Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over policies to limit gender-affirming care for youths. The lawsuit argues the policies violate states’ 10th Amendment right to regulate health care.
Photo: Capitol News Illinois/Jerry Nowicki
Raoul is pictured on the floor of the Senate in May of this year. The Illinois Attorney General joined a multi-state bid to block the Federal government from limiting gender-affirming care. by Ben Szalinski
Capitol News Illinois
SPRINGFIELD - Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is joining a multi-state lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from limiting gender-affirming care.
The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts district court by 17 states, argues an executive order signed in January by President Donald Trump that directs federal agencies to take “appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving federal research and education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children” violates states’ 10th Amendment right to regulate medical care.
The order defines “children” as people under age 19, which the attorneys general say conflicts with many states such as Illinois, where people are generally considered adults when they turn 18. A separate executive order by the president established that the federal government only recognizes two genders.
How does any of this keep our children or our communities safer?
It also seeks to block two Department of Justice orders that direct the DOJ to investigate and enforce legal action against doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals that provide gender-affirming care to youths.
The orders use “cruel, demeaning language” to “undermine the legitimacy” of medical care, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference Friday.
“This administration is driving a wedge between patients and health care providers from providing patients the health care that they need,” Raoul said.
Also troubling to the attorneys general is the prospect of criminal prosecution against doctors who provide care.
“The Department of Justice is diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from catching criminals and predators who are actually harming children,” Raoul said. “How does any of this keep our children or our communities safer?”
Guidance to Illinois doctors
The orders have also caused Illinois health care providers to stop providing types of gender-affirming care, including University of Chicago Medical Center, UI Health, Rush, Northwestern Medicine and Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.
Though Raoul said he opposes the Trump administration’s policies and believes they are illegal, he declined to give legal advice about whether Illinois health care providers should continue following the federal directives while the lawsuit proceeds.
Illinois has numerous laws on the books establishing legal gender-affirming care.
“I am not a health care administrator; I am not the head of a hospital that’s being threatened with potential criminal investigation or prosecution or removal of funding that goes toward saving the lives of various patients,” Raoul said. “And so I am not in the position of either advising what administrative decisions should be made at hospitals.”
Raoul said his role is to “remove” legal threats against the state and its residents.
Medical providers that decide to stop providing gender-affirming care are likely not guilty of discrimination under Illinois law, Raoul said, “particularly if the federal government is threatening you with criminal prosecution.” He added Illinois laws don’t require doctors to provide a full range of gender-affirming care.
Illinois has numerous laws on the books establishing legal gender-affirming care, including protections for Illinois health care providers from prosecution and other disciplinary action in other states for giving legal health care to patients in Illinois that might be considered illegal in another state.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Representation, access, and education are key to saving lives. Nurses must lead the charge to end racial gaps in maternal healthcare.
byTeya Mongsaithong
In the U.S., giving birth has become a death sentence for many women of color. In fact, Black/African American mothers are three to four times more likely to die from birth-related complications than white women regardless of socioeconomic status or education level. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2023), the number of preterm births was about 50% higher for Black women (14.6%) than White (9.4%) or Hispanic women (10.1%).
This shocking disparity goes beyond medical issues, it is rooted in implicit bias, structural racism, and gaps in delivering culturally competent care. Without realizing it, even the most compassionate nurses can cause harm. To address this public health crisis, nurse leaders must empower change through standardizing implicit bias training, enhancing community services in high-risk populations, and promoting nurses of color into leadership roles.
Nurse leaders have a responsibility to bridge the gap between underserved communities.
First, implicit bias training should be a national standard across all hospitals. It is important for healthcare providers to confront their assumptions and stereotypes when caring for minorities. Specifically for Black women, there is a misconception that their pain tolerance is higher, and they are “forced to endure pain beyond what [is] considered normal" during labor and delivery.
Delivering culturally competent care in this case is necessary for patients to feel safe to express their needs and highlights the importance of implicit bias training. Nurse leaders can standardize this training through embedding it within onboarding and continuing education requirements. By institutionalizing this training, we can ensure black maternal equity is not optional, but foundational to nursing practice. Beyond education, nurse leaders must also recognize the impact of the barriers to accessing quality care.
Limited access to prenatal and postpartum care is a key factor for poor maternal outcomes. In the U.S., over 35% of counties are considered maternity health deserts, which affects approximately 2.3 million women of reproductive age. To address this, nurse leaders collaborate with organizations to push for policies that would: increase the use of mobile maternity units, incentivize the use of telehealth for obstetrics/gynecologists, midwives, and extend Medicaid coverage for prenatal and postpartum care.
Furthermore, nurse leaders can promote virtual training for nurses to provide telehealth care to increase access for patients with limited transportation means. Nurse leaders have a responsibility to bridge the gap between underserved communities and access to care to ensure mothers of color receive quality and equal treatment. To serve these communities to a higher degree, it is necessary to diversify the workforce.
Representation in healthcare matters deeply. Being able to address the unique needs and experiences of individuals allows mothers to have a more active role in their care. To do this, nurse leaders can create mentorship programs for students, advocate for targeted scholarships, and promote more nurses of color into leadership positions.
Black mothers continue to face disproportionately higher health risks due to systemic bias, neglect, and structural racism.
