House kills pair of lead poisoning bills despite rising numbers in New Hampshire
Lawmakers return to the State House following a break on Thursday, March 6, 2025. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin)
As recent data prompts concern about childhood lead poisoning in the state, the New Hampshire House shot down two bills last week aimed at addressing the issue.
Lawmakers voted, 202-167, to indefinitely postpone House Bill 724. This bill would have lowered the childhood blood lead action level — the exposure level that triggers an investigation from the Department of Health and Human Services — from 5 micrograms per deciliter to 3.5. It would have also required the agency to inspect other units when one in a multi-unit residential building has a lead hazard.
It also would have established a legal standard — called a rebuttable presumption — that would presume residences built prior to 1978 contain 'lead based substances' unless an inspector has determined otherwise. It would have also mandated that municipal building permits include the Environmental Protection Agency license numbers for those renovating, repairing, or painting buildings built before 1978. (1978 is the year a federal ban on lead in residential paint came into effect.)
House members also rejected, 202-169, House Bill 756. This measure would have added to law that health forms submitted when children 6 and under enter public school or day care should include the result of at least one blood lead level test, with certain exemptions. If they didn't, the school or day care would have had to notify the parents or guardians of the requirement and provide education materials on the importance of testing and the dangers of lead poisoning.
The moves come months after a report raised concerns about childhood lead poisoning in the state. In 2023, 1,142 children in the state had levels of lead in their blood 'high enough to impair their ability to think, learn, and concentrate,' according to a state report published in December. This was the highest number found in the past five years of data.
Though state law requires that children be tested for lead at ages 1 and 2, the report showed the state falling short. Among children 12 to 23 months included in the 2023 data, 24% had not undergone the required testing, while 31% of children ages 24 to 35 months had not been tested.
The report also found that one in 10 children on Medicaid had elevated blood lead levels, almost twice the rate of other children.
Lead paint and dust in older residences account for 70% of U.S. children's lead exposure, followed by 15% each from lead in consumer products and drinking water, according to the report.
The residential exposure is especially relevant in New Hampshire, where slightly more than half of housing units were built before 1980 and at least 32,350 young children live in residences with lead paint, according to the report.
Proponents of the bill aimed at schools and day cares hoped it would help raise the state's testing numbers.
'Regrettably, currently significant numbers of children are not tested at all,' said Rep. Trinidad Tellez, a Hooksett Democrat, on the House floor. 'Given the potentially devastating impacts of lead on children's developing brains, and the very concerning low numbers of 1- and 2-year-old children currently tested for blood lead levels, this bill provides an important stop-gap opportunity for increasing the blood testing of infants and children.'
But Rep. Jim Kofalt, a Wilton Republican, argued it was an 'unnecessary and burdensome bill.'
'This bill adds a step to the process of enrolling a child in school or day care,' Kofalt said. 'It doesn't actually add additional lead testing requirements. We already require children to be tested at age 1 and then again at age 2.'
The Conservation Law Foundation denounced the House's vote to reject HB 727, the multi-part proposal that included the housing-related measures. The group called the bill 'crucial' legislation that would have helped to protect children from lead exposure in their homes.
