Medical field needs more training like cultural competency, not less, Nevada lawmakers argue
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A proposal to encourage — not require — medical practitioners to get training in subjects ranging from suicide prevention to cultural competency drew an extremely cold reaction from lawmakers on Monday.
'Offensive' is the word members of the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor used to describe Assembly Bill 56 (AB56).
Presented as a way to simplify and streamline ongoing training requirements for doctors, physician assistants and anesthesiology assistants, AB56 is a collaboration of Nevada's boards for medical examiners and osteopathic medicine. Sarah Bradley, executive director of the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, gave lawmakers a summary of how the bill would reward medical professionals by giving them double-credit. But they were having none of her explanation.
Democratic Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno said if the medical community was taking the training as required, there would be no need to look for ways to encourage it.
'When you say encourage, encourage, encourage … if the physicians and the occupations that this bill refers to were already taking the courses that this body required them to take, you wouldn't have to encourage them to do it,' Monroe-Moreno said. Constituents informed lawmakers of the medical profession's failures, she said.
A letter from the Nevada State Medical Association also expressed concern about fee adjustments proposed in AB56. The bill seeks a change from license renewal every year to a biennial (once every two years) renewal. Because of that change, the license fee would be doubled — at least.
The current $800 cap on licensure fees would grow to $1,200. Bradley said that fee hadn't been adjusted since 1997. The medical association sees that as a possible barrier to bringing in more doctors.
In addition to cultural competency, which had several lawmakers' attention, the currently required training also includes guidance on prescribing opioids, dealing with addictive patients, recognizing suicide risks and other courses related to terrorism and terrorism reporting.
'We have a huge problem in our state. We have a huge opioid addiction problem. Our mental health issues here are out of this world and obviously cultural competency is very, very important in our state,' Committee Chair Elaine Marzola (D-Las Vegas), said.
'So to sit here and read this bill, and it be suggested that we go into an 'encourage' model instead of required, I'm a bit confused,' Marzola said.
Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett said the 2023 Legislature agreed not to increase cultural competency training for psychiatrists from four hours to six. She said she regrets that now.
'I'm going to be honest. I think this bill is quite offensive. You're proposing changes that the Legislature has made in the last three sessions, including the elimination of cultural competency.'
When Bradley said the training is directed at some medical personnel who don't see patients, Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui said those employees are 'public-facing' and should get the training that was being targeted in this bill.
Monroe-Moreno suggested that Bradley take AB56 back to the boards and consider changing the language so there could be a better discussion of possibly moving forward on some of the ideas.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
House panel pushes ahead $453 billion funding plan for VA next year
House Republican appropriators early Wednesday advanced a $453 billion budget plan for Veterans Affairs next year despite hours of objections from Democrats that looming reforms at the department could blunt the impact of the record funding levels for veterans programs. The plan — which now moves to the full House for consideration — is the first portion of the annual federal budget approved by either chamber's appropriations committee. But despite the typical bipartisan nature of the veterans bill, the 36-27 approval vote from the panel came after nearly 12 hours of grueling, contentious debate, with dozens of Democratic amendments rejected by the Republican majority. The budget bill (which also includes $18 billion for military construction projects) is an increase in total VA program and benefits spending of more than $83 billion, or about 22%, from the fiscal 2025 approved levels. Panel advances defense budget despite missing details from White House But nearly all of that boost is in mandatory funding, tied up in medical programs and veterans benefits payouts. Discretionary funding — money for new program starts and support services — would rise to about $134 billion, up about 4% but about $1 billion less than what the White House requested in its fiscal 2026 budget plan. Still, Republican leaders praised the measure as an important step forward in providing promised care and support to veterans. 'We have an obligation to ensure our veterans get the benefits and care they've earned,' said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas and chairman of the appropriations' panel's subcommittee on veterans issues. 'This bill does that, while also addressing other issues affecting veterans, including homelessness, mental health services and taking care of our women veterans.' The plan includes $34 billion for community care programs, which allow veterans to receive medical treatment at private-sector clinics paid for by taxpayer funds. That's up nearly 55% from this year's community care funding levels, prompting accusations of privatization from committee Democrats. 'By transferring record funding from VA medical services into community care, this bill pushes veterans into private care, even though veteran polls and studies show that when given the option, veterans want to receive their medical care at VA,' said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. and ranking member of the committee's veterans panel. 'We should invest more in VA, provider recruitment and retention incentives, increase benefits counselors and adjudicators, not ignore veterans wishes and speed recklessly into privatization.' Democratic lawmakers attempted to reallocate some of those funds through amendments, but those efforts were rebuffed. They also objected to provisions in the bill blocking abortion counseling and services at VA, halting department efforts to reduce its workforce by roughly 80,000 workers in coming months, and ending support options for some minority groups. However, the committee did adopt one amendment by Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., that would block any reductions in staffing at the Veterans Crisis Line and other VA suicide prevention programs. House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said during Tuesday's debate that she hopes the appropriations package will see significant changes before a full chamber vote later this summer, particularly since White House officials have yet to release a detailed budget plan for the department next year. House leaders have not yet announced when that vote will take place. Both the House and Senate will need to negotiate a full budget for the federal government before a compromise package can be signed into law. The new fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. Veterans Affairs leaders have seen regular budget increases annually for more than 20 years, even amid frequent congressional and White House efforts to reduce federal spending. In fiscal 2001, the VA budget — both mandatory and discretionary — totaled just $45 billion. In 2011, it was about $125 billion. In fiscal 2023, the total topped $300 billion for the first time. If approved, the fiscal 2026 VA budget would surpass $400 billion in spending, marking an increase of more than 900% over the last 25 years.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Democratic governors seek to roll back state-funded health care for undocumented immigrants