When underrepresented populations see themselves reflected in authority positions, it enhances trust and promotes cross-cultural care for patients and healthcare professionals alike. Moreover, embracing diversity ensures health care equity for marginalized communities and they “report better health experiences from healthcare practitioners from the same background” . However, many believe that nurse leaders are incapable of leading changes in health outcomes.
It is a misconception that physicians or policy makers hold more power over nurse leaders to drive systemic change. This view underscores the significant role of nurses and their expansive expertise. The role of nursing has evolved into a multifaceted position that not only involves caring for patients, but also educating, advocating, and leading change. Nurses are the most trusted profession, and they are often the first ones to notice when something is “off”. This unique position allows nurses to offer powerful insights during policy decision-making that directly impacts maternal health care.
The racial disparities in maternal mortalities in modern healthcare are unacceptable. Black mothers continue to face disproportionately higher health risks due to systemic bias, neglect, and structural racism that exists in our healthcare system. Nurse leaders must demand policy reform, mandate implicit bias training for all staff, and support diversifying the workforce. With unwavering commitment, nurse leaders can transform the healthcare system to ensure every mother, regardless of race, has an equal opportunity of survival.
Teya Mongsaithong is a nursing student at University of West Florida. After graduation, she plans to pursue Mother Baby or NICU. "I want to be the kind of nurse that patients feel safe around and that they can trust me with their care." When she isn't studying, Mongsaithong loves crocheting stuffed animals - which she sells online, and reading fantasy novels.
Tags: racial disparities in maternal health care, implicit bias training for nurses, Black maternal mortality crisis USA, nurse leadership in healthcare equity, improving care for women of color
The Illinois Department of Public Health said nine rural hospitals in Illinois would face closure or severe service reductions due to the cuts.
Photo: Capitol News Illinois/Andrew Adams
President Donald Trump raises his fist at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last year alongside U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (left) and then-running mate J.D. Vance (right). His largest domestic policy bill, which makes drastic cuts to Medicaid, appeared poised to become law last week.
by Peter Hancock
Capitol News Illinois
SPRINGFIELD - The U.S. House gave final passage Thursday to a budget bill that will cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years.
All three Republican members of the Illinois congressional delegation voted in favor of the bill, despite a last-minute plea from Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker who warned the bill will result more than 330,000 Illinoisans losing Medicaid coverage and have a devastating effect on some rural hospitals.
“As those who are entrusted with protecting the health of all your constituents, I urge you to oppose these harmful Medicaid provisions and work to protect healthcare access for rural Illinois families, workers, and veterans,” Pritzker wrote in the letter addressed to GOP Reps. Mike Bost, Darin LaHood and Mary Miller.
The cuts would translate to about $48 billion in Illinois over that period, or about 20% of what the state would otherwise receive, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization.
That would be one of the largest percentage reductions in any state in the nation, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Louisiana and Virginia would each see cuts of about 21%, KFF said.
The state-level analysis is based largely on Congressional Budget Office estimates showing the bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $1 trillion nationwide over the next decade.
The KFF analysis does not include estimates of the number of people who would lose Medicaid coverage under the bill, noting how that will depend on how individual states respond to the policy changes contained in the bill. But overall, it estimates the number of uninsured Americans will grow by 11.8 million.
The bill, which includes many of President Donald Trump’s domestic policy priorities – including tax cuts and increased spending on border security – passed the Senate on Tuesday by a vote of 51-50, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Both senators from Illinois, Democrats Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, voted no.
The final vote in the House was 218-214.
“The One Big, Beautiful Bill is a once-in-a-generation victory for the American people,” Miller said in a statement after the House vote. “It delivers on President Trump’s America First agenda with bold, decisive, and immediate action. This is the most pro-worker, pro-family, pro-America legislation I have voted for during my time in Congress, and I was proud to help get it across the finish line for the hardworking Americans across my district.”
Medicaid and the health care marketplace
Medicaid, which is jointly funded by states and the federal government, provides health coverage for lower-income individuals and families. It was established in 1965 alongside Medicare, the federally funded health coverage program for people over 65.
Today, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the program covers about 3.4 million people in Illinois, or a fourth of the state’s population. At a total cost of $33.7 billion a year, it is one of the largest single categories of expenditures in the state’s budget. It pays for about 40% of all childbirths in the state, according to KFF, as well as 69% of all nursing home care.
But questions about its future loomed over the Illinois General Assembly during the just-completed legislative session as both Congress and the General Assembly were crafting their respective budgets for their upcoming fiscal years.
“This was a difficult year because of the unprecedented changes and cuts that are looming on the horizon in Washington,” state Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin, said on the floor of the Illinois House during debate over a Medicaid bill on the final day of the session.
Speaking with reporters at an unrelated event Tuesday, Pritzker predicted “hundreds of thousands” of people in Illinois will lose Medicaid coverage if the Senate bill is signed into law.
“This is shameful, if you ask me, and it’s going to be very hard to recover,” Pritzker said. “The state of Illinois can’t cover the cost – no state in the country can cover the cost of reinstating that health insurance that is today paid for mostly by the federal government, partly by state government.”
