Latest news with #KristenChevrier
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Utah lawmakers aim to restrict soda from being purchased with food stamps — not candy
This year, the Utah Legislature passed a law aiming to restrict Utahns from using SNAP funds to purchase soda. Here's a look at the law and what it does. HB403, sponsored by Rep. Kristen Chevrier, R-Highland, does not actually ban the purchase of soda with SNAP funds, because states do not have that power; instead, it requires that the state request a waiver from the federal government in order to make the restriction. There has been some confusion over whether the law is also trying to restrict candy as well, but it isn't — HB403 only mentions 'soft drinks.' The first version of HB403 did mention candy, but that part of the bill was removed. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is often referred to as food stamps. The program 'provides food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being,' according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. While presenting HB403 during the legislative session, Chevrier stated that soda is the most commonly purchased item with SNAP funds. She added that the purpose of the program was to give people struggling financially 'greater spending power to purchase healthy, nutritious necessities, not to contribute to obesity, anxiety, depression and chronic illness.' There are legislators in other states across the country who, like Chevrier, are looking at health reform through SNAP restrictions. The law defines a 'soft drink' as 'a nonalcoholic beverage that is made with carbonated water and that is flavored and sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners.' It also clarifies that ''soft drink' does not include a beverage that contains milk, milk products, soy, rice, or other milk substitutes, or that is greater than 50% vegetable or fruit juice by volume.' SNAP is a national program that is managed by the state, so the state cannot make changes to the program without receiving a waiver from the federal government. HB403 instructs the Utah Department of Workplace Services to submit a request for a waiver that would restrict Utahns from using food stamps to purchase soda. The request will be submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Under the law, the Department of Workforce Service is required to submit a waiver request to restrict people from using SNAP funds to purchase soda by July 1. The waiver request will include a justification that focuses on the health concerns leading to this law, as well as the intended use of SNAP and potential cost savings for taxpayers. The request also has to list strategies for educating SNAP recipients on healthier alternatives, tracking the impact of the restrictions and updating point of sales systems. If the waiver is approved, then the department will have to implement the new restrictions within six months. But, if the waiver is denied, then the department must resubmit the waiver request within three months and continue to resubmit the request annually until it is approved. There are already some restrictions nationally on what can and can't be purchased with food stamps. According to the USDA, those using SNAP funds can purchase: Fruits and vegetables Meat, poultry, and fish Dairy products Breads and cereals Other foods such as snack foods and nonalcoholic beverages Seeds and plants that produce food for the household to eat These items cannot be purchased using SNAP funds: Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco Vitamins, medicines and supplements Live animals Foods that are hot at the point of sale Any nonfood items, including pet foods, cleaning supplies or toiletries
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Utah Republicans push to let patients supply their own blood as vaccine concerns linger
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah may soon loosen its B.Y.O.B. rules, but not in the way some might hope. The acronym has taken on a new meaning in the state Legislature: 'Bring Your Own Blood.' Health care facilities in Utah would be required to let patients use their own blood for procedures or choose their own donor under a bill that passed the state House with unanimous support Wednesday, despite concerns from the American Red Cross. Directed donations, which typically involve a patient's friend or family member giving blood for their procedure, are allowed under federal law. But the requests undergo a rigorous screening process that the bill's sponsor, an outspoken opponent of vaccines, said does not give patients enough personal choice in their medical decisions. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. Hospitals and blood collectors like the American Red Cross currently have broad discretion to decide whether it's safe and feasible for a patient to use their own blood or that of a chosen donor. Many facilities saw a rise in requests during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns about vaccine transmission that medical professionals say are unfounded. The Republican proposal, which now heads to the Senate, makes it so Utah health providers can no longer block someone from supplying their own blood, except in emergencies. Hospitals would not be liable for any injuries or deaths that may result from using the blood. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and was floated in past legislative sessions in Iowa and Kentucky, but did not pass. 'This bill was brought to me by patients who have requested to use directed blood donation, including their own blood, at Utah hospitals and have been denied,' said freshman Rep. Kristen Chevrier, the bill's sponsor. 'Their situations are serious and delicate.' The Republican from Highland argued patients should be able to receive blood from people they trust, rather than go through blood banks that do not disclose to patients their donor's medical history. Before her election to the Legislature, Chevrier led multiple anti-vaccine organizations that warned against taking COVID-19 shots and fought against vaccination requirements imposed by schools and employers. She and other supporters have acknowledged that the bill would let patients who are weary of COVID-19 vaccines handpick donors with a similarly unvaccinated status. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, justification for such requests 'is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence.' Vaccine components do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipient's DNA, meaning an unvaccinated patient could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine via a vaccinated donor's blood. Requests to use blood from a known donor are often driven by a patient's preference rather than a medical need, said Daniel Parra of the American Red Cross, the largest blood collector in Utah. An increase in those requests would divert resources away from those requiring lifesaving care, he cautioned. 'This bill would create unnecessary and harmful impacts on the delivery of lifesaving blood to patients,' Parra told The Associated Press. 'While this bill may be well-intentioned, it offers no public health benefit and could negatively impact patient care.' Kristina Pexton, a blood transfusion specialist at a Utah hospital, told lawmakers at a recent committee hearing that she worried the bill would place a strain on the system. Directed donations also carry a greater risk than the community blood supply, Parra warned. Family and friends may feel pressure to donate and might not be fully transparent about their health history, which he said increases the risk of the recipient contracting an infectious disease. There is no evidence that patients can select safer donors than the volunteer blood system provides. Still, several residents told lawmakers the choice was important to them. 'Something so personal as our health care, something that is especially as personal as blood, we should always have that choice,' said Gayle Ruzicka.
