Monthly Archive for November, 2011

Birth Control Under Attack

Published on November 22, 2011 in Debra Ness, Repro Health Watch and Reproductive Health. 5 Comments Tags: .

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

Anti-choice extremists are trying to undermine women’s right to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. The health reform law covers preventive services, including birth control, without copays, deductibles or other added cost. For most women of reproductive age, contraception and birth control are the care they need most, the care they get most regularly, and their main reason for interacting with health providers, so this is one of the greatest benefits to women from the new law.

We were thrilled in August when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed and announced that women will have access to all approved contraceptive methods without co-pays or added cost under the Affordable Care Act.

But all women need this coverage. The administration included an unfair, broad — and potentially terribly harmful — exemption for certain religious employers, who would not have to provide coverage for contraception to their employees.

Too much is on the line for these women who rely on insurance to pay for their birth control. That’s why we’re urging President Obama to do what’s right for women’s health — to remove this religious refusal provision and not leave any women behind.

Tell President Obama that all women need access to contraception without co-pays or added cost, including women who work for religious employers!

Let’s not leave any woman to fend for herself.

A Blog Rally to Protect Medicaid

Published on November 17, 2011 in Andrea Friedman and Reproductive Health. 1 Comment
Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs

There’s been a lot in the news lately about the so-called “supercommittee” in Congress, which has been tasked with trimming more than a trillion dollars from the federal deficit. It’s the supercommittee’s job to figure out which programs will get the budget axe.

It’s old news that critical government programs are on the chopping block, but what these news articles often fail to report is the human cost of cutting these essential programs, including Medicaid.

With that in mind, and with the deadline fast approaching, we’ve asked our fellow members of the Protect Medicaid Coalition to share their thoughts on what’s at stake with the supercommittee’s work– and what its recommendations could mean for women’s health.

Take a look at their blog posts below – what we’ve symbolically called a blog “rally” to show our support for the “Wake Up Congress” rally today at the U.S. Senate – and then join the conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag: #ProtectMedicaid!

Blog Rally Banner

Dear Supercommittee: There’s Nothing “Super” about Cutting Medicaid

Andrea Friedman, National Partnership for Women & Families

As a nation, our conversations often revolve around “family values.” Yet when it comes to showing that we truly value families, politicians sometimes fall short.

At present, Congress is deliberating how best to cut the deficit – and one of our most family-friendly programs may be on the chopping block as the so-called supercommittee searches for cuts. But there’s no question about it: if Medicaid funding is cut, America’s women and families will suffer. More >>

Super Committee and Health Care: How Potential Cuts to Medicaid Could Harm Low-Income Women and Girls

By Davida Silverman, Staff Attorney, NHeLP

“Shared sacrifices.”  “Tough decisions.”  “Everything is on the table.”  This is the rhetoric being used to describe the Super Committee’s daunting task of reducing the national deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.  And it makes sense that politicians and lawmakers want to frame deficit reduction as a great equalizer – “everyone has to give a little” makes it easier to justify major changes, namely budget cuts to federal programs.

 Let’s face it:  there is no equality in what they are doing.  Regardless of the rhetoric, one thing is clear: the poor and vulnerable will be the losers in any political deal.  More >>

Tell Congress That Preserving Medicaid is Critically Important to Women and Families

By Danielle Garrett, Health Policy Analyst, National Women’s Law Center

The deadline for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (The Super-Committee) to reach an agreement is fast approaching. The Committee is undoubtedly debating cuts to many programs that provide vital services to millions of Americans, including Medicaid. In these last days leading up to the Committee deadline, we must let Congress know that an agreement that includes Medicaid cuts could be devastating to women and families.

It’s easy to view Medicare as a program that helps your parents or grandparents and Medicaid as a program only for the poorest of the poor — a program that doesn’t affect you or anyone you know. But you would be surprised how many people, including people you probably know, are helped by the Medicaid program. More >>

Keep Medicaid Safe to Keep Women Healthy!

By Keely Monroe, Program Coordinator, Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need

With a little over a week for the Congressional super committee to complete its work, we must raise our voices to ensure Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are protected in the final deficit reduction package. 

What does the Super Committee have to do with women’s health?  A LOT, because the committee is considering making big cuts in programs like Medicaid that are important for the health of women across our lifespan! More >>

How Washington’s Budget Priorities Injure Immigrant Women

By Anjela Jenkins, Policy Analyst, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

Many women in the United States take a huge step forward under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). With the ACA’s provisions for more affordable private healthcare, expanded access to public health coverage, and mandated insurance coverage for the wide range of preventive care services, the future looks bright. But the Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—more commonly known as the supercommittee—is changing that. Many women, including many Latinas, stand to be hurt as the supercommittee tries to reach a deal to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. More >>