Policy changes under the bill
According to KFF, most of the reductions in Medicaid spending would result from just a few policy changes contained in the bill
Those include imposing a work requirement on adults enrolled in Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” That law expanded eligibility for Medicaid to working-age adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. About 772,000 people in Illinois are enrolled under that program.
The bill also calls for requiring people enrolled through the ACA expansion to verify their continued eligibility for Medicaid twice a year instead of annually. That is expected to filter out enrollees whose incomes rise above the eligibility limit as well as those who simply fail to complete the verification process.
Another provision would limit the ability of states to finance their share of the cost of Medicaid by levying taxes on health care providers. Illinois imposes such taxes on hospitals, nursing facilities and managed care organizations that administer the program. Revenue from those taxes is used to draw down federal matching funds that are then used to fund higher reimbursement rates to health care providers.
The final version of the bill does not, however, include a provision penalizing states like Illinois that also provide state-funded health care to noncitizens who do not have lawful status to be in the United States. That provision, which was included in the earlier House version, was not included in the Senate bill, according to KFF.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Lawmakers in Springfield passed a slimmed-down Medicaid omnibus bill this year as state budget constraints and federal funding uncertainties loomed large.
by Peter Hancock Capitol News Illinois
SPRINGFIELD - Nearly every year, Illinois lawmakers pass a package of measures dealing with the state’s Medicaid program, the joint federal and state health care program that covers low-income individuals.
Known as the Medicaid omnibus bill, it sometimes includes bold components, like a 2021 initiative that made millions of dollars available to local communities to help them plan and design their own health care delivery systems. Other packages have focused on smaller changes like guaranteeing coverage for specific conditions and medications or adjusting reimbursement rates for different categories of health care providers.
And most years, the packages receive bipartisan support because they are negotiated, largely behind closed doors, by an unofficial, bipartisan Medicaid Working Group.
This year, however, lawmakers passed one of the narrowest packages in recent memory, due mainly to the Trump administration’s vows to make sweeping cuts in federal funding for the program while state lawmakers faced their own set of budget constraints.
“There were many, many, very worthy program expansions, rate increases that we considered during this process that we were unable to include because of the uncertainty in Washington,” Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin, the current chair of the Medicaid Working Group, said on the House floor Saturday.
The Illinois Medicaid program currently costs about $33.7 billion a year, according to the Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Of that, $20.9 billion, or about 62%, comes from the federal government while much of the state’s share comes from taxes levied on hospitals, nursing homes and managed care organizations – money the state uses to draw down federal matching funds.
The program covers nearly 3.5 million people in Illinois, or about a quarter of the state’s population. According to the nonpartisan health policy think tank KFF, the program pays for 40% of all child births in Illinois while covering 69% of all nursing home residents.
This year’s Medicaid omnibus bill, a 231-page amendment inserted into Senate Bill 2437, contains items that could be hugely beneficial to many Medicaid enrollees, but which don’t carry large price tags. In fact, the entire package is estimated to cost just under $1 million.
One of this year’s additions would make it easier for family members of medically fragile children who qualify for in-home nursing care to receive training to become certified family health aides, a designation that would enable them to administer medications, help with feeding and perform many of the same tasks as a certified nursing assistant.
Another provision would require all hospitals with licensed obstetric beds and birthing centers to adopt written policies that permit patients to have an Illinois Medicaid certified doula of their choosing to accompany them and provide support before, during and after labor and delivery.
Although those provisions enjoyed bipartisan support, another provision that extends coverage to certain categories of noncitizens drew Republican opposition Saturday, resulting in a partisan roll call vote.
The program covers noncitizens who meet the income requirements for Medicaid and have pending applications for asylum in the United States or for special visas as victims of trafficking, torture or other serious crimes. Those individuals can receive coverage for up to 24 months, provided they continue to meet the eligibility requirements.
Moeller said the language was not a new extension of health care benefits to noncitizens, but instead a “technical and administrative fix” to an existing program that had been requested by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
But for Republicans, the programs sounded too similar to the more controversial programs, Health Benefits for Immigrant Seniors and Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults, that extend health care to a large category of people who are not U.S. citizens, including some who are in the country illegally.
“For us on this side of the aisle, that is the poison pill,” said Rep. Norine Hammond, R-Macomb, the deputy House minority leader. “So in spite of the fact that we have article after article in here, that is very worthy of a yes vote, I would urge a no vote.”
At Gov. JB Pritzker’s request, the budget bill lawmakers passed Saturday night cancels the program for immigrant adults, which had covered about 31,000 noncitizens age 42-64. But it provides $110 million over the next year, all in state funds, for the immigrant seniors program, which covers about 8,900 noncitizens age 65 and over.
The Medicaid bill passed the House late Saturday night, 76-39. It then passed the Senate shortly after midnight, 36-19.
It next goes to Pritzker’s desk for his consideration.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
The Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the Association of Safety Net Community Hospitals and the Illinois Critical Access Hospital Network issued a statement saying they strongly oppose HB 3512.
by Grace Friedman Medill Illinois News Bureau, Capitol News Illinois
SPRINGFIELD — Health care unions continue to rally for legislation to address understaffing they say strains hospitals and threatens both patient safety and staff well-being.
