Latest news with #R-MS
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
America might finally make childbirth free—and moms could be the biggest winners
'This is how much it costs to give birth in America: $44,318.41.' That was the now-viral TikTok from a mom just days postpartum, scrolling through the itemized bill at home. Her insurance only covered $20,353.62—despite paying $2,500 a month for coverage for her family of five. This mom's story isn't an outlier. According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, privately insured families in the U.S. pay an average of $3,000 out-of-pocket for childbirth on average—just for having a baby. By 'choosing' to have a baby with a midwife in a birth center, I personally had to pay a $10k fee upfront. (Wanting midwifery care in a calm setting for my super fast labors didn't feel like a choice, but in America, it is.) Moms bear so many burdens for having babies. And one devastating cost that sets so many families back financially when they're just beginning life together is the price of childbirth, even with insurance. We're talking million-dollar NICU bills. $50k c-section charges. A financial punishment for doing the most critical work in a country: bringing the next generation of citizens into the world. But that may soon change. A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a bill that could be a game-changer for millions of American families. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act (S.1834) was announced on May 21, 2025, and aims to eliminate all out-of-pocket costs related to prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum services for those with private health insurance. The bill's sponsors—Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—say the legislation is about protecting families from being buried in medical debt at one of the most vulnerable times in life. 'Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt,' Sen. Hyde-Smith said in a statement announcing the legislation. 'By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood.' A companion bill is expected in the House, led by Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who told Vox, 'This idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life. So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost—not stick people with huge medical bills.' While the average out-of-pocket cost is around $3,000, the financial burden can be far worse for many: 17% of privately insured moms face bills over $5,000 1% are hit with bills exceeding $10,000 17.5% of women with private insurance report problems paying medical bills Nearly 9% say they couldn't pay them at all These numbers are not just statistics—they represent real parents delaying care, going into debt, or struggling to recover financially in the fragile weeks after childbirth. If passed, the bill would expand the list of 'essential health benefits' under the Affordable Care Act to include full-spectrum maternity care. Medicaid already covers these services in full, and that's how 41% of births in the U.S. are paid for. But for the 178 million people on private insurance plans? Birth is still a budget-buster. The new legislation would require private insurers to pick up the tab. That means: Prenatal care (including appointments and ultrasounds) Labor and delivery Hospital stays Postpartum recovery and mental health care Neonatal and perinatal services Lactation support The estimated premium hike to cover it all? About $30 per year, according to Lawson Mansell, policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, who conducted the cost modeling for the bill. Mansell told Vox this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free. Related: Too many U.S. moms are in debt from giving birth. They deserve better. Beyond the financial relief, this bill has the potential to improve health outcomes for moms and babies. Research backs this up: A report by the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner found that eliminating cost-sharing for prenatal services is associated with improved maternal and infant outcomes, including fewer preterm births and higher birth weights. So in addition to relieving the stress families face, covering prenatal care fully makes it more likely that moms actually get it. Another study published in BMC Public Health linked removing financial barriers under the Affordable Care Act to increased use of preventive care, such as mammography and Pap tests. While the study focused on these services, the findings suggest that eliminating financial barriers can encourage timely and consistent healthcare utilization. The bill's sponsors come from across the political spectrum—and so do its supporters. Everyone from the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to anti-abortion groups like Americans United for Life and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America have voiced support. Even Planned Parenthood Action Fund commented they 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.' Related: The cost of giving birth is getting more expensive—and some families are getting hit with childbirth debt If the bill becomes law, the financial landscape of pregnancy would change dramatically—especially for those in the 'missing middle': families who earn too much for Medicaid but not enough to easily afford thousands in delivery