Latest news with #HowWeCare
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Food dye ban, whole milk in schools part of Pa. Republicans' MAHA push
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here. Republican lawmakers concerned about nutrition quality in Pennsylvania schools have introduced bills that would ban food dyes and allow whole milk, changes they argue will improve student health. Similar legislation introduced in recent sessions did not advance, but one sponsor of the latest measures told Spotlight PA she thinks growing public concerns about processed food can help the bills pass. Improving child nutrition has become a GOP plank as Robert F. Kennedy, the U.S. health secretary, has criticized food policy as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' effort. Last week, a long-awaited report from a MAHA commission chaired by Kennedy declared, 'The health of American children is in crisis,' and listed synthetic additives and 'ultra-processed foods' as key contributors. State lawmakers expressed similar urgency: 'Our food is literally killing us,' reads the memo for the Healthy PA Package, which includes the food dye proposal. Critics argue some of these regulations are unnecessary given existing state and federal consumer protections. And they question the scientific basis of the proposals. Title: Healthy Student Act Prime sponsor: State Rep. Natalie Mihalek (R., Allegheny) Summary: This bill would ban public schools from purchasing or serving foods containing certain synthetic food dyes. Mihalek, a parent, told Spotlight PA that the proposal was inspired by 'keeping track of what my kids are buying in the cafeteria.' She thinks current food offerings are unnecessarily limited. 'The reality is, there are so many more choices — so many healthier choices — out there. There's really no reason to be selling artificial dyes to our kids,' Mihalek said. Her bill targets six petroleum-based synthetic dyes — Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 — and would not allow foods containing them to be sold on school grounds 'during the school day,' including in vending machines. The bill does not specify consequences for failing to comply or detail how the ban would be enforced. Mihalek hopes that a growing interest in healthier diets, spurred by Kennedy's political rise, will help move the bill to the governor's desk. 'This is just something that came to the forefront and now everybody's talking about it,' Mihalek said. Kennedy has received backlash for his wavering positions on the safety of vaccines and his leadership of the federal health system. In recent months, thousands of public health workers have been laid off under a restructuring he's helmed. The dyes included in Mihalek's bill are approved by the FDA, but Kennedy announced last month that he plans for the agency to begin pushing companies to 'voluntarily phase out' the chemicals. Other states have enacted similar measures in recent years. California and West Virginia ban the same synthetic food dyes from food in schools, or more broadly. While there is no definitive proof that synthetic dyes directly cause behavioral issues, some studies have suggested a link between artificial food coloring and hyperactivity and anxiety in certain children. The proposed prohibition wouldn't take effect until July 2027, a timeline Mihalek said would give school districts time to prepare and identify alternative vendors before the changes are implemented. Spotlight PA reached out to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association about the impact that the proposal would have on districts, but a spokesperson declined to comment. Mihalek introduced the measure as part of a broader package of bills focused on food safety and public health. The package includes bills targeting food labeling and ingredients for all Pennsylvanians, including one that would mandate disclosure of the above dyes for any food product sold or manufactured in the commonwealth. The healthy students bill has been referred to the state House Consumer Protection, Technology, and Utilities Committee, but has not been brought up for a vote. The Democratic-led committee recently held a hearing on food policy that included a discussion of a potential ban on artificial food dyes, indicating growing interest in advancing related legislation. Business representatives opposed such a ban during the hearing, arguing it would impose unnecessary regulations. 'At the end of the day, this is all done while no meaningful improvement in public safety outcomes is made,' Aaron Riggleman of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry said at the hearing. 'Because the ingredients have already been reviewed and thoroughly vetted by the FDA.' Title: Whole Milk in Pennsylvania Schools Act Prime sponsor: State Sen. Michele Brooks (R., Mercer) Summary: This bill would allow Pennsylvania schools to purchase and serve whole and 2% milk produced within the state. Currently, Pennsylvania schools can only offer 1% or non-fat milk, a restriction stemming from a 2010 federal law. The law was aimed at reducing childhood obesity and improving overall nutrition, but Brooks argues whole milk was unnecessarily restricted. 'Thirty years ago, 35 years ago, kids weren't nearly as obese … and we drank whole milk. There was literally cream on top of the milk,' Brooks told Spotlight PA. 'I think there's other ways that we can work on [this.]' Whole milk contains more calories and saturated fat than non- and low-fat milk. But it also has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are beneficial for brain development and heart health. Brooks wants to give school districts the option to purchase whole milk, and noted that the bill would not require them to do so. She said that she's heard from her constituents that kids routinely throw away skim milk because they don't like the taste, adding that it is 'somewhat absurd that [the regulation] was done in the first place.' A range of lawmakers, including Brooks, have proposed this legislation multiple times, but such a proposal has never made it far in the legislative process. Currently, the bill is awaiting consideration in her chamber's Education Committee. While the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, which represents farmers, has previously supported the measure, school districts have remained silent. A PSBA spokesperson declined to comment on the organization's position. If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
These primary judicial races could affect caregiving across Pennsylvania. 4 court cases show how.