Lawmakers are considering the Hospital Worker Staff and Safety bill, which would establish mandatory nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and increase support for underfunded hospitals.
The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 21 and House Bill 3512, aims to establish minimum staffing ratios in hospitals and fund critical safety-net hospitals across the state. Advocates with health care worker unions have been holding a series of rallies at the Capitol in support of the legislation in recent weeks.
“Our hospitals are staffed unsafely,” Kawana Gant, a certified nursing assistant at UChicago Medicine Ingalls Memorial Hospital in Harvey, said at a recent Statehouse rally. “I have worked short shifts where there are 30 patients and only one CNA on the floor. How can you give quality care? It is not safe.”
Gant, who has worked at Ingalls Hospital for nearly 30 years, says she has watched many of her colleagues quit due to the mental and physical toll the short staffing has had on their bodies.
“This is an opportunity for legislators to hear us, to know that these hospitals are not safe.” Gant said.
But similar versions of the proposed legislation have been introduced at the Statehouse for recent years and have failed to gain traction. Generally backed by unions representing nurses, such as the Service Employees International Union, previous staffing ratio measures have run into opposition from hospital groups that say they’re unworkable.
The proposed legislation filed this year has yet to receive a hearing in a substantive committee, meaning it will be an uphill battle for it to move by the time the legislature adjourns at the end of the month.
Like previous versions, it would mandate that hospitals “employ and schedule sufficient staff to ensure quality patient care and safety.” In addition, hospitals would have to share annual staffing metrics with the Illinois Department of Public Health to help ensure they are at proper staffing levels.
“This bill gives you a real voice,” Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, said to rallygoers. “It gives you a way to speak up when things are unsafe for you and the people who you care for.”
However, not all lawmakers are convinced that now is the right time to implement staffing ratios.
“You can mandate the staffing ratios, but if those professionals don’t exist, what have you really done?” said Rep. Norine Hammond, R-Macomb. “We’ve been trying for years to get more people into the health care field, especially after COVID, and we’re just not there yet.”
Hammond expressed concern that enforcing strict staffing requirements without enough qualified workers in the pipeline could place unrealistic burdens on hospitals. She warned that such mandates might unintentionally strain facilities already struggling with labor shortages and lead to adverse financial consequences, especially for smaller or rural hospitals.
Hospital trade groups echo those concerns, calling the legislation unworkable, burdensome and an ineffective way to solve a problem that should be addressed by the specific needs of each hospital or care center. The Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the Association of Safety Net Community Hospitals and the Illinois Critical Access Hospital Network issued a statement saying they strongly oppose HB 3512.
They said it was introduced “as a backdoor effort pushed by organized labor to impose unworkable, government-imposed health care staffing ratios in Illinois.”
“This proposal would relegate the essential, complex and nuanced protocols established to safely and efficiently staff a hospital 24/7/365, to a series of burdensome forms and onerous paperwork that hospitals would be required to submit to the (IDPH) to establish minimum staffing standards for every hospital worker, in each hospital unit,” the groups said in the statement.
Still, according to a recent Service Employees International Union survey of Chicago area hospital workers, 70% of respondents reported understaffing, and over 25% reported unsafe or unmanageable workloads. Additionally, in the same survey, 47% of the respondents stated an intent to leave their jobs soon.
To help enforce safety standards, the legislation introduces “assignment despite objection forms” that give hospital workers the opportunity to document and report any assignments that they believe are unsafe. Hospitals are then required to provide this information to IDPH, which would have to publish an annual report on all these staffing metrics. The legislation would also require IDPH to “make recommendations for minimum staffing standards for hospital workers in each hospital unit.”
In addition to protecting staff, advocates said this bill would allocate proper essential resources to underfunded hospitals around the state, including Mount Sinai Hospital on Chicago's West Side, a Level 1 trauma center that helps underserved and violence-impacted communities.
“Mount Sinai saved my son's life,” said Sonya Brown, who traveled from Chicago to Springfield recently to advocate for the safety-net hospital that treated her son after he was shot seven times in 2020.
“He was shot in the head, he was shot in the neck, he was shot in the chest, the abdomen and shoulder, and the arm,” Brown said. “If they wouldn't have gotten to him in time, he would have died.”
Mount Sinai serves as a health care provider for communities on both the South and West sides of Chicago, areas that experience some of Chicago's highest rates of gun violence. If the hospitals are not protected by measures in this legislation, advocates said, the victims in these neighborhoods risk longer travel times to alternative trauma centers.
They said the bills would help allocate essential resources and enforce staffing standards at safety-net hospitals to continue effectively serving vulnerable communities.
“All of our staff is overworked,” said Jessica Mendoza, a nursing assistant at Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital in Hines. “A lot of our veterans are coming into the VA to get help with their health, but we do not have the staff to provide it.”
Mendoza, who has worked at the Hines VA Hospital for nearly two years, said that due to the low number of staff, they rarely get a break. She noted that the lack of sufficient staffing makes it difficult to provide the level of care that the veterans need.
The health care workers and advocates gathering in Springfield at the recent rally emphasized that without sufficient staffing and resources, the quality of patient care throughout Illinois hospitals will continue declining, and worker burnout will escalate.