The Independent
20-02-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Utah Republicans push hospitals to let patients bring their own blood as vaccine concerns linger
Utah may soon loosen its B.Y.O.B. rules, but not in the way some might hope. The acronym has taken on a new meaning in the state Legislature: 'Bring Your Own Blood.' Health care facilities in Utah would be required to let patients supply their own blood for procedures or choose their own donor under a bill that passed the state House with unanimous support Wednesday, despite concerns from the American Red Cross. Directed donations, which typically involve a patient's friend or family member giving blood for their procedure, are allowed under federal law. But the requests undergo a rigorous screening process that the bill's sponsor, an outspoken opponent of vaccines, said does not give patients enough personal choice in their medical decisions. Hospitals and blood collectors like the American Red Cross currently have broad discretion to decide whether it's safe and feasible for a patient to use their own blood or that of a chosen donor. Many facilities saw a rise in requests during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns about vaccine transmission that medical professionals say are unfounded. The Republican proposal, which now heads to the Senate, makes it so Utah health providers can no longer block someone from using their own blood, except in emergencies. Hospitals would not be liable for any injuries or deaths that may result from using the blood. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and was floated in past legislative sessions in Iowa and Kentucky, but did not pass. 'This bill was brought to me by patients who have requested to use directed blood donation, including their own blood, at Utah hospitals and have been denied,' said freshman Rep. Kristen Chevrier, the bill's sponsor. 'Their situations are serious and delicate.' The Republican from Highland argued patients should be able to receive blood from people they trust, rather than go through blood banks that do not disclose to patients their donor's medical history. Before her election to the Legislature, Chevrier led multiple anti-vaccine organizations that warned against taking COVID-19 shots and fought against vaccination requirements imposed by schools and employers. She and other supporters have acknowledged that the bill would let patients who are weary of COVID-19 vaccines handpick donors with a similarly unvaccinated status. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, justification for such requests 'is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence.' Vaccine components do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipient's DNA, meaning an unvaccinated patient could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine via a vaccinated donor's blood. Requests to use blood from a known donor are often driven by a patient's preference rather than a medical need, said Daniel Parra of the American Red Cross, the largest blood collector in Utah. An increase in those requests would divert resources away from those requiring lifesaving care, he cautioned. 'This bill would create unnecessary and harmful impacts on the delivery of lifesaving blood to patients,' Parra told The Associated Press. 'While this bill may be well-intentioned, it offers no public health benefit and could negatively impact patient care.' Kristina Pexton, a blood transfusion specialist at a Utah hospital, told lawmakers at a recent committee hearing that she worried the bill would place a strain on the system. Directed donations also carry a greater risk than the community blood supply, Parra warned. Family and friends may feel pressure to donate and might not be fully transparent about their health history, which he said increases the risk of the recipient contracting an infectious disease. There is no evidence that patients can select safer donors than the volunteer blood system provides. Still, several told lawmakers the choice was important to them. 'Something so personal as our health care, something that is especially as personal as blood, we should always have that choice,' said Gayle Ruzicka.