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here. On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Democrats and Republicans will choose candidates for openings on two powerful appellate courts that shape caregiving statewide. These courts — Commonwealth and Superior — can affirm or reverse rulings from lower benches, and play critical roles in the state judicial system. Commonwealth Court handles cases brought against local and state governments, from regulatory agencies to school districts to the legislature. Superior Court hears civil and criminal appeals, ruling on child custody disputes, malpractice cases, and many other issues involving kids and caregivers. For most cases, Commonwealth and Superior Courts are the end of the line, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers only a minority of appeals. In the past several years, cases heard by these intermediate courts have changed how public education is funded and created a new legal pathway to parenthood. To help prepare you to vote on these key roles and show how rulings from these benches can affect you, Spotlight PA has chosen consequential caregiving-related cases that have moved through these courts. Learn more about them below:Case: William Penn School District et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Education et al. Issue: The right to education and school funding The petitioners in this case — a coalition of school districts, parents, an education nonprofit, and the NAACP— sued the Pennsylvania education department and elected leaders over how the state funds public schools. They argued the state's method for funding public K-12 education, which heavily depends on property taxes, discriminates against poor school districts. A Commonwealth Court judge ruled in the petitioners' favor, finding that education is a fundamental right and that the state's funding scheme was unconstitutional. Because of that decision, the legislature has had to take steps to close the gap between wealthy and poor schools. As part of last year's budget, the state's poorest schools received an additional $500 million, for instance. Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a Philadelphia attorney who was part of the legal team that won the case, told Spotlight PA that the $500 million provided to poor schools is just a fraction of the $4.5 billion that the state legislature and governor determined is needed. But it's a start, he added: 'This is not like you snap your fingers, and this is done.' The attorney said the petitioners will return to Commonwealth Court if the state fails to make meaningful progress, but argued that this ruling is particularly salient against the backdrop of the Trump administration's stated goal of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. 'No matter what happens around the country, every Pennsylvania child, no matter what you look like [or] where you were born, you have a fundamental right to a contemporary, effective public education,' Urevick-Ackelsberg said. Case: Allegheny Reproductive Health Center et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services et al. Issue: Equal protection against gender discrimination A group of Pennsylvania reproductive health clinics is challenging the state's prohibition on using taxpayer-funded Medicaid insurance to pay for an abortion, which only makes exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or a pregnant person's life being endangered. They argue the ban violates the state constitution, which forbids discrimination based on sex. Commonwealth Court ruled in 2021 that the clinics didn't have the right to sue because the ban affects their patients and not them as providers. But the state Supreme Court took up the appeal, overturned the lower court's ruling, and sent the matter back to Commonwealth Court. Now, Pennsylvania's attorney general must prove that the Medicaid ban, which remains in place, is the least restrictive way for the state to advance its 'compelling government interest' of discouraging abortion. This is a high bar, and the case will likely return to the state Supreme Court, said Seth Kreimer, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Whatever happens next will significantly affect parents and families; a 2022 survey by health policy research org KFF found that nearly six in 10 abortion patients have had at least one previous birth. Other studies show that finances and the need to focus on other children are common reasons people end pregnancies. The state Supreme Court ruling could shape other health issues as well, said Sue Frietsche, executive director of the Pennsylvania-based Women's Law Project. Frietsche represents the clinics that brought the suit, which she said provides a possible blueprint for challenges to other abortion restrictions and could be used to expand access to medical care for transgender Pennsylvanians. 