“They expect you to do the job of five or six people but pay you for one.” Sen. Lakesia Collins, D-Chicago, said at the rally. Prior to joining the General Assembly, Collins was a CNA in nursing homes.
As the legislation stagnates at the Capitol, hospital workers and advocates said they plan to keep organizing and sharing their stories. They said they're calling on lawmakers to prioritize frontline health care workers and the patients who depend on them.
Grace Friedman is a student in the Medill Illinois News Bureau, a program at the Medill School of Journalism that provides local news outlets with state legislature and government coverage. She can be reached at gracefriedman2025@u.northwestern.edu.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
For Black women, one of the biggest issues is finding their voice when confronting health issues.
by Paul Arco OSF Healthcare
As a practicing OB/GYN, Lisa Davis, MD, sees the maternal health challenges Black women deal with every day.
Lisa Davis, M.D. OSF HealthCare Saint Anthony Medical
“Some of the issues that face black women when it comes to maternal health are issues with blood pressure,” says Dr. Davis, chief medical officer for OSF HealthCare Saint Anthony Medical Center in Rockford, Illinois. “So what we would call preeclampsia, a risk of preterm birth, which can result in low birth weight of the infant, postpartum hemorrhage, or hemorrhage that occurs right after delivery or during the latter stages of delivery.”
And it can lead to even more serious consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the pregnancy-related death rate for Black women is three times the rate for mothers of other racial and ethnic groups.
Nationally, April 11-17 is Black Maternal Health Week, a time to raise awareness and take action to improve the health of Black mothers.
Dr. Davis says for Black women, one of the biggest issues is finding their voice when confronting health issues, which include disparities such as getting quality healthcare, dealing with underlying chronic conditions and social drivers such as income, housing, transportation or child care.
Dr. Davis stresses to her patients the importance of making their own health a high priority.
“I think for black women in the maternal health space, it's being heard and too often, there is a misperception that sometimes is out there regarding their response to pain, their use of drugs and things that are all misconceptions,” she says. “That is a big challenge for us, and that includes me, to overcome. It doesn't matter what level of education or where you live. The research has shown that it is still an issue.”
Dr. Davis adds that the medical community can do better when it comes to listening and responding to their patients’ needs. “Every patient is special and different for us to slow down and really look at that person as the person, and understand and listen,” she says. “Sometimes patients, if they're not comfortable, won't disclose what's going on in the first few minutes, but as you get ready to leave, then you might start to get the real back story. And so, it's important for us to slow down and be in the moment.”
Another need is for more Black providers, according to Dr. Davis. She says studies have shown that Black patients tend to relate to someone their own color. “It's very important, I think, for that message to be out there and to encourage young people to look at health care as an option, especially young people of color, because in the future, that's what we're going to need.”
But there are things patients can do for themselves. Dr. Davis stresses to her patients the importance of making their own health a high priority. That includes maintaining a healthy diet, getting enough rest and exercise and attending prenatal appointments.
“If you're not at your best, how can you be good for anyone else?” she asks. “I think what moms suffer from is everyone's important, but sometimes they need to take that step back and focus on themselves, so they can be 100% for their kids, for their spouse, for their parents, for their siblings.”
Let’s say you’re lucky enough to get housing at that wage. Do you then spend all your money on rent and skip nutritious meals for your family?
byJocelyn Smith OtherWords
Photo: Donna Spearman/Unsplash
I know how it feels to be hungry and homeless.
That’s why after work, I drive around town and pick up leftover food from restaurants, schools, grocery stores, and special events. My fellow volunteers and I set up in a big parking lot in our downtown to make this food available to anyone who shows up — no questions asked.
And it’s why other volunteers and I also work to find empty housing units that have fallen into disrepair because the landlords can’t afford the upkeep. We raise money and give them grants so they can bring the units up to code for use as low-income housing rentals.
I’m proud to do this work. But it’s no substitute for fair, living wages and a reliable public safety net. The minimum wage where I live is $12 — well below the $21 per hour the National Low Income Housing Coalition has calculated is necessary to afford a market rate two-bedroom rental locally.
Let’s say you’re lucky enough to get housing at that wage. Do you then spend all your money on rent and skip nutritious meals for your family? Or do you skip health care and medication? If you have a paycheck and a roof over your head, you might not qualify for food assistance, even if you don’t make enough to make ends meet.
Photo: Joel Muniz/Unsplash
Foodbanks play a crucial role in addressing hunger and ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to nutritious food when they are unable to afford or access enough food on their own.
I work, volunteer, take care of my child, and I’m fortunate enough to have housing. But I still need to rely on SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as “food stamps” — for my family.
My daughter has epilepsy, and thankfully I was able to get her onto Social Security Disability Insurance. However, she needs not only costly medication but also frequent neurological supervision and a device that helps to stop her seizures. There’s no neurologist in our town who can treat her, so we have to travel and lodge hours away for it.
when we need help, the bar for our income shouldn’t be so low that we must be nearly destitute, without any savings or emergency cushion, to qualify.
The expense is enormous, and that’s not even getting into expensive medications for my own heart problems and autoimmune disorders. Thankfully, we qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise, treatment would be out of reach.
