LAS VEGAS -- La cantidad de niñas y los niños de Nevada que no tienen seguro médico alcanza cifras alarmantes, según revela un reporte recieente. Entre 2016 y 2019, Nevada vio un aumento del 16% en el número de pequeños no asegurados, y la pandemia del Coronavirus podría empeorar esas cifras en los próximos años.

En 2016, Nevada tenía 50,000 pequeños sin cobertura de salud, y para 2019 ya sumaba 8,000 más. Kelly Bumgarner, administradora de las políticas de salud infantil en la Alianza de Defensa de Niñas y Niños de Nevada (Children's Advocacy Alliance Nevada), dice que los números son especialmente preocupantes para el Condado Clark.

"Si revisas los 20 condados con cifras mas altas de ninos no asegurados en todos los Estados Unidos, ocupamos el decimo peor lugar en todos los Estados Unidos."

El reporte cita los grandes recortes federales de presupuesto para la difusión de programas que ayuden a los padres a inscribir a sus hijas e hijos no asegurados. Fue circulado por el Centro de la Universidad Georgetown para los Niños y las Familias (Georgetown University Center for Children and Families).

La incertidumbre sobre el futuro de la Affordable Care Act (Ley de Cuidado Asequible) también afecta las cifras; los Americanos no sabrán, hasta después de las elecciones, si la Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos derribará la conocida ACA.

Pero Joan Alker, directora ejecutiva en el Centro Georgetown, dice que el brinco que dieron las tasas de gente sin seguro puede estar relacionado con los esfuerzos de la administración Trump por desmanterarla.

"Lo que preocupa es que, ya sabes, hemos tenido anos y anos de progreso como condado, de un modo bipartidista, para reducir la cantidad de ninos sin seguro. Y lo que vemos ahora es que esa tendencia claramente se revirtio desde que el Presidente Trump ocupo la oficina."

Sobre todo, la tasa de niñas y niños no asegurados era de ocho por ciento en 2019, la 7ª tasa más alta del país. Bumgarner dice que Nevada necesita hacer un gran esfuerzo para informar a la gente sobre las opciones que tiene disponibles.

"Las buenas noticias son porque somos un esstado en expansion Medicaid, que la cobertura esta disponible para esos pequenos en particular, que no tenemos cobertura de salud sino que la necesitamos."

Bumgarner destaca que muchos pequeños que calificarían bajo la expansión de Nevada Medicaid no están inscritos porque viven en una familia que tiene estatus migratorios mezclados, y temen llenar los formularios.

Access to reduced-price medication is a necessity for many rural Missourians with low income.

Rep. Cindy O'Laughlin, R-Shelbina, the Senate Floor Leader, said Big Pharma is trying to confuse legislators with unrelated hot-button topics such as abortion access and illegal immigration in a last-ditch effort to stop the state from joining a program to force drugmakers to sell medicines at a discount.

"Appealing to nuclear topics, which really do not apply in this situation, is a disingenuous way to try to defeat a bill that is actually good for Missouri," O'Laughlin asserted.

O'Laughlin pointed out the program is transparent, and uses the tax money saved to help low-income families deal with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

The drugmakers object to the government forcing them to give significant discounts, arguing hospitals' and for-profit pharmacies' bottom lines, particularly those owned by pharmacy benefits managers, are being exploited. Nationally, 46% of contract pharmacy agreements involve pharmacies linked to the three largest benefits managers.

Rep. Tara Peters, R-Rolla, introduced the 340B contract pharmacy access billand said the lobbying is absurd.

"Federally, 340B program does not allow for abortion drugs," Peters stressed. "Why would any legislation that we're trying to pass in the state allow for that? I mean, the thought of that even being in existence is absolutely ludicrous."

The Missouri Senate passed the bill 27-3 on Monday and it now goes to the House.


get more stories like this via email

Alabama is running out of time to tackle Medicaid expansion this legislative session.

More than 230 people gathered earlier this month with the group Alabama Arise, urging state lawmakers to prioritize the issue. Their message: Access to health care isn't just a matter of policy, it can be a matter of life and death.

Debbie Smith, Cover Alabama campaign director for Alabama Arise, said as the session winds down, the group will continue to echo the call for increased access to health coverage. She thinks it would not only save lives but revitalize communities across the state.

"Over 80% of our rural hospitals are operating in the red," Smith pointed out. "Not a great stat. About 19 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closure, and those are the lifeblood of those communities. They're on life support."

Smith emphasized hospitals at financial risk also put their workforce at risk. Those who are against Medicaid expansion believe it is ultimately unaffordable for the state. However, Smith argued it could save the state nearly $400 million over the next six years. According to the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, those savings would be enough to cover the cost.

The council's study also showed Medicaid expansion would generate nearly $2 billion of economic growth. Beyond economic benefits, Smith pointed to the stark disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates in Alabama.

She stressed Medicaid expansion would do more than provide health care coverage during pregnancy or postpartum, it is about ensuring comprehensive coverage.

"We've been lucky enough to expand Medicaid coverage up to 12 months postpartum but we still need to figure out how to cover people before they even get pregnant," Smith asserted. "It's really important for people to have health coverage so they can address any kind of issues they might have, like if they have diabetes or high blood pressure that might affect their pregnancy in the future."

With limited time left in the legislative session, she noted one option could be Gov. Kay Ivey's executive authority to enact Medicaid expansion. Smith added using the power could be the simplest path forward, backed by the promise of additional funding from the American Rescue Plan.

A Connecticut bill would expand the state's paid sick leave law.

The initial 2011 law requires 40 hours of paid sick leave for workers at employers with 50 businesses or more. The new bill covers all workers regardless of their employer's size.

Janée Woods Weber, executive director of the nonprofit She Leads Justice, said the legislation can benefit workers without access to paid sick leave.

"These are people for whom taking a few hours off when their child has a cold or perhaps they need to take themselves to a doctor's appointment are the kinds of challenges that many of us don't worry about, those of us who do have access to paid sick days," Woods Weber explained.

Small businesses were concerned about how the change could affect them. To address worries, the bill has a three-year implementation cycle giving them time to adapt. It also creates a task force studying the feasibility of providing tax credits to businesses with the smallest workforces. The bill passed the House and awaits a vote in the Senate.

An estimated 11% of workers are eligible for paid sick leave under the current criteria. Though expanding the law has taken over a decade, Woods Weber argued it has always been necessary.

"Nobody should be forced to make what is often times a very difficult and sometimes impossible choice between their livelihood," Woods Weber emphasized. "Getting a paycheck and getting to take paid time off to take care of themselves or a loved one if they get sick."

She added that once the bill is passed, the state can build off it by allowing people to earn more than 40 hours of paid sick time. Woods Weber said the isolation requirements during the pandemic forced anyone who got COVID-19 to use their allotted sick time all at once for isolation.


get more stories like this via email