Latest news with #Bill553
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Advocates for improved breast cancer detection draw unlikely allies as bill clears NC House
A radiologist reviews the results of a mammogram. (Photo: Getty images) Legislation that would provide health coverage parity for supplemental and diagnostic breast imaging won near unanimous support in the North Carolina House Wednesday, a week after breast cancer survivors called out their male counterparts in the legislature for failure to advance the bill. 'We are all familiar with mammograms and how important they are to detect breast cancer. But people who have survived breast cancer or have other major risks need to get more precise ultrasounds or breast MRI tests,' explained Rep. Mary Belk (D-Mecklenburg) in giving her bill a final push ahead of this week's crossover deadline. The diagnostic parity bill makes it so that all patients in North Carolina can get supplemental preventative screenings, with the same cost-sharing arrangement as routine mammograms. Far too many women, said Belk, cannot afford the medically necessary tests because of copays that can range from $252 to $1,200. Rep. Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson) said that the Women's Legislative Caucus would stand with Belk in supporting House Bill 297. But Rep. Sarah Stevens (R-Surry), herself a breast cancer survivor, said she could not support the bill that would likely raise insurance costs. 'This increases our health care costs because it increases our insurance costs. I'm afraid I can't do this,' said the Surry County Republican. 'This is one of those we put an extra burden on the insurance company, anytime we're calling something parity.' On any other day, such a critique by the veteran Republican might have been enough to sink Belk's bill. But House Speaker Pro Tem Mitchell Setzer (R-Catawba) came to the rescue. 'My mother is a 28-year breast cancer survivor. I hope you all will fully vote for this bill,' Setzer told his colleagues. 'We'll deal with the consequence later, but it is something that is desperately needed.' But it was Rep. Howard Penny Jr. (R-Harnett) that shocked the chamber when he revealed he too was a breast cancer survivor. 'In April of 2021, I was diagnosed with breast cancer,' the House Deputy Majority Whip confided. Rep. Penny said following a biopsy, a surgeon removed his right chest tissue where a lump was found. He was back at work the following week. Early detection and treatment are critical for improved outcomes. 'I was sitting here with a port in my side, back there on the House floor. Once a year, I go get a mammogram, which is a lot of fun for men because, guess what? We don't have the anatomy to do what they've got to do,' Penny joked. Penny urged his male colleagues in the House to be as brave as the women in their lives. 'If you've got any indication, you've got a lump in your breast, go get it checked.' House Bill 297 passed 111-1, surviving crossover week. The bill now moves to the NC Senate where Democratic Leader Sydney Batch (D-Wake) is running Senate Bill 553. The 'Save More Tatas Act' would provide health coverage parity for breast cancer diagnostic imaging. That bill would also allocate $3.5 million to help recruit and retain mammography technologists in rural and underserved areas.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
'We should be mad as hell': NC legislators who've survived breast cancer seek improved detection
A radiologist reviews the results of a mammogram. (Photo: Getty images) When Senate Democratic Leader Sydney Batch (D-Wake) was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 39, she was not thinking about the cost of treatment. She was only thinking about her boys. 'My kids were five and seven. I was just thinking about whether or not I would live long enough to be able to dance with my sons at their weddings,' Batch recalled at a Tuesday press conference. Batch, a primary sponsor of Senate Bill 553, said the 'Save More Tatas Act' would provide health coverage parity for breast cancer diagnostic imaging. Far too many women in North Carolina don't get diagnosed with breast cancer early, because they don't get the proper diagnostic treatment and preventative treatment that would save their lives. 'Most importantly, you sure as heck shouldn't be in a situation where women are denied access because they can't afford the actual screenings,' said Sen. Batch. Sen. Val Applewhite (D-Cumberland) said when she retired from the United States Air Force after 20 years, she received a screening mammogram as she was processed out of the military. It came back normal. A year later she credits divine intervention with saving her life. 'My mother, who had passed years earlier, came to me in my dream. She said, 'Val, go get a mammogram.' So, I made the appointment. And that's when I got the diagnosis, I had breast cancer. I was lucky.' Applewhite was lucky that she was working at the Pentagon. She received her cancer treatment at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, the same place the President of the United States receives medical care. 'That access, plain and simple, is what saved my life. Too many people in North Carolina don't have that,' said Applewhite. The Cumberland County Democrat said another portion of SB 553 would allocate $3.5 million to help recruit and retain mammography technologists in rural and underserved areas. Rep. Mary Belk (D-Mecklenburg) is yet another member of this extraordinary sorority of breast cancer survivors. Belk said she had finished a grueling day of campaigning in 2016 when she felt something. She didn't want to call it a lump. That was too scary. But she made time for an overdue breast exam. 