But what does it say about our policy priorities when we need to say, “I’m disabled, taking care of my disabled daughter, I work, and I help feed my community, and yet I need assistance affording meals for my family?” These are the realities that a good society plans for so we can all thrive, no matter what obstacles life throws our way.
The programs our tax dollars pay for so families like mine can get help when we need it must be more robust. Programs like SSDI shouldn’t be so inaccessible. Food, housing, and health care shouldn’t be so expensive — and wages shouldn’t be so low that these basic necessities are unaffordable.
And when we need help, the bar for our income shouldn’t be so low that we must be nearly destitute, without any savings or emergency cushion, to qualify.
Is Congress working on any of this? Unfortunately, no. Instead, they’re doing the opposite right now.
In fact, the GOP budget proposal would slash $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion from food assistance. They’re also cutting government agencies that assist with affordable housing, transportation, safety, veterans, and children with disabilities.
Why? Because they need to find at least $4.5 trillion to give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest and largest corporations. They are reaching into my very shallow pockets, into my daughter’s life-saving medical care, and into the mouths of those who come to my food table in that parking lot.
They’re stealing from us to give to the rich, perpetuating a vicious cycle of poverty that keeps people homeless and hungry.
I don’t think that’s fair. Do you? We all deserve better.
Jocelyn Smith lives in Roswell, New Mexico. She works at a local talk radio station, runs a local Food not Bombs chapter, and volunteers at Rehab to Rental, helping to increase affordable housing options. This op-ed was produced in partnership with the Institute for Policy Studies and the Working Class Storyteller and distributed by OtherWords.org.
KHN - When Michael Adams was researching health insurance options in 2023, he had one very specific requirement: coverage for prosthetic limbs.
Adams, 51, lost his right leg to cancer 40 years ago, and he has worn out more legs than he can count. He picked a gold plan on the Colorado health insurance marketplace that covered prosthetics, including microprocessor-controlled knees like the one he has used for many years. That function adds stability and helps prevent falls.
Prosthetic coverage by private health plans varies tremendously. Even though coverage for basic prostheses may be included in a plan, many insurance companies will cap payouts for devices and impose restrictions on the types of devices approved.
Photo: ThisisEngineering/Unsplash
But when his leg needed replacing last January after about five years of everyday use, his new marketplace health plan wouldn’t authorize it. The roughly $50,000 leg with the electronically controlled knee wasn’t medically necessary, the insurer said, even though Colorado law leaves that determination up to the patient’s doctor, and his has prescribed a version of that leg for many years, starting when he had employer-sponsored coverage.
“The electronic prosthetic knee is life-changing,” said Adams, who lives in Lafayette, Colorado, with his wife and two kids. Without it, “it would be like going back to having a wooden leg like I did when I was a kid.” The microprocessor in the knee responds to different surfaces and inclines, stiffening up if it detects movement that indicates its user is falling.
People who need surgery to replace a joint typically don’t encounter similar coverage roadblocks. In 2021, 1.5 million knee or hip joint replacements were performed in United States hospitals and hospital-owned ambulatory facilities, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ. The median price for a total hip or knee replacement without complications at top orthopedic hospitals was just over $68,000 in 2020, according to one analysis, though health plans often negotiate lower rates.
To people in the amputee community, the coverage disparity amounts to discrimination.
Fewer than half of people with limb loss have been prescribed a prosthesis
“Insurance covers a knee replacement if it’s covered with skin, but if it’s covered with plastic, it’s not going to cover it,” said Jeffrey Cain, a family physician and former chair of the board of the Amputee Coalition, an advocacy group. Cain wears two prosthetic legs, having lost his after an airplane accident nearly 30 years ago.
AHIP, a trade group for health plans, said health plans generally provide coverage when the prosthetic is determined to be medically necessary, such as to replace a body part or function for walking and day-to-day activity. In practice, though, prosthetic coverage by private health plans varies tremendously, said Ashlie White, chief strategy and programs officer at the Amputee Coalition. Even though coverage for basic prostheses may be included in a plan, “often insurance companies will put caps on the devices and restrictions on the types of devices approved,” White said.
An estimated 2.3 million people are living with limb loss in the U.S., according to an analysis by Avalere, a health care consulting company. That number is expected to as much as double in coming years as people age and a growing number lose limbs to diabetes, trauma, and other medical problems.
Fewer than half of people with limb loss have been prescribed a prosthesis, according to a report by the AHRQ. Plans may deny coverage for prosthetic limbs by claiming they aren’t medically necessary or are experimental devices, even though microprocessor-controlled knees like Adams’ have been in use for decades.
Cain was instrumental in getting passed a 2000 Colorado law that requires insurers to cover prosthetic arms and legs at parity with Medicare, which requires coverage with a 20% coinsurance payment. Since that measure was enacted, about half of states have passed “insurance fairness” laws that require prosthetic coverage on par with other covered medical services in a plan or laws that require coverage of prostheses that enable people to do sports. But these laws apply only to plans regulated by the state. Over half of people with private coverage are in plans not governed by state law.
The Medicare program’s 80% coverage of prosthetic limbs mirrors its coverage for other services. Still, an October report by the Government Accountability Office found that only 30% of beneficiaries who lost a limb in 2016 received a prosthesis in the following three years.
Cost is a factor for many people.