'Both those areas are about both gender and health. So you have two very important connections,' said David Harris, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Such cases face a more difficult path in federal courts, in part because the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly forbid sex discrimination. Case: Glover v. Junior Issue: Rights of non-biological parents The case involves a divorced lesbian couple who separated before the birth of their son and before the non-biological mother could obtain a second-parent adoption. Many non-biological parents seek these adoptions to ensure they have the same legal rights as their partners. The women initially pursued parenthood as a couple, according to court documents. They selected a sperm donor, signed contracts with a sperm bank and fertility clinic, shared the costs of in vitro fertilization, planned a baby shower, and agreed on their child's name, legal filings say. But after their son was born, the biological mother argued that her ex was not the boy's legal parent, kicking off a three-year custody battle that moved from a court of Common Pleas to Superior Court, and finally to the state Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling. The high court ruled in March that the non-biological mother is legally the boy's parent, adopting what the majority opinion called 'the doctrine of intent-based parentage.' This created an entirely new legal path to establish parental rights in Pennsylvania. Now, when determining a parent's legal status, courts must consider evidence showing individuals intentionally pursued parenthood. A coalition of LGBTQ legal organizations praised the landmark decision, saying it protects the children of these families, and affirms the dignity and rights of Pennsylvanians who become parents with the aid of reproductive technology. 'This is a clear and easy to apply rule, and it means that children won't be stripped of a parent just because the adult relationship breaks down,' said Patience Crozier, director of family advocacy for GLAD Law. The organization was among the legal groups that filed an amicus brief for the case. Case: Commonwealth v. King Issue: Cruel punishments in juvenile sentencing This case centers on whether a de facto life sentence for a juvenile offender is unconstitutionally cruel because it denies him the opportunity to reenter society as a matured and rehabilitated adult. Petitioner Ivory King, who was sentenced to four consecutive 20-year sentences for killing four people when he was 17, is suing the commonwealth. King's argument pulls in part from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found juvenile offenders are constitutionally different from adults due to their immaturity, a general inability to remove themselves from bad situations, and a greater capacity to change. The state Supreme Court recently agreed to hear King's appeal from Superior Court. The appeal also challenges his sentence based on the Pennsylvania Constitution's prohibition against 'cruel punishments.' The phrasing differs from the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment, which bans punishments if they are both cruel and unusual. This makes cruel punishments unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, even if those punishments are common, said Marsha Levick, chief legal officer at the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center. Levick submitted an amicus brief on behalf of King, who will be 97 when he's eligible for release and therefore likely to die in prison. In addition to possibly changing juvenile sentencing, the case could lead to a prohibition on subjecting Pennsylvania kids to strip searches or putting them in solitary confinement, Levick said. 'It's hard to imagine something that could be more cruel, more traumatic than that,' she said of the latter, 'and yet we allow it.' Melissa Chapaska, a Harrisburg-based attorney for HMS Legal who writes for the blog Pennsylvania Appellate Advocate, told Spotlight PA that she thinks Levick's theory has potential. Like other institutions, the courts are becoming more aware of how mental health and trauma shape child development, she said. 'That's the beauty of the thing,' she said of the law. 'It is evolving … While we do have to follow legal precedent, that doesn't mean that we're stuck. And that's why these judicial electrons matter.' If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Private equity investors in Pennsylvania health care don't prioritize patients, critics say
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here. Investors who buy up and sell health companies are drawing scrutiny from critics worried about diminished care and higher costs for patients. Private equity firms, as these investment groups are called, have a record of cutting services at health providers and leaving them with debt or gaps in care. Sometimes, the providers close, which is the case for Crozer Health's recently shuttered hospitals in Delaware County. They were owned by the private equity-backed Prospect Medical Holdings. Proponents argue private equity investments can help medical facilities by providing capital or outsourcing administrative duties. But critics such as the watchdog group Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) say these firms are often extractive and focused on generating short-term profits that don't benefit patients. In Philadelphia and surrounding areas, private equity has established a large footprint, per a 2024 report from the group. The nonprofit's analysis includes facilities in eight eastern Pennsylvania counties, and in parts of New Jersey and Delaware. Around 650 of the 900 facilities listed in the report are located in Pennsylvania. To learn more about private equity's footprint in the region and why PESP chose to look into it, Spotlight PA spoke with Michael Fenne, a senior research and campaign coordinator at the organization. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Spotlight PA: This report seeks to give an idea of private equity's footprint in health care in the Philadelphia region. Why did you decide to track this? Michael Fenne: We wanted to identify the scope of private equity's presence in an area that had already experienced its risks. Pennsylvania has been the site of multiple closures in recent years of hospitals connected to private equity, most recently including two Crozer hospitals which had been affiliated with Prospect Medical Holdings, formerly owned by private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners. Despite those risks, there's a real lack of transparency around private equity investments generally. Private equity firms … don't have the same kind of reporting requirements that publicly traded companies on a stock exchange would have. We found approximately 900 locations for health care providers owned by [private equity] in just the Philadelphia area, but considering how difficult it can be to identify private equity-owned companies, we expect that number to actually be larger. Why, generally speaking, is private equity attracted to health care? They target areas that are fragmented with the hopes of consolidating certain health care subsectors. So nursing homes, cardiology, anesthesia providers, for example, they may try to consolidate in a given geographic market. And if they're able to do that, it gives them more power to set prices for patients and consumers, to determine wages for workers, and also to shape and determine what kind of services are provided in a given area. Also, they're seeking short-term profits. Private equity firms typically try to extract profits within three to seven years of investing in an area, and they think they can do this in health care. What challenges did you encounter in trying to gather this data? The biggest challenge is that there is limited information available on companies that private equity firms own and what those companies are doing. We identified which companies were owned by private equity through press releases and through public portfolio web pages of the private equity firms themselves. They're typically not required to disclose their holdings, so anything we know about companies that are owned by private equity usually comes from what they choose to disclose themselves or what's been uncovered by regulators or in bankruptcy lawsuits. We had to work off of that limited list of companies that we identified and just go through and map out all of the locations that they were operating from. Among the places you identified in the report, it seems like the top three most prevalent types of private equity-owned health care facilities in the Philly area are physical therapy, behavioral health, and dental offices. Is this in line with national trends? Dental health does seem to be in line with national trends from what we've seen released by other researchers recently. The other two areas, I can't confirm. Something about the areas that we identified as the most prevalent areas in Philadelphia … Those are the ones that we were able to identify through the method that we used, but it could be that a private equity-owned company that's not in one of those categories is very active, but we haven't identified it as private equity-owned. Why are these particular areas of health care attractive to private equity? Private equity is attracted to areas that are fragmented. They want to consolidate providers that operate in the same sub-industry, but are independent. They try to bring companies under one company umbrella. They use what are called platform companies to do roll ups of smaller providers. It's what the former FTC director referred to as a 'stealth consolidation' strategy. In physician practices, they'll use what are called medical services organizations, MSOs. They handle all of the administrative, billing, business side of running a health care practice. Physicians are attracted to this because it allows them to focus on providing care. But often when they come under the control of a platform company, it means less control of day-to-day operations and how many patients they're seeing and the processes involved with that. You've talked a lot about transparency. Would more transparency around private equity holdings be beneficial to Pennsylvanians, and why or why not? It would definitely be beneficial to Pennsylvanians — to patients, to health care providers, to any stakeholders in the Pennsylvania area, really. Patients, providers, and policy makers don't really know where their money is going when they pay a health care provider — whether it's going to the provision of care, whether it's going to pay off debt that was put onto a company by a private equity firm, or whether it's going to fund a private equity dividend. So there's a need for increased transparency around what private equity owns, and what they're doing with their money. How does private equity's stake in health care impact patients, and how might the care that people receive at facilities that are owned by private equity companies differ from the care that they might get at a nonprofit provider or some other type of for-profit facility? Private equity firms use a set of tactics that can undermine the financial health of the companies they own, and that can lead to reduced access of care for patients, and also reduced resources spent on care. So for example, last year, 21% of health care companies that went bankrupt were backed by private equity. We've also seen in the last few years at least four hospital closures in eastern Pennsylvania connected to private equity. With each of those closures, the patients at those hospitals have reduced access. They have to find new providers. They have to possibly drive farther for that new provider, and for those providers taking on the patients at the hospitals that close, it may mean they have fewer resources for each patient, or it may place an additional burden on them. What kind of response are we seeing from elected officials when it comes to addressing this? Specifically in Pennsylvania, the governor earlier this year called for legislation that would give the attorney general [the] ability to review mergers and acquisitions. He also notably called on