'As a mother and environmental advocate, I am deeply troubled by the House's vote,' said Heidi Trimarco, a staff attorney with the foundation, in a statement. 'Lead poisoning is a silent thief that robs children of their futures. Our lawmakers had the power to better protect our kids — and instead, a majority of them turned their backs on the families who need help the most.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
US Could Make Childbirth Free, To Tackle Falling Birth Rates
America could make childbirth free for privately-insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. If passed, insurance companies would be required to cover all childbirth-related expenses, including prenatal care, ultrasounds, delivery and postpartum care, without any co-pays or deductibles. Medicaid, America's government‐funded health insurance program, already covers these costs. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has cosponsored the bill, told Newsweek: "Even with insurance, the costs associated with having a baby can be astronomical, and expenses are even greater for women who have health complications during pregnancy, a high-deductible insurance plan, or gaps in their coverage. By requiring insurance companies to fully cover care throughout pregnancy and a year postpartum, this bill will make childbirth more affordable for families." It comes amid growing concerns about America's population. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society. The financial crisis and its effect on housing, inflation and pay is generally named as a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. Republican Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who introduced the bill along with Gillibrand, Democratic Virginia Senator Time Kaine and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, said she hopes her bill will help change this. "Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt. This legislation would take away some of the burden for childbearing generations," she said in May. "By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood." Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care average a total of $18,865 with average out-of-pocket payments totaling $2,854, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on data from claims between 2018 and 2022. Financial concerns are repeatedly cited as a reason for not having children. Indeed, just a few days ago, the United Nations Population Fund warned of a global birth rate crisis, after finding that one in five had not had or did not expect to have the number of children they wanted. Some 39 percent said this was because of financial limitations. But Suzanne Bell, who studies fertility and related behaviors with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that while "making childbirth cheaper or free is incredibly important," she does not think it will effect the birth rate. "The cost of raising a child, in particular the cost of child care, is very high and far outweighs the cost of childbirth," she told Newsweek. "We desperately need policies that support families with the cost of child care, especially families with low incomes." Beth Jarosz, a senior program director U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, agreed that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Theodore D Cosco, a research fellow at the University of Oxford's Institute of Population Aging, called the bill "a step in the right direction" but said the same as Bell and Jarosz. "Parents generally aren't deciding whether to have children based on a $3,000 delivery bill, they're looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent actually raising the child," he told Newsweek. But he added: "The policy certainly carries some symbolic weight, signaling bipartisan support for families and could potentially help build momentum for broader reforms, such as child care subsidies or paid parental leave." The other concern is that, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it too is facing a birth rate crisis. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged one or older in 2008. The government subsidizes the policy to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Financial barriers "are only part of the picture," Cosco said, "psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too." Newsweek spoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health said. He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults. The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said. Nevertheless, backers of the American bill seem to believe that it may be part of the solution. "Being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child. But too often, parents find themselves dealing with sky-high medical bills following the birth of a child. This legislation would eliminate out-of-pocket maternity costs for families with private health insurance and prohibit private carriers from imposing cost-sharing on beneficiaries, empowering parents to focus on what matters most," said Hawley. Related Articles Warning Of Global Birth Rate 'Crisis' After Study Of 14 CountriesChina Makes Childbirth Change Amid Falling Birth RateTrump Administration To Give $1,000 Boost to All Newborn BabiesMore Gen Z Delay Having Kids Than Millennials Amid Birth Rate Decline Fears 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Shares Medicaid Data With Deportation Officials: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration provided immigration officials with the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients this week, including their immigration status, the Associated Press reported. Newsweek contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for comment on Saturday via online press inquiry forms. Why It Matters During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history. Since returning to office on January 20, the president has overseen widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations across the country. The administration's use of Medicaid data, which could be used to track migrants, has raised questions about data security and federal government power. What To Know Citing an internal memo and emails, the AP reported that two close advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered officials at the CMS to transfer Medicaid data to immigration enforcement personnel at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday. The publication said the order was given after Medicaid employees initially sought to prevent the transfer based on legal and ethical concerns, and that they were given 54 minutes to comply with the renewed request. The information handed over included data from California, Washington state, Illinois and Washington, D.C.—all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to apply for state-funded Medicaid. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY DHS employees' use of the data could affect migrants' ability to apply for permanent residency or citizenship if they have received federally funded Medicaid. Under the Trump administration's direction, the Internal Revenue Service has also been providing information to ICE that could help track illegal migrants. A legal bid to block the order was defeated in May. Last month, the CMS announced a review into Medicaid enrollment to ensure federal money had not been used to fund coverage for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status." The agency said the move was to comply with the "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders" executive order that Trump issued on February 19. What People Are Saying Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in statement provided to Newsweek: "HHS and CMS take the integrity of the Medicaid program and the protection of American taxpayer dollars extremely seriously. With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them. He continued: "This action is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the systemic neglect and policy failures under the Biden-Harris administration that opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hardworking Americans to foot the bill." Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said Trump had "promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries. To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans." California Governor Gavin Newsom said: "This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to continue its hard-line immigration policies. It remains to be seen whether the transfer of data from the HHS to the DHS will be challenged in court.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this," Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