“No matter your coverage, most people have to pay something on that device,” White said. As a result, “many people will be on a payment plan for their device,” she said. Some may take out loans.
Working with her doctor, she has appealed the decision to her insurer and been denied three times.
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a rule that would prohibit lenders from repossessing medical devices such as wheelchairs and prosthetic limbs if people can’t repay their loans.
“It is a replacement limb,” said White, whose organization has heard of several cases in which lenders have repossessed wheelchairs or prostheses. Repossession is “literally a punishment to the individual.”
Adams ultimately owed a coinsurance payment of about $4,000 for his new leg, which reflected his portion of the insurer’s negotiated rate for the knee and foot portion of the leg but did not include the costly part that fits around his stump, which didn’t need replacing. The insurer approved the prosthetic leg on appeal, claiming it had made an administrative error, Adams said.
“We’re fortunate that we’re able to afford that 20%,” said Adams, who is a self-employed leadership consultant.
Leah Kaplan doesn’t have that financial flexibility. Born without a left hand, she did not have a prosthetic limb until a few years ago.
Growing up, “I didn’t want more reasons to be stared at,” said Kaplan, 32, of her decision not to use a prosthesis. A few years ago, the cycling enthusiast got a prosthetic hand specially designed for use with her bike. That device was covered under the health plan she has through her county government job in Spokane, Washington, helping developmentally disabled people transition from school to work.
But when she tried to get approval for a prosthetic hand to use for everyday activities, her health plan turned her down. The myoelectric hand she requested would respond to electrical impulses in her arm that would move the hand to perform certain actions. Without insurance coverage, the hand would cost her just over $46,000, which she said she can’t afford.
Working with her doctor, she has appealed the decision to her insurer and been denied three times. Kaplan said she’s still not sure exactly what the rationale is, except that the insurer has questioned the medical necessity of the prosthetic hand. The next step is to file an appeal with an independent review organization certified by the state insurance commissioner’s office.
A prosthetic hand is not a luxury device, Kaplan said. The prosthetic clinic has ordered the hand and made the customized socket that will fit around the end of her arm. But until insurance coverage is sorted out, she can’t use it.
At this point she feels defeated. “I’ve been waiting for this for so long,” Kaplan said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Dear Editor,
Should Illinois legalize assisted-suicide? Some state senators think so. If allowed, vulnerable people who are sick, elderly, disabled, and those with mental illness and dementia will become targets.
As the father of a Downs Syndrome toddler, I am extremely alarmed by this proposal.
No one should be comfortable with promoting a cheaper, easier alternative to life’s struggles in order to ignore their responsibilities to people who need their help.
Canada’s law, with 79% support, was promoted as a last resort for the terminally ill. Support has plummeted to 30% because of the disregard toward vulnerable citizens such as anyone with an illness and those who are disabled.
Canadians facing homelessness and poverty are feeling compelled to end their lives rather than be a “burden” to society.
In 2023, 76.2% of Belgium euthanasia was administered to people with physical and psychological issues, including personality disorders, depression, and Alzheimer’s.
A Netherland law that took effect on February 1, 2024, allows parents to euthanize their children even if the child doesn’t want to be killed.
Proponents can call it “dignity,” but it is cruel and heartless to disregard human life.
If you agree, please let your state senator know.
David E. Smith, Executive Director
Illinois Family Institute
Abortion is a critical, if not the most important, issue for many voters – especially women, according to polls – ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion. As an academic, my scholarship focuses on reproductive health law, health care law and family law. In this piece, and in anticipation of the election, I briefly consider the broad strokes of each candidate’s past positions on and actions regarding abortion.
Harris’ abortion record
As California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which, among other requirements, mandated that crisis pregnancy centers inform patients that they are not licensed medical facilities and that abortion services are available elsewhere. These centers are nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant people against abortion, sometimes using deceptive tactics.
As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses.
In 2017, Harris investigated the tactics of undercover videographers at Planned Parenthood clinics who, through deception and fraud, sought to entrap clinicians into making controversial, though legal, statements, and who possibly contravened state law on secret recordings.
Conversely, Harris championed various bills that would have protected and advanced reproductive rights. In 2019, for example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal statutory right to abortion. It also did not pass.
Finally, during Harris’ tenure as vice president, the Biden administration has used its executive power to ease barriers to abortion access, primarily through federal agency actions. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, removed a rule in 2021 that prohibited mailing medication abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance affirming that federal law requires emergency rooms to perform an abortion when it is medically necessary to stabilize a patient needing urgent care.
The Biden-Harris administration also supported federal legislation that includes accommodations for abortion. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide time off for a worker’s miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who wouldoverturn Roe v. Wade.
Although the Biden-Harris administration’s abortion policy is not necessarily based on just the vice president, Harris, since Roe’s reversal, has been at the helm of the administration’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour, speaking nationally in support of a right to abortion. Harris has also stressed the damage done in 14 states, in particular, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy or after six weeks of gestation.
Trump’s abortion record
During Trump’s tenure as president, he supported various changes – in the form of judicial appointments, federal funding and agency actions, some led by anti-abortion federal employees – in the service of making it harder for people to gain access to abortion care.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He nominated three justices – Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – who joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing Roe in June 2022.