A trio of states with Democratic governors viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates have taken steps in recent weeks to freeze or cut government-funded health care coverage for undocumented immigrants. Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota have largely attributed the proposals to budget shortfalls stemming from original plans to expand health care to immigrants without legal status. But the moves also occur against the backdrop of broader debate within the Democratic Party over how to handle immigration, an issue that dragged it down in the last election and that President Donald Trump and the GOP have continued to try to capitalize on. The plans, which would scale back health care coverage for undocumented immigrants in the three Democratic-led states just years after it was expanded, have angered progressives and immigrant advocacy groups, who warn the party risks alienating its base — particularly as protests against Trump's deportation plans break out around the country. The latest development came in Minnesota on Tuesday, after both chambers of the Legislature passed a bill to end state-funded health care for undocumented adults. The bipartisan effort advanced through the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate as part of attempts to balance the state budget. It now goes to Walz, who has said he'll sign it. The bill would end undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare — the state-funded health insurance program for low-income residents — effectively reversing one of the signature policy wins Walz secured during a landmark legislative session in 2023, when Democrats were in full control of state government. Undocumented children would remain eligible to enroll in the program under the legislation. In California, Newsom unveiled a budget plan last month that would cut back on health care benefits for undocumented immigrants — a stark reversal from his promises of universal health care for all the state's residents, regardless of their immigration status. Newsom's plan in his 2025-26 budget has called for freezing enrollment for undocumented adults to receive the full scope of the state's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. Newsom's office has said the changes would apply only to new applicants over age 19, that existing enrollees wouldn't be kicked off their plans and that the freeze, which would begin next year, wouldn't apply to people enrolled in limited plans. Newsom's proposed changes also included a new $100 monthly premium for adults 19 and older with 'unsatisfactory immigration status' beginning in 2027. His expansion of Medi-Cal has cost far more than his administration anticipated. Newsom has said the changes will help to balance the state's budget, which has run a multibillion-dollar shortfall that he has blamed on Trump's tariffs, as well as growing costs from higher enrollment in Medi-Cal. Meanwhile, Illinois remains on track by the end of the month to end a program — called Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults — that provides state-funded health care coverage for more than 30,000 low-income adults who are living in the state without documentation. Similarly, the program in Illinois was more expensive than expected when it was created in 2021. Pritzker's latest budget, which the Democratic-led Legislature passed last month, proposed eliminating it by July 1. While the moves would help those states recalibrate their budgets, a sweeping Trump-backed domestic policy bill moving through Congress proposes slashing Medicaid funding for states that provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants. Trump also signed an executive order this year targeting undocumented immigrants' access to government assistance programs. In response to questions from NBC News, Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross reiterated his statement in his initial announcement of the changes last month that 'instead of rolling back the program — meaning cutting people off for basic care — we're capping it.' Pritzker's office said in an email that 'this year, passing a balanced budget required the difficult decision that reflects the reality of Trump and Republicans tanking our national economy and attempting to strip away healthcare.' A Walz spokesperson didn't respond to questions about Minnesota's plan, which was the result of a compromise after Republican lawmakers had pushed to end the entire MinnesotaCare program. 'No one got everything they wanted,' Walz said last month after he reached a tentative deal with Republicans on the budget, which was finalized in a special session this week. 'There were very difficult conversations about issues that were very dear to each of these caucuses. But at the end of the day, we were able to come to this agreement.' Immigrant advocacy groups have panned the moves, saying they risk further imperiling the broader health care system, and blasted Democrats for succumbing to Trump's attacks. 'We urge state leaders to build on their progress, rather than placing the health of their residents at risk,' said Tanya Broder, the senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. 'Particularly as extremist politicians scapegoat and target immigrants, we are counting on state officials to do the right thing and hold the line. 'As states increasingly have recognized, a community's health and well-being depend on ensuring that everyone has access to health care. Immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal, state and local taxes, yet many are excluded from critical health care programs,' she added. 'Terminating state coverage for immigrants will compromise our collective health, as well as the health care infrastructure that serves all of us.' Some progressives questioned whether the moves were part of a broader strategy by the three governors to move to the right on the broader issue of immigration, which polling has shown still remains one of Trump's strongest issues. They said they could face a backlash from their base by departing from positions on supporting immigrant communities and expanding health care. 