Associated Press
20-02-2025
- Health
- Associated Press
Utah Republicans push hospitals to let patients bring their own blood as vaccine concerns linger
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah may soon loosen its B.Y.O.B. rules, but not in the way some might hope. The acronym has taken on a new meaning in the state Legislature: 'Bring Your Own Blood.' Health care facilities in Utah would be required to let patients supply their own blood for procedures or choose their own donor under a bill that passed the state House with unanimous support Wednesday, despite concerns from the American Red Cross. Directed donations, which typically involve a patient's friend or family member giving blood for their procedure, are allowed under federal law. But the requests undergo a rigorous screening process that the bill's sponsor, an outspoken opponent of vaccines, said does not give patients enough personal choice in their medical decisions. Hospitals and blood collectors like the American Red Cross currently have broad discretion to decide whether it's safe and feasible for a patient to use their own blood or that of a chosen donor. Many facilities saw a rise in requests during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns about vaccine transmission that medical professionals say are unfounded. The Republican proposal, which now heads to the Senate, makes it so Utah health providers can no longer block someone from using their own blood, except in emergencies. Hospitals would not be liable for any injuries or deaths that may result from using the blood. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and was floated in past legislative sessions in Iowa and Kentucky, but did not pass. 'This bill was brought to me by patients who have requested to use directed blood donation, including their own blood, at Utah hospitals and have been denied,' said freshman Rep. Kristen Chevrier, the bill's sponsor. 'Their situations are serious and delicate.' The Republican from Highland argued patients should be able to receive blood from people they trust, rather than go through blood banks that do not disclose to patients their donor's medical history. Before her election to the Legislature, Chevrier led multiple anti-vaccine organizations that warned against taking COVID-19 shots and fought against vaccination requirements imposed by schools and employers. She and other supporters have acknowledged that the bill would let patients who are weary of COVID-19 vaccines handpick donors with a similarly unvaccinated status. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, justification for such requests 'is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence.' Vaccine components do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipient's DNA, meaning an unvaccinated patient could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine via a vaccinated donor's blood. Requests to use blood from a known donor are often driven by a patient's preference rather than a medical need, said Daniel Parra of the American Red Cross, the largest blood collector in Utah. An increase in those requests would divert resources away from those requiring lifesaving care, he cautioned. 'This bill would create unnecessary and harmful impacts on the delivery of lifesaving blood to patients,' Parra told The Associated Press. 'While this bill may be well-intentioned, it offers no public health benefit and could negatively impact patient care.' Kristina Pexton, a blood transfusion specialist at a Utah hospital, told lawmakers at a recent committee hearing that she worried the bill would place a strain on the system. Directed donations also carry a greater risk than the community blood supply, Parra warned. Family and friends may feel pressure to donate and might not be fully transparent about their health history, which he said increases the risk of the recipient contracting an infectious disease. There is no evidence that patients can select safer donors than the volunteer blood system provides. Still, several told lawmakers the choice was important to them. 'Something so personal as our health care, something that is especially as personal as blood, we should always have that choice,' said Gayle Ruzicka.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Utah Republicans push hospitals to let patients bring their own blood as vaccine concerns linger
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah may soon loosen its B.Y.O.B. rules, but not in the way some might hope. The acronym has taken on a new meaning in the state Legislature: 'Bring Your Own Blood.' Health care facilities in Utah would be required to let patients supply their own blood for procedures or choose their own donor under a bill that passed the state House with unanimous support Wednesday, despite concerns from the American Red Cross. Directed donations, which typically involve a patient's friend or family member giving blood for their procedure, are allowed under federal law. But the requests undergo a rigorous screening process that the bill's sponsor, an outspoken opponent of vaccines, said does not give patients enough personal choice in their medical decisions. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. Hospitals and blood collectors like the American Red Cross currently have broad discretion to decide whether it's safe and feasible for a patient to use their own blood or that of a chosen donor. Many facilities saw a rise in requests during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns about vaccine transmission that medical professionals say are unfounded. The Republican proposal, which now heads to the Senate, makes it so Utah health providers can no longer block someone from using their own blood, except in emergencies. Hospitals would not be liable for any injuries or deaths that may result from using the blood. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and was floated in past legislative sessions in Iowa and Kentucky, but did not pass. 'This bill was brought to me by patients who have requested to use directed blood donation, including their own blood, at Utah hospitals and have been denied,' said freshman Rep. Kristen Chevrier, the bill's sponsor. 'Their situations are serious and delicate.' The Republican from Highland argued patients should be able to receive blood from people they trust, rather than go through blood banks that do not disclose to patients their donor's medical history. Before her election to the Legislature, Chevrier led multiple anti-vaccine organizations that warned against taking COVID-19 shots and fought against vaccination requirements imposed by schools and employers. She and other supporters have acknowledged that the bill would let patients who are weary of COVID-19 vaccines handpick donors with a similarly unvaccinated status. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, justification for such requests 'is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence.' Vaccine components do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipient's DNA, meaning an unvaccinated patient could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine via a vaccinated donor's blood. Requests to use blood from a known donor are often driven by a patient's preference rather than a medical need, said Daniel Parra of the American Red Cross, the largest blood collector in Utah. An increase in those requests would divert resources away from those requiring lifesaving care, he cautioned. 'This bill would create unnecessary and harmful impacts on the delivery of lifesaving blood to patients,' Parra told The Associated Press. 'While this bill may be well-intentioned, it offers no public health benefit and could negatively impact patient care.' Kristina Pexton, a blood transfusion specialist at a Utah hospital, told lawmakers at a recent committee hearing that she worried the bill would place a strain on the system. Directed donations also carry a greater risk than the community blood supply, Parra warned. Family and friends may feel pressure to donate and might not be fully transparent about their health history, which he said increases the risk of the recipient contracting an infectious disease. There is no evidence that patients can select safer donors than the volunteer blood system provides. Still, several told lawmakers the choice was important to them. 'Something so personal as our health care, something that is especially as personal as blood, we should always have that choice,' said Gayle Ruzicka.