fees. It would also offer immediate relief for parents managing multiple financial burdens at once: high rent, unpaid leave, child care costs, student loans. You know, new motherhood. Call your representatives. Especially if you have private insurance and have ever been slammed with a delivery bill. You can find contact info at and Share your story. Lawmakers have said constituent birth bill stories played a big role in shaping this legislation. Talk about it on social. If your childbirth costs shocked you, say so. Use hashtags like #MakeBirthFree and tag your reps. This moment is historic not just because it's bipartisan, but because it signals a new kind of family policy thinking: one where moms aren't expected to 'figure it out' in isolation, one giant bill at a time. As Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute put it in a policy brief, 'Substantively and symbolically, bringing the out-of-pocket health care costs of childbirth to zero is an ambitious but achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies.' Whether you're pregnant now or years past it, you probably remember your hospital bill—and you definitely remember how it made you feel. Exhausted. Angry. Maybe even ashamed. This new bill says: No more. And moms deserve that. Sources: Family-Friendly Policies for the 119th Congress. February 2025. AEI. Family-Friendly Policies for the 119th Congress. America might finally make childbirth free. May 2025. Vox. America might finally make childbirth free. Americans United for Life Applauds Bipartisan Innovative Policy Proposal. May 2025. America United for Life. Americans United for Life Applauds Bipartisan Innovative Policy Proposal to Make Maternal Healthcare More Affordable. AMA advocacy to improve maternal health. May 2025. AMA. AMA advocacy to improve maternal health. Impact of removing cost sharing. 2019. BMC Public Health. Impact of removing cost sharing under the affordable care act (ACA) on mammography and pap test use. New bipartisan proposal would remove childbirth costs. May 2025. Niskanen Center. New bipartisan proposal would remove childbirth costs and confusion for parents. Characteristics of Mothers by Source of Payment for the Delivery. May 2023. CDC. Characteristics of Mothers by Source of Payment for the Delivery: United States, 2021. About the Affordable Care Act. Us Department of Health an Human Services. About the Affordable Care Act. Out-of-pocket medical bills childbirth. National Library of Medicine. Out-of-pocket medical bills from first childbirth and subsequent childbearing. The Association of Childbirth with Medical Debt. National Library of Medicine. The Association of Childbirth with Medical Debt in the USA, 2019–2020. Sentators introduce bill to ease financial burden of pregnancy. Cindy Hyde-Smith. SENATORS INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN BILL TO EASE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF PREGNANCY, CHILDBIRTH. Women who Give Birth Incur Nearly $19,000 in Additional Health Costs. KFF. Women who Give Birth Incur Nearly $19,000 in Additional Health Costs, Including $2,854 More that They Pay Out of Pocket.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
National Cotton Council backs bill to boost US cotton consumption
Proposed by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), the legislation aims to boost demand for both domestically grown cotton and products made from it such as apparel, home textiles, and nonwovens. These products must either be fully manufactured within the US or, if imported, must be made entirely or partially from US extra-long staple cotton or upland cotton. The Buying American Cotton Act seeks to capitalise on the traceability feature of US cotton and the purchasing habits of American consumers. The proposed tax credit would be available to the initial US-based entity that directly sells an eligible product to a consumer in the US. The amount of credit would depend on several criteria, including verification of US origin, the proportion of US-grown cotton used in the product, and the manufacturing location. NCC chairman and a producer from Tunica, Mississippi Patrick Johnson said: "The Buying American Cotton Act is transformative for our industry. By capitalising on the traceability of US cotton and the purchasing power of American consumers, this bill will drive the preference for domestically produced cotton and cotton products. The transferable tax credits will encourage businesses to opt for US cotton, strengthening our agricultural sector and creating more jobs. I want to thank Senator Hyde-Smith for her foresight in introducing this legislation." The NCC also acknowledged Senators John Boozman (R-AR), Katie Britt (R-AL), and Roger Marshall (R-KS) for their support as co-sponsors of the bill and anticipate additional co-sponsors in the near future. Last month, the US cotton sector voiced its concerns over findings from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission's report. The report disclosed that children are at an increased risk due to exposure to various chemicals such as heavy metals, PFAS, pesticides, and phthalates present in textiles, food items, and other consumer goods. The unique behaviours and developmental stages of children make them particularly susceptible to potential harm from these environmental exposures. "National Cotton Council backs bill to boost US cotton consumption" was originally created and published by Just Style, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Forbes
