higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer than the general U.S. population and are 14% more likely to die from cancer.
The other side
The committee was told Monday that testing can cost about $500.
State Rep. Sheryl Cole (D-Austin) noted the bill does not provide any state funding.
"We're saying, shall, to a municipality and we get, you know, called on the carpet about that quite a bit. And I used to be a city council member," said Cole.
Covering the cost on the local level is a concern for Chief Roger Esparza with the El Paso County ESD #2.
"I'm a small ESD, West Texas, lowest taxing entities. Right now, there's 26 bills that are going to target the way we do ad valorem taxing. And I think it's one of those things that I think it's a great idea. Phenomenal. I think we need it, but I'm concerned of how I'm going to pay for that," said Chief Esparza.
Bumgarner believes the bill can save money and lives.
"Preventive care is so much cheaper than what it is for costs of workman's comp occupational therapy. These guys can't come back to work, death benefits in the in the in term that they pass away and just the cost of savings on having to replace that institutional knowledge and the firefighter itself," said Bumgarner.
Local perspective
Austin pays for an annual wellness physical, which has caught some medical conditions, according to Bob Nicks with the Austin Firefighter's Association.
Big picture view
Early screening laws have been filed in Louisiana and Connecticut. New Hampshire passed a law last year and allocated $5 million.
A bill proposing a federal screening law has also been filed in Congress.
The Source
Information in this report comes from reporting by FOX 7 Austin chief political reporter Rudy Koski.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Minnesota lawmakers approve social media mental health warning measure
Minnesota lawmakers have approved a measure requiring social media platforms to display a warning label, cautioning about the negative impacts of its use on mental health. The bill, which the legislature sent to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) on Thursday, requires platforms to display the warning each time a user accesses the site. Users must acknowledge the 'potential for harm' and choose 'to proceed to the social media platform despite the risk.' The measure specifically notes the warning label cannot be exclusively provided in a platform's terms and conditions or include 'extraneous' information reducing the visibility of the warning. The label must also feature resources to address the potential negative impacts associated with social media, including a website and phone number for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. The push to include warning labels on the apps has gained steam amid increasing concerns about the impacts of social media, particularly on children. Former surgeon general Vivek Murthy called for social media warning labels last year after previously issuing an advisory about the impact of social media on kids' mental health. 'The mental health crisis among young people is an emergency — and social media has emerged as an important contributor,' Murthy wrote in an op-ed published by The New York Times last June. 'A surgeon general's warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe,' he added. Congress has also considered legislation to establish stronger protections for kids online, including the Kids Online Safey Act (KOSA). KOSA, which was reintroduced last month by Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), seeks to create regulations for the features that tech companies offer kids online and reduce the addictive nature and mental health effects of these platforms. The bill passed the Senate last year but ultimately hit roadblocks in the House.
New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Tariffs Are Planned for Appliances Made With Steel
A law that expired last year was meant to compensate civilians sickened by the legacy of the nation's aboveground nuclear testing program, as well as uranium miners. Senate Republicans on Thursday included in their version of President Trump's domestic policy bill a provision that would revive and significantly expand a law for compensating victims of government-caused nuclear contamination who developed cancer and other serious illnesses. The measure, long championed by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, would overhaul a law passed more than three decades ago with a narrow scope. It was meant to compensate civilians sickened by the legacy of the nation's aboveground nuclear testing program, a hallmark of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, and uranium miners who worked between 1942 and 1971. It paid out more than $2.6 billion in benefits to more than 55,000 claimants since its creation in 1990. The Senate passed bipartisan legislation last year to substantially broaden the scope of that law — called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA — beyond Cold War-era victims to cover others who have been harmed by the aftereffects in the decades since. But after Republican leaders refused to allow it to come to a vote on the House floor, the law expired, dashing hopes of compensation for sickened civilians. Senate Republican leaders are now, at the behest of Mr. Hawley, giving the measure another shot at passage, including it in the Senate version of the domestic policy bill that they are hoping to pass in weeks. He is considered a key vote on the bill because he opposes several provisions floated by his party for cutting Medicaid. 