The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to replace the Affordable Care Act and undermine its coverage for contraceptives as well as its neutral stance on insurance coverage for abortion. Trump supported bills such as the never-passed American Health Care Act to limit abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.
Trump also appointed several people with anti-abortion positions to his administration, including Charmaine Yoest, the former CEO for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, who served as a top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration advanced numerous other anti-abortion policies. For instance, the Department of Human and Health Services’ 2017 strategic plan defined life as beginning at conception – a decision that supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs.
Finally, the Trump administration adopted an anti-abortion approach when it came to foreign policy. Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from performing abortions or referring patients for abortion care elsewhere. Under the Mexico City Policy, Trump in 2017 removed US$8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid for overseas programs that provide or refer for abortions.
In the coming weeks, both candidates will have a lot to say about abortion, possibly refining or changing their stances on aspects of abortion law. In assessing what both candidates have to say about how their administration will approach abortion, voters might consider what we know about their past actions.
CHAMPAIGN - Every August, communities across the United States come together to celebrate National Breastfeeding Month, a time dedicated to promoting the benefits and importance of breastfeeding. This month-long observance aims to raise awareness, provide education, and encourage support for breastfeeding mothers and their families.
In conjunction with National Breastfeeding Month, the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District (CUPHD) announced its third annual breastfeeding supplies drive. Building upon their past success the drive will take place during the entire month of August.
Sarah Chai/PEXELS
The donated supplies will be given to parents enrolled in the WIC Breastfeeding Peer Counselor Program. This program offers support to expectant and postpartum parents, helping them learn about breastfeeding and overcome any obstacles they may encounter in achieving their individual breastfeeding goals.
The WIC program's mission is to safeguard the health of low-income pregnant women, new mothers, breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk. It provides nutritious food to improve diets, offers education on healthy eating and breastfeeding, and connects participants to healthcare services.
National Breastfeeding Month was established in 2011 by the United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) to align with World Breastfeeding Week, which takes place during the first week of August. The initiative was created to bring greater attention to breastfeeding as a key component of public health and to advocate for policies that support breastfeeding mothers. The month-long celebration serves as a platform to highlight the critical role that breastfeeding plays in the health and well-being of both mothers and infants.
Breastfeeding provides numerous benefits for both mothers and their babies. For infants, breast milk is a complete source of nutrition that contains antibodies, enzymes, and hormones crucial for their development. It helps protect against infections, reduces the risk of chronic conditions, and promotes a healthy weight. For mothers, breastfeeding can lower the risk of certain cancers, aid in postpartum recovery, and strengthen the bond with their baby. Additionally, breastfeeding has economic benefits, reducing the need for formula and healthcare costs associated with treating illnesses.
Through the breastfeeding supplies drive, CUPHD hopes to support WIC families by providing them with the supplies they need to breastfeed longer to meet their breastfeeding goals and improve their infant's health.
Items needed include nursing pads, pillows, and covers; breast milk storage bags; electric and manual breast pumps; and breast pump accessories. All items must be received new and sealed in their original packaging.
Photo: Brytny.com/Unsplash
National Breastfeeding Month is a vital initiative that brings attention to the importance of breastfeeding for maternal and infant health. By participating in this celebration, individuals and organizations can help create a supportive environment that empowers mothers and promotes the well-being of future generations.
A curated Amazon wish list is available for virtual donations. Donated items will be sent directly to CUPHD to distribute to clients enrolled in the Breastfeeding Peer Counselor program. Donations from this list can be made year-round.
Products can also be donated in person at CUPHD, August 1-31, at the WIC intake window inside the CUPHD main lobby.
Ways to donate:
Online: Amazon wish list
The wish list will remain open year-round, 24/7.
In-person:
CUPHD Champaign WIC desk (201 West Kenyon Road, Champaign): Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.—noon, 1:00 p.m.—4:30 p.m.
CUPHD Rantoul WIC desk (520 East Wabash Avenue, #2, Rantoul): Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, 8:30 a.m.—noon, 1:00 p.m.—4:30 p.m.
Orchard Downs clinic (2040 South Orchard Street, Unit 2040-A, Urbana): Thursday, 8:30 a.m.—noon, 1:00 p.m.—4:30 p.m.
Urbana Farmers Market WIC booth
Saturday, August 24, 7:00 a.m.—noon
Come celebrate National Breastfeeding Month with breastfeeding-related games, giveaways, information about WIC and breastfeeding laws, and more!
Fatal heart attack risks may be higher during days with extreme heat & air pollution
The combination of soaring heat and smothering fine particulate pollution may double the risk of heart attack death, according to a new study of more than 202,000 heart attack deaths in China. The study published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal Circulation.
ST. JOSEPH - St. Joseph-Ogden's Tyler Hess is congratulated by teammates after scoring a goal in the first half. The junior led the team to a 5-3 win over University High on Wednesday at Dick Duval Field. Hess, who is the top finisher in the area with a hat trick in the team's first three matches this season, will try to make it four in a row in the undefeated Spartans' road game against the Vermilion Valley Conference's Hoopeston Area Cornjerkers on Friday. More photos and a game recap coming soon.
by Ben Szalinski