limitations on sale-leaseback transactions, which would prevent [private equity] firms from making short-term profits by stripping hospitals and health systems of their real estate. We haven't seen that in a lot of other states. It's not just the transparency, but also the tactics that they're using that are important to regulate. There have also been federal efforts to rein in [private equity]. Last year, in the Senate, the Stop Wall Street Looting Act was introduced, and under the previous presidential administration, multiple regulatory agencies — including the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, and the Federal Trade Commission — initiated investigations to examine the effects of private equity consolidation in various industries, including health care. If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Pennsylvania lawmakers aim to expand and protect IVF access
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here. HARRISBURG — Several Pennsylvania lawmakers who have personally faced challenges conceiving children are pushing to require health insurers to cover fertility services, and to also enshrine the right to the care in state law. The effort comes as advocates nationwide raise concerns about access to reproductive care such as in vitro fertilization — or IVF — and abortion. Lawmakers and advocates told Spotlight PA they were particularly alarmed by a 2024 Alabama Supreme Court ruling that found embryos have the same rights as children. The decision led to several fertility clinics in the state pausing IVF services to avoid being criminally charged if an embryo were damaged or destroyed during the procedure, in which an egg is fertilized outside the body. Alabama quickly enacted legislation giving IVF providers criminal and civil immunity, but congressional attempts to enshrine the right to the treatment have not advanced. Adam Hosey, policy director at Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates, the lobbying arm of the reproductive rights group, said that while there are currently no immediate threats to fertility care access in the commonwealth, the broader federal landscape remains uncertain. He said he supports state lawmakers' latest proposals. 'We just don't know what the Trump regime is going to be doing on a day-to-day basis,' Hosey said. While some of the measures, detailed below, have bipartisan support, lawmakers who chair key committees have remained silent on whether they would call the bills up for a vote. Title: Ensuring Insurance Coverage for Infertility for all Pennsylvanians Prime sponsor: State Sen. Amanda Cappelletti (D., Montgomery) Summary: This would mandate that nearly all medical insurance plans cover fertility treatments such as artificial insemination; the preservation of eggs, sperm, and embryos; and IVF. Insurance companies would also not be able to deny coverage based on a previous diagnosis relating to infertility, or based on a patient's gender identity or sexual orientation. Cappelletti said her struggles with miscarriages informed the bill. She noted that over a dozen states have enacted some form of fertility coverage, including all of Pennsylvania's neighbors. 'If you want to start a family, you get to decide when and how and what that looks like. We [should] all be able to do that, and that's really what this bill is aimed to do,' Cappelletti told Spotlight PA. Companion legislation to the bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania House by Rep. La'Tasha Mayes (D., Allegheny). She and her partner used assisted reproductive technology to conceive their child last year. 'People are investing life savings into having children,' Mayes told Spotlight PA. 'IVF can be prohibitively expensive even if you have good insurance and a decent-paying job. It's criminal.' Cappelletti isn't the only state senator thinking about infertility treatment. Her colleague Lisa Boscola (D., Lehigh) is pushing a similar bill, and has been committed to the issue since as far back as 2009. Boscola also has faced personal difficulties with fertility: She had multiple miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy when she and her husband were trying to have children. Her current bill would mandate that all health insurance policies that provide pregnancy-related benefits also cover infertility diagnoses and treatments. She said that given how expensive these treatments can be — one round of IVF can cost over $20,000 — it would be fair for employers and insurance companies to help with coverage. 'Men have Viagra, vasectomy reversals, testicular sperm clearage, but there's nothing for women who want to conceive,' Boscola told Spotlight PA. Her bill lists fewer procedures that insurance providers would have to cover compared to Cappelletti's proposal. It would only require, for instance, that three rounds of fertility treatment be covered. Boscola said that she limited the scope to work with insurance groups that have voiced concerns about the bill. Namely, she said insurers have told her that expanding coverage would raise premiums. 'I'm trying to get it passed,' Boscola told Spotlight PA. 'If I need to have some of this language in there, sure.' A spokesperson for Independence Blue Cross, one of the largest health insurers in Pennsylvania and a major lobbyist, did not respond to a request for comment about the organization's position on the bill. According to a 2021 survey of 254 employers commissioned by national infertility association RESOLVE, 97% of respondents that had offered infertility treatments had not experienced an increase in their medical costs as a result of providing coverage. Alise Powell, RESOLVE's director of government affairs, told Spotlight PA that insurance companies have been 'leading the charge' against such legislation in Pennsylvania. She said the lack of fertility insurance support could be pushing workers to leave the state. 