'It really feeds into the conservative narrative that undocumented immigrants are a drain on our communities,' said Jennifer Driver, a senior director at the State Innovation Exchange, a progressive legislative policy group. 'This assumption that by moving more to the middle or to the right that you're going to recruit some people back — I think it's a miscalculation. 'The frustration that you're seeing in the Democratic base is due to this kind of this waffling, this kind of idea that 'OK, yes, we are progressive — but only in some moments,'' Driver added. Other strategists suggested it remained too early to gauge whether a broader shift was in play as governors and other lawmakers positioned themselves for potential 2028 White House bids, and they emphasized that the threats blue states face from Trump are serious. 'The Trump administration is squeezing the hell out of states,' said Jeff Blodgett, a Minnesota-based Democratic strategist who was a campaign manager for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone and the state director for both of Barack Obama's presidential campaigns. 'There's just a lot of concern about current and future budgets given what the federal government is doing to states.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Coal miners are fighting Trump's safety cuts — and winning
When the Trump administration took the first steps toward shutting down two major programs aimed at protecting the nation's miners, the grassroots response was immediate, and vehement. And, it turns out, successful. In March, the administration moved to shutter over 30 field offices of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA, throughout coal country. Weeks later, it proposed cutting 90 percent of the staff at the National Institute for Occupational Health. That would have killed its efforts to screen miners for black lung and treat that progressive fatal disease, which is caused by chronic exposure to silica dust. Miners and their advocates swiftly demanded that Trump, who has never shied away from celebrating coal miners as 'real people,' change course. The United Mine Workers of America, the Black Lung Association, and environmental groups like Appalachian Voices came together to protest the cuts and tell lawmakers to back their calls to undo them. Two miners sued the administration, arguing the government is not meeting its obligations to protect those who produce a resource Trump deemed a 'critical mineral' in an April 8 executive order vowing to restore the coal industry. The administration seems to have heard them, at least in part. Late last month, MSHA offices were quietly removed from the list of government buildings slated for closure and sale. The administration also has reinstated hundreds of occupational health workers, including some of those in the Coal Worker Health Surveillance Program. Bipartisan support for miner safety came from Virginia Democratic senators Tim Warner and Tim Kaine and West Virginia Republican Shelly Moore Capito. Capito did not respond to a request for comment, but in a letter she sent to Trump in April the lawmaker expressed concern that eliminating NIOSH would hurt her state. She also said it would cost taxpayer dollars, by forcing the expensive decommissioning of specialized research labs where NIOSH scientists studied the effects of silica, coal dust and mold on the human respiratory system. 'As the President recognizes the importance of coal, we must also recognize the health of our miners,' Capito wrote in the letter, dated April 22. 'I encourage you to bring back the NIOSH coal programs and researchers that will help ensure the President's vision to unleash American energy can be done safely.' Erin Bates, director of communications for United Mine Workers of America, credited Capito for her role in reversing the field office closures. She said the union's president, Cecil Roberts met with Robert Kennedy, the secretary of health and human services, to lobby for saving NIOSH. The union has longstanding relationships with Democrats over worker safety issues, Bates said, but also has maintained good relationships with Republicans, given that much of coal country leans that way. Democrats have pushed the administration on some of the remaining cuts to MSHA. During a House hearing on Thursday, Representative Bobby Scott urged Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer to hire more people. Scott drew attention to the revocation of job offers for dozens of mine inspectors. They will be urgently needed as the nation's demand for critical minerals increases in the years ahead, Scott said. 'We must invest in MSHA's pipeline of talent so that qualified inspectors will be there to ensure safety in these dangerous jobs,' Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, said. 'We know that the process takes years.' Miners and their advocates applauded the victories, but said there is still much work to do. 'I feel like we've won some,' said Vonda Robinson, vice president of the Black Lung Association. 'But I don't think that we've got enough yet.' Robinson remains concerned about the fate of the so-called silica rule, which tightens the acceptable level of exposure to that toxin. The rule, for the first time, brings the standard in line with what workers in other sectors have worked with for decades. But the rule has been placed in limbo since the cuts to NIOSH were announced, effectively eliminating the possibility of enforcement. Even with some job restorations, staffing shortages at the agency also make it difficult for various government departments to work together to safeguard worker health, Bates said. 'We're in a major push to prevent an operations lag while most of the workers are out,' she said. The president's proposed federal budget also cuts funding from the Mine Safety Health Administration by 10 percent, down to $348.2 million from $387.8 million. 'That is going to affect the offices that are still open and the inspectors that are working there,' Bates said. About $14 million of these cuts come from Mine Safety and Health Enforcement, and the agency would lose 47 salaried positions. In a statement, the Department of Health and Human Services told Grist it remains committed to protecting the health and safety of coal miners. The Labor Department did not respond to requests for comment. For now, miners and their advocates remain focused on determining just how many federal workers have been reinstated, whether any field offices remain closed, and securing further guarantees that the government will not step back from its critical safety work. 'Our push is trying to get answers now and no more waiting and worrying,' Bates said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Coal miners are fighting Trump's safety cuts — and winning on Jun 11, 2025.