'I heard the words that no one wants to hear: You have breast cancer,' said Belk. 'I was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, three months before my first election.' Approximately 14,700 women in North Carolina will have breast cancer this year. Fourteen hundred will not survive, Belk said. But with first rate care, her cancer went into remission. She was one of the lucky few who did not worry about the cost of imaging. 'Women who need these medically necessary tests are skipping them because they cannot afford the co-pays,' said Belk. Breast MRIs in North Carolina can cost anywhere between $260 and over $1,300, depending on one's health plan. Belk is the primary sponsor of House Bill 297. The Breast Cancer Prevention Imaging Parity bill would require insurance companies to cover diagnostic, screening as well as supplemental breast exams to the same extent as mammograms. This coverage is especially important for women with dense breasts who are at risk of being diagnosed at later stages. Sheila Mikhail falls into that category. The self-described 'serial, biotech entrepreneur' created multiple companies in the Research Triangle Park along with thousands of well-paying jobs. Yet when cancer was found in her left breast, she repeatedly had to push for additional screenings of her right breast. The oncologist told her she was causing a 'ruckus', but the office would do a supplemental test at a cost of $1,200. The breast MRI found a second tumor that was not detected by an ultrasound or a diagnostic mammogram. 'I was fortunate because I could afford to pay. I found my right tumor just before it metastasized.' Mikhail wants lawmakers to pass both HB 297 and SB 553 and have insurance companies cover supplemental ultrasounds and MRIs for breast cancer. But the time to pass these bills this session is growing short. May 8th marks the crossover deadline for bills to pass at least one chamber to stay eligible for consideration. Senate Bill 553 has been stuck in the Rules committee since March. Belk's bill ('Breast Cancer Prevention Imaging Parity') was approved by three House committees, but before a floor vote in mid-April, it was withdrawn from the House calendar and kicked back to the Rules committee. No reason was provided. Batch said she has had many, many conversations with her Republican colleagues, but faces opposition because some insurance companies don't want another mandate that requires them to pay for additional coverage. Sen. Applewhite said this should not be a partisan issue. She'd like female voters to call their representatives. 'You know our breasts are not Democrats or Republicans, but the men in this building that have power, don't help us — won't help us save lives. We should be mad as hell.'
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
New Hampshire House puts the brakes on child abuse bill, seeking to return to it next year
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 342-1, to table House Bill 553. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) A bipartisan effort in the State House to strengthen the legal definition of child abuse failed on Wednesday, but legislators said they hope to rework the bill and come back with it next year. The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 342-1, to table House Bill 553, which was co-sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans. By tabling the bill, the House has decided not to advance it, but it can still pick up the bill for reconsideration later. The bill would have updated the legal definitions of abuse and neglect, and created instructions for officials on dealing with both situations. For example, the bill would have added, 'Evidence of serious injury, broken bones, or unexplained injury to any non-ambulatory child, or frequent illnesses that are not being adequately addressed or controlled,' to the list of factors that constitute evidence of child abuse. The bill also sought other changes that would've made the language more 'trauma informed.' Rep. Alicia Gregg, the Nashua Democrat who introduced the bill, said the legislation ran into opposition from Republicans who were concerned it would infringe upon parental rights. 'They don't trust how the updated definitions will be interpreted,' she wrote in a message to the Bulletin. 'Unfortunately, there have been some extreme misconceptions on what definitions do (versus) ramifications that you find in subsequent statutes.' Gregg said she met with Republican leadership Tuesday ahead of the vote and they agreed to table it and work on amendments. If they hadn't tabled it, she believes it would've been voted down entirely. 'We will continue to work on the language to strike a balance that protects children and the due process of parents,' she continued. 'It's important to work cooperatively with stakeholders to ensure the definitions represent best practices and prioritize balancing the need for safety with the importance of keeping families together.' Among other things, the bill would have designated 'exposure of a child to … physical violence, verbal abuse, or psychological maltreatment directed at the child, a sibling, the other parent or significant other, or another person living in the home' as reason to suspect a child is being harmed. The bill also would have changed the statutory instructions on removing a child from the home from 'determine if the preservation of family unity is in the best interest of the child' to 'presume that family unity is in the best interest of the child; but, if it is determined to not be in the child's best interest, to secure placement in the least restrictive setting.' The bill also called for 'frequent' reviews of any child removed from the home with the goal of returning that child to the home as quickly as possible.