'I think about, in the St. Louis area alone, how many folks I've talked to whose grandfathers or grandmothers were involved with the radiation project and whose families have subsequently had cancer in the family for generations,' Mr. Hawley said in an interview. 'And they're very proud of their service to the nation, but they would like to be thanked for that and be treated appropriately and not lied to anymore by their government.' The measure would revive the law and authorize its compensation fund to run for another two years. It would also expand eligibility to include civilians in the swaths of New Mexico, Utah and Arizona that were previously excluded from benefits coverage. And it would for the first time allow residents in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alaska — sites where workers processed uranium for the nation's nuclear program — who were exposed to nuclear contamination to be eligible for benefits. Mr. Hawley's involvement in the issue stems from St. Louis's history with the atomic bomb. Scientists first began churning out uranium for the Manhattan Project in 1942 at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works factory there. But over the next several decades, hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste stored in open steel drums were hauled and dumped across the city. The waste seeped into the city's soil, including on land that later became ball fields, and into Coldwater Creek, a tributary that snakes through the metropolitan area for 19 miles through backyards and public parks. Rare cancers, autoimmune diseases and other mysterious illnesses have since spread through the community. Lawmakers like Mr. Hawley have maintained that the government should help foot residents' health care bills. Asked whether the inclusion of the measure might encourage him to support his party's domestic policy bill despite his concerns about the legislation's Medicaid provisions, Mr. Hawley suggested that it could. 'This will really dramatically increase the availability of health care for people in my state,' he said. 'If you are a RECA claimant, if you are a nuclear radiation survivor, then you're going to get a lot of help with your medical bills here. So what this is going to mean, practically in Missouri, is a lot of people are going to get a lot more access to health care, which is really, really important.' Mr. Hawley continued: 'So, I still have concerns about Medicaid, and believe me, I'm talking about those on an almost hourly basis now with my leadership. But this is a big, big deal, and not just for my state. This is going to be a big deal for a lot of people, and it's going to help a lot of people get health care.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
What's in RI's proposed $14.3B budget? Help for primary care, RIPTA funds and 'Taylor Swift tax'
PROVIDENCE – Rhode Island House Democrats have unveiled a new $14.3 billion state budget that seeks to bolster the finances of primary care doctors, hospitals and nursing homes without raising income taxes on the wealthy. The proposed tax and spending plan for the year starting July 1 would raise Medicaid reimbursement rates to inject, including federal dollars, $45 million into primary care, $38 million into hospitals and $12 million into nursing homes. Funding for primary care practices would come in part from a new health insurance fee estimated to generate $30 million per year. Although it spares the well-heeled an income tax hike, the House budget resurrects a tax proposed a decade ago on second homes worth more than $1 million, branded the "Taylor Swift tax" after the Watch Hill vacation home of the famous pop star. Proceeds would go to fund the state's low-income housing tax credit. The budget would inject $15 million into the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, the same amount of money lawmakers added to the statewide bus system a year ago but less than half of the $33 million the agency says it needs to plug a budget hole and avoid service cuts. The extra RIPTA funding will come from a 3-cent-per-gallon hike in the gas tax slated to go into effect July 1 and tweaks to the formula that distributes transportation funds. A 1-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax is already set to go into effect in July. The budget, a rewrite of the $14.2 billion tax and spending plan Gov. Dan McKee proposed in January, was quickly passed on an 11-3 vote by the House Finance Committee on June 10, setting it up for a vote before the full House on June 17. "All our colleagues have heard, the Senate has heard and we decided that we needed to take action now," House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters about the money for primary care. "We've heard that our reimbursement rates are low, and that's the primary cause of the health care shortage. We wanted to address that immediately." Senate President Valarie Lawson in an email applauded budget investments in healthcare, RIPTA and child