'Pennsylvania is kind of an island,' Powell said. 'Some folks move to a state that has mandated IVF coverage in order to be able to access the care.' Cappelletti's and Boscola's bills first need to pass the state Senate's Banking and Insurance Committee. State Sen. Chris Gebhard (R., Lebanon), chair of the committee, did not respond to requests for comment on whether he would call the legislation up for a vote. The bills have the support of many Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Jay Costa (D., Allegheny). Cappelletti's bill also has a Republican co-sponsor, state Sen. Tracy Pennycuick (R., Montgomery), a change from her previous versions. Cappelletti said the issue affects all Pennsylvanians, independent of political affiliation. 'This is a humanity issue, a health care issue,' Cappelletti said. 'I just hope that my Republican colleagues will see that, will hear from their constituents and understand how important this is … and that they will call this up for a vote because of that.' Title: Preserving Access to Reproductive Efforts – Non-Traditional Act – the PARENT Act Prime Sponsor: State Rep. Jen O'Mara (D., Delaware) Summary: This would prohibit the state of Pennsylvania from interfering with the use of assisted reproductive technology, which includes procedures such as IVF and the transfer of embryos, eggs, or sperm into the uterus. O'Mara told Spotlight PA that the genesis of the bill was a 'combination of personal experience and political realities.' She used IVF to conceive both of her kids, and said she has talked with many of her constituents about IVF and related treatments. O'Mara also pointed to the decision last year from Alabama's Supreme Court. Following that ruling, O'Mara said she felt 'a real fear that there could be a day and age in Pennsylvania' when such fertility treatments would not be protected. 'We decided to proactively put out this legislation to try and get ahead of that,' O'Mara said. This bill could become important, she said, if Pennsylvania lawmakers were ever to try and pass a bill limiting access to fertility treatments. It would offer fertility treatment providers and patients a legal pathway to challenge restrictions. The bill would first need to pass through the state House Health Committee, chaired by Rep. Dan Frankel (D., Allegheny). Frankel did not comment on whether he would call the bill up for a vote, but told Spotlight PA that he is a 'passionate' supporter of reproductive rights. 'While I certainly can understand the desire to protect IVF, we are lucky that at this point no threat related to IVF seems imminent at the state or federal level, and we have not seen the attacks on the procedure in Pennsylvania that other states have seen,' Frankel said in a statement to Spotlight PA. O'Mara said that she and her other co-sponsors also debated introducing the measure as a constitutional amendment. That would make the legal protections around fertility treatments stronger and harder to challenge, she said. However, the process of amending the Pennsylvania Constitution is more difficult: the legislature would need to pass the language in identical form in two consecutive legislative sessions before it could go to voters. 'It's a bigger lift to pass the [bill] two sessions in a row and it'll be harder to prevent amendments that are added,' O'Mara said. If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Public health officials in Pennsylvania won't say how they'd handle a $500M cut sought by Trump admin
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here. Pennsylvania health officials are facing down a potential $500 million loss of federal funding, but are tight-lipped about which programs and how many people might be affected by the Trump administration's decision. The funding helps Pennsylvania purchase and administer vaccines, monitor the spread of infectious diseases like measles and influenza, and contact people who might have been exposed to dangerous pathogens. 'We're the only organization who does that in Chester County,' said Jeanne Franklin, director of the health department there. She was one of the few local health officials contacted by Spotlight PA who was willing to speak on the record about how the money keeps Pennsylvanians healthy and safe from communicable illness. In late March, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued notices terminating $11 billion in grants to state and local health departments nationwide. The grants were created to help these agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Trump administration says they are obsolete. Pennsylvania and 22 other states have sued to keep the funding, arguing Congress intended the money to be a 'wide-ranging' investment in public health beyond the pandemic. In addition to disease surveillance, the commonwealth has used the money for addiction treatment, childhood vaccinations, and services at community health centers. The cuts are currently blocked as a federal judge reviews the suit, and Pennsylvania officials warn of damage to the public health system if the clawbacks are allowed. The state health department declined to speak with Spotlight PA about how it uses the funding and whether the money could be replaced. A spokesperson said in a statement that it 'is analyzing potential impacts,' and that so far 'the actions at HHS have not led to any furloughs or terminations of full-time federally-funded employees within the Department.' Exactly how Pennsylvanians would be affected by the loss of the money is hard