26-04-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Adding $150 Billion to the Pentagon Budget Will Waste Funds Without Improving Our Defenses
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 11: Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) speaks to the press on the transparency from ... More the Department of Defense regarding the health of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on January 11, 2024 in Washington, DC. Secretary Austin was hospitalized for surgery relating to prostate cancer, which was not reported for several days. (Photo by Anna) Even as President Trump and secretary of defense Pete Hegseth talk of a post-World War II record $1 trillion Pentagon budget request for fiscal year 2026, majorities in both houses of Congress are seeking a multi-year, $150 billion plus up to the department's resources via a separate route known as reconciliation – a procedure that allows the majority to push through legislation without fear of a filibuster. Critics of the plus up question the need to throw more money at a defense industrial base that is currently maxed out, especially as benefits for veterans and military families could be subject to reductions. An effective military ultimately depends on well-trained, well-motivated people. Preferencing hardware over the needs of current and former members of the military would be both misguided and potentially harmful to the morale of the force going forward. While contractors are poised to get a multi-billion dollar pay day, veterans and military personnel will be neglected, or worse. Only about 6 percent of the $150 billion proposed plus up in Pentagon spending will go to help military personnel. As for veterans, even before the reconciliation bill began to be debated the administration had announced plans to cut 80,000 jobs at the Veteran's administration, a body that is already struggling to get benefits to former service members in a timely fashion. And since the vast majority of VA personnel are involved with providing health care, those services are likely to be harder to come by. Other blows do veterans services include moves that would reduce staffing at suicide hotlines for veterans and defund basic research relevant to veterans health and safety. Meanwhile, a source close to the negotiations told Congressional Quarterly that the biggest increases in the proposed reconciliation bill will go to shipbuilding ($29 billion), the president's Golden Dome missile defense initiative ($27 billion), munitions ($20 billion), nuclear weapons ($14 billion), emerging military technology ($14 billion), and 'air superiority' ($11 billion). In short, something for everyone, if you happen to be a weapons contractor. Perhaps not coincidentally, the two biggest categories of proposed new spending will disproportionately funnel revenue to companies in the home states of the two main proponents of the bill, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). Ingalls Shipbuilding employs 11,000 workers at its Pascagoula, Mississippi facility, and Huntsville, Alabama is known as 'Rocket City' because of the large cluster of companies that build missiles and missile defense systems there. The main winners from increased shipbuilding funds will be Virginia (HII corporation's Newport News Facility that builds aircraft carriers and attack submarines), Connecticut (General Dynamics' Electric Boat ballistic missile submarine plant), and Maine (General Dynamics Bath Shipyards plant). Golden Dome funds will help both old guard contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing that already make interceptors, satellites, and communications systems relevant to missile defense, and emerging military tech firms like Anduril, which has won contracts for anti-drone technology. As Congress considers showering the Golden Dome project with taxpayer funds, members should consider that the vast majority of independent scientific experts believe that a foolproof defense system against all forms of missile attack - especially high speed ICBMs – may be physically impossible, not to mention exorbitantly expensive. As Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted, '[i] t has been long understood that defending against a sophisticated nuclear arsenal is technically and economically unfeasible.' And allocating more money for nuclear weapons when systems like the Northrop Grumman's Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile system are 81% over its original cost estimate will be throwing good money after bad. Meanwhile, given Boeing's dismal record of performance problems and cost overruns on both civilian airliners and defense systems like the Osprey aircraft and the KC-46 refueling tanker, accelerating spending on the company's new F-47 combat aircraft program is not prudent. The Pentagon and its contractor network are having a hard time spending existing funds well. Congress should think twice before sending more taxpayer money their way. We need a smarter, more realistic defense plan grounded in a well-compensated, well-trained defense force far more than we need to give additional billions to weapons makers that are already struggling to produce affordable, effective defense systems.