care, suggesting it won't have much trouble passing that chamber. As expected, the House abandoned several of McKee's proposals, including a 50-cent hike in the cigarette tax, buying an office building from Citizens Bank in East Providence and a tax on digital advertising that the governor hoped would pull in $9.5 million next year and $23.5 million annually by 2030. But the House budget agreed with the governor on other proposals, including a new fee on electric vehicles and charging the state's 5% hotel tax to short-term rentals of whole homes on sites such as Airbnb. Other budget highlights include: Truck tolls. The House accepted McKee's plan to turn on the legal-again tolls on tractor trailers in the first half of 2026 and collect an estimated $10 million in state revenue. Washington Bridge: $22 million in state dollars to match federal funds to build a new westbound Washington Bridge. Education: The House proposal would spend $16.5 million more on education than McKee proposed and $59 million more than the current-year budget. Conveyance tax: A 63% increase in the real estate conveyance tax on all home purchases, which doubles for the portion of a sale over $800,000 is proposed with proceeds going to services for homeless Rhode Islanders. The tax increase is projected to raise $8.4 million next year. Airbnb: Extends the 5% state hotel tax to whole-house rentals, something lawmakers rejected last year but McKee's budget expects will generate $4.7 million per year, with a part of the collections also going to homeless services. DMV: A $1 hike in the Division of Motor Vehicles "technology fee" to $3.50 per transaction. Superman Building: The House budget included a provision, already passed as a standalone bill in the Senate, that would exempt the owner of the vacant Industrial Trust Tower in Providence from sales tax on construction materials while claiming a maximum in other state incentives. Parking: The state's 7% sales tax would be charged to parking, generating $3.2 million per year. Nicotine pouches: The tax applied to the wholesale cost of tobacco products would be expanded to synthetic nicotine pouches such as Zyn, generating $12 million per year. Vacation home tax: The "Taylor Swift Tax" would not go into effect until the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2026 and no estimate was provided of how much it would eventually raise. Longtime advocates of increasing taxes on Rhode Island's highest-earning residents hoped the budget pressure facing the state this year would convince top lawmakers that the time was now right to do it. They proposed a 3% surcharge on income above $625,000, which was estimated to generate $190 million in annual revenue. And as lawmakers waited for the final details of the budget to be hammered out on June 10, the Working Families Party camped outside the State House with a box truck showing illuminated messages of support for a tax hike, such as, "Save Rhode Island. Tax the Rich." But Shekarchi told reporters that lawmakers decided against a tax hike, at least until the state knows whether Congress is going to pass a tax cut bill that could slash Medicaid funding and shift more costs to states. "We don't know what's going to happen in Washington," Shekarchi said. "We don't know what changes are going to be made in the federal tax code. We felt comfortable enough to do the non-owner-occupied taxes over a million dollars at this time, and we will revisit that issue when we have more clarity from Washington." But Working Families Political Director Zack Mezera said what's happening in Washington is even more reason to make the "1% pay their fair share," not an excuse. 'Today's budget shows that state leadership would rather raise gas taxes for working families than increase taxes on millionaires," Mezera wrote in a news release. "As President Trump and his allies advance destructive cuts that could cause over 240,000 Rhode Islanders to lose Medicaid and hundreds of educators and care workers to lose their jobs, we need bold action to raise revenue now – otherwise working people and small businesses will be paying the price for years." With $15 million from the budget to fill a $33 million projected shortfall, it looks as though RIPTA is going to need to scale back what it does, but Shekarchi said it would not necessarily mean large layoffs or route cuts. "I think they need to look at everything," he said. "Maybe it's smaller buses, maybe it's addressing the ride schedule, maybe it's a slight fare increase, maybe it's looking at management positions. That's why we mandated, when we gave them $15 million last year, they do an efficiency study and find out the solutions." Despite the prospect of having to make painful cuts this summer, RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand said the bus system is "grateful" for the additional permanent state revenue. "The agency has long needed a consistent funding stream to allow us to better support getting Rhode Islanders to work, school and healthcare," he said in an email. "The last time the agency saw a permanent change in its funding structure was over ten years ago; this is a needed improvement, which we are thankful for." This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI's proposed $14.3B budget: Primary care; RIPTA; 'Taylor Swift tax'