to parse without input from the state health department, which receives the federal grants, and then passes a portion of the money on to county and city governments. One public health worker, who was granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the media, said leadership at their agency fears retaliation from the Trump administration. In recent months, the administration has slashed programs and personnel. Of the 10 Pennsylvania public health agencies contacted by Spotlight PA, just two would speak about which services could be at risk. Franklin of Chester County said that one way her agency uses federal funding is to pay the salaries of most of its disease investigation and surveillance staff. If HHS yanks these grants, Franklin said, Chester County will have to pull back on contact tracing and analyzing data. That work allows her staff to determine which communities are most vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks and then direct help their way. Ronnie Das, public information officer for the Allegheny County Health Department, said the agency 'would cut programs' if it loses the federal funds, but would not go into further detail while the suit is pending. But he added that money inevitably shapes what services the county can provide. 'It's not like we have this unlimited pot.' Because the goal of public health is prevention, one measure of success is the absence of a crisis. That can lead to complacency and is partly why the U.S. is grappling with a measles outbreak, said Maureen Lichtveld, a physician and dean of the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health. Measles is extremely contagious, and although outbreaks are preventable if enough people are vaccinated, immunization rates across the country have fallen over the past decade. 'We let our guard down,' Lichtveld said. Federal funding undergirds much of the public health system, which is a patchwork of state and local agencies with varying policies and resources. Until COVID-19, that support had been drying up, a trend that started during the 2008 financial crisis, said Josh Michaud of the health policy research group KFF. This left public health authorities underfunded and overwhelmed at the onset of the pandemic. Before at-home tests became available, for example, Pennsylvanians sometimes waited more than two weeks to learn if they were infected with COVID-19 because local agencies couldn't process such large volumes of samples. The grants that HHS wants to rescind were designed to prevent that level of tumult during another pandemic, which epidemiologists warn is a serious possibility. States' suit over the funding will probably make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Allison Winnike of the Network for Public Health Law, a research and policy nonprofit . It's normal for new administrations to create policies that reflect their political priorities or sunset programs they don't like. But in the past, states could trust new presidents to honor legal agreements signed by their predecessors. Winnike told Spotlight PA that this abrupt termination of grant contracts is shocking and unprecedented. 'The states should be very, very nervous,' she said. Winnike, Michaud, and others who spoke with Spotlight PA said the timing of this attempted disinvestment in public health is troubling. CDC data show that 11% of 800 people infected with measles this year have been hospitalized. As of April 18, two children in Texas have died, and a third death in New Mexico is under investigation. Other long-term health consequences include the risk of permanent brain damage and a depressed immune response to new infections. Pennsylvania has so far had few cases. That might change, warned Lichtveld: The kindergarten vaccination rate for 44 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties is under the recommended threshold to prevent spread, meaning there are enough unvaccinated kids in these communities for a potential outbreak. Also, most counties in Pennsylvania don't have a local health department and instead rely on the state for disease surveillance, which is less comprehensive. 'You really need to have a continuous active surveillance system,' she said. Other infectious diseases making comebacks include tuberculosis and pertussis, which is also known as whooping cough. Pennsylvania saw a 658% increase in whooping cough cases between 2023 and 2024. Franklin said Chester County is in a much stronger position today to handle emerging diseases compared to March 2020. It has responded to nearly 30 measles exposures since the start of the year using the protocols it refined during the pandemic, she noted. If these systems had been in place at the onset of the pandemic, Franklin said, the virus would have spread more slowly in Chester County, and resulted in fewer critically ill patients at a time when health systems were overwhelmed and rationing medical care. Josh Maxwell, chair of the Chester County Board of Commissioners, noted that his county is one of Pennsylvania's wealthiest and has a growing tax base. If the HHS funding ends, he said Chester County would have to cut other parts of its budget to sustain its public health department. 'As difficult as it's going to be on us, it's going to be more difficult on our neighbors,' he said. Michaud also noted that health departments with fewer resources will especially feel the crunch of funding cuts, and be forced to prioritize certain public health threats over others. 'More people might die. You might have more illnesses occurring in the community,' said Michaud. 'So it doesn't seem to support a vision for making America healthy again.' If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