Why Now is the Time to Support, Not Undermine, Medicaid

By Natalie Camastra, Policy Intern, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), as the only national organization advocating for reproductive justice and health for millions of Latinas, their families and their communities, strongly urges the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or “Supercommittee” to reexamine their logic when considering cuts or reforms to Medicaid in order to achieve deficit reduction. In this time of economic recession, high rates of uninsurance, and disturbingly high levels of poverty, especially for Latinas, NLIRH argues we must reaffirm our commitment to the health of the nation’s most vulnerable, not inhibit Medicaid’s ability to serve these groups. Cuts will only serve to decrease the positive economic impact Medicaid has in our states and potentially raise health care costs by shifting towards disease treatment and emergency room costs: both consequences have a real human toll that the Supercommittee must take into account as the November 23 deadline approaches. More >>

 

 

 

Dear Supercommittee: There’s Nothing “Super” about Cutting Medicaid

Published on November 17, 2011 in Andrea Friedman and Medicaid. 1 Comment

Blog Rally Banner

Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership

As a nation, our conversations often revolve around “family values.” Yet when it comes to showing that we truly value families, politicians sometimes fall short.

At present, Congress is deliberating how best to cut the deficit – and one of our most family-friendly programs may be on the chopping block as the so-called supercommittee searches for cuts. But there’s no question about it: if Medicaid funding is cut, America’s women and families will suffer.

Currently Medicaid pays for 48 percent of all births in the United States, and 64 percent of births resulting from unintended pregnancies. One in four children is insured through Medicaid. The program plays a significant role in improving maternal health and reducing infant mortality, low birth weight babies, and avoidable birth defects. It is the single largest source of public funds for family planning services and provides essential reproductive health services. And it is a vital source of primary and preventive care, covering doctor and hospital visits, cancer screenings, access to prescription drugs, and other services that help keep women healthy.

In short: Medicaid provides critical health care for millions of lower income women who would otherwise be uninsured and go without the care they need.

Reduced federal funding could force states to cut already-low reimbursement rates to providers, which will likely cause some providers to withdraw from the program or limit the number of Medicaid patients they see. It would also force states to impose deeper cuts that restrict eligibility or reduce Medicaid services. This means dramatically higher out-of-pocket costs for health care for those who need help the most.  In practice, it would mean denying women and children care they urgently need.

In this recession, millions depend on Medicaid family planning services to avoid unintended pregnancies. They also depend on Medicaid for the care they need to have healthy babies.  Already, maternal mortality rates in the United States are among the highest in any industrialized nation. At a time when women and families are struggling to make ends meet, any cut to the Medicaid program would have serious – and potentially catastrophic – implications for millions of women and children.

 

Super Committee and Health Care: How Potential Cuts to Medicaid Could Harm Low-Income Women and Girls

Published on November 17, 2011 in Davida Silverman and Medicaid. 0 Comments

Blog Rally Banner

Davida Silverman

Davida Silverman, Staff Attorney, NHeLP

“Shared sacrifices.”  “Tough decisions.”  “Everything is on the table.”  This is the rhetoric being used to describe the Super Committee’s daunting task of reducing the national deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.  And it makes sense that politicians and lawmakers want to frame deficit reduction as a great equalizer – “everyone has to give a little” makes it easier to justify major changes, namely budget cuts to federal programs.

 Let’s face it:  there is no equality in what they are doing.  Regardless of the rhetoric, one thing is clear: the poor and vulnerable will be the losers in any political deal. 

Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Super Committee is charged with creating a proposal by November 23 that reduces the national deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.  The Super Committee’s plan may cut federal spending, increase revenues, or any combination thereof.   Entitlement programs, like Medicaid, are not exempt from the Super Committee process, and it appears that entitlement programs may face significant cuts.  (There is also a chance the Super Committee may fail to reach an agreement, or that the agreement will not be signed into law.  In that case, a process for across-the-board cuts called “sequestration” will occur.  Although Medicaid is exempt from sequestration, sequestration threatens other health programs, including programs that provide women’s health and reproductive health services).

At this point, no one knows what the Super Committee will propose.  However, cuts to Medicaid appear in recent proposals from both Democrats and Republicans.  The most recent Democratic proposal included a $50 billion cut to Medicaid; the latest Republican plan includes $770 billion in spending cuts, which includes cuts to Medicaid.

 And what is the largest population most likely to be affected by those cuts?  Women. 

Women tend to be poorer than men and are more likely to be employed in low-wage or part-time jobs that do not offer insurance.  As a result, women account for 3 in 4 adult Medicaid enrollees, and a little over half of the general Medicaid population.  At all ages, women make up the majority of Medicaid enrollees.  For example:

  • In 2008, over 13 million women of reproductive age (15-45 years old) were able to get reproductive health services through Medicaid.  These services include: family planning services and supplies, pregnancy-related services (prenatal care as well as services for other health conditions that might complicate pregnancy), labor, delivery, and post-partum care.  Funding restrictions for abortion leave only extremely narrow exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest and where continuing the pregnancy will endanger the life of the woman.  In sum, Medicaid helps women plan for wanted and healthy pregnancies.
  • Half of all women with disabilities (a little over 4 million women) are covered by Medicaid.  Medicaid coverage provides access to a broad array of services, including physician services, home health services, and, oftentimes, durable medical equipment and prescription drugs.
  • Over 4.5 million older, low-income women rely on Medicaid, and elderly women (age 65 or older) account for 20% of all female enrollees.  Medicaid coverage assists elderly women, some of whom have disabilities or chronic conditions, with long-term health services, such as nursing home care and home health services.
  • Medicaid provides coverage for nearly 30 million children, providing them a comprehensive set of services including screenings and treatments (EPSDT), check-ups, physician and hospital visits, age appropriate counseling and education and vision and dental care.  Although there isn’t a well-documented data source for the number of girls enrolled in Medicaid, it can be reasonably assumed that at least half of the children enrolled in Medicaid are female.

Women enrolled in Medicaid are already feeling the effects of state budget cutbacks as states across the country are trying to balance their budgets by drastically cutting costs.  As a whole, these cuts harm women, and their families, who depend on Medicaid for health care because the cuts negatively impact their access to providers and services.  For example, some states, like California, have cut medical provider reimbursement rates.  When reimbursement rates are too low, providers pull out of the program, and make it even harder for Medicaid enrollees to gain timely access to services they need.  Meanwhile, changes in some states, like Arizona, are forcing thousands of low-income and under-resourced individuals to go without Medicaid coverage.

In addition, the recent economic climate has spurred more states to run their Medicaid programs through managed care organizations (MCOs) as a way to save money.  MCOs are attractive for states because the state pays a flat (capitated) amount to the MCO, regardless of how much or how little care is provided to patients.  However, MCOs do not always translate to better coverage, especially when rates and networks are inadequate to provide good patient care.  For women’s health, MCOs can be especially problematic; some MCOs may not offer comprehensive women’s health service, or they may refuse to provide services they find “morally objectionable,” like contraception.

Health care reform expands Medicaid eligibility starting in 2014, and it is estimated that by 2019, 16 million new individuals will receive coverage through Medicaid or CHIP (a public-funded health care program for low-income children).  The Medicaid expansion will be transformational for low-income women – but only if Medicaid remains fully funded to accommodate the influx of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees.  Decreasing Medicaid funding will undermine one of the main tenets of health reform: ensuring that people, regardless of the size of their wallet, can obtain health care coverage.

In short, ensuring access to quality health care requires well-funded Medicaid programs.  Although Medicaid coverage improves health outcomes and increases health utilization, coverage alone does not guarantee access to quality health care.   Without adequate funding, states will continue cutting their programs, and millions of women and girls enrolled in Medicaid will face greater barriers to care.

This post was written by Davida Silverman, Staff Attorney at the National Health Law Program (NHeLP). NHeLP is a legal non-profit that protects and advances the health rights of low-income and underserved individuals through policy work and litigation.  For more information about Medicaid, Medicaid coverage of reproductive health, and the political and budgetary threats to Medicaid, please visit NHeLP’s website at www.healthlaw.org.

NHeLP logo

 

 

 

Tell Congress That Preserving Medicaid is Critically Important to Women and Families

Published on November 17, 2011 in Danielle Garrett and Medicaid. 0 Comments

Blog Rally Banner

Danielle Garrett

Danielle Garrett, Healthy Policy Analyst, National Women's Law Center

The deadline for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (The Super-Committee) to reach an agreement is fast approaching. The Committee is undoubtedly debating cuts to many programs that provide vital services to millions of Americans, including Medicaid. In these last days leading up to the Committee deadline, we must let Congress know that an agreement that includes Medicaid cuts could be devastating to women and families.

It’s easy to view Medicare as a program that helps your parents or grandparents and Medicaid as a program only for the poorest of the poor — a program that doesn’t affect you or anyone you know. But you would be surprised how many people, including people you probably know, are helped by the Medicaid program. Medicaid helps pay for your widowed grandma’s nursing home and other long-term care expenses, doctor visits for your aunt who can’t work because of her MS, and pediatrician visits for your neighbor’s kids. Medicaid pays for prenatal care for pregnant women and family planning services to millions of men and women across the country. Americans of all ages, races, and life circumstances rely on the program to get the health care they need.

Medicaid is an especially critical source of health care for women and their families, particularly elderly women, women with disabilities, and mothers and children.

  • The program covers 6 million seniors who rely on it to help them pay for their Medicare premiums and long terms care needs, among other important health services. The program is especially important to elderly women (who make up 70% of senior Medicaid beneficiaries), since they have lower average incomes, tend to live longer than their male counterparts, and are more dependent on long term care. For many of these women, Medicare alone cannot meet their health care needs and Medicaid plays an indispensable role in ensuring their health and economic security.
  • Medicaid also covers almost 9 million Americans with disabilities who rely on the program for basic health care services and long term care services and supports such as home health aides, medical devices and prescriptions. Medicaid is an especially critical source of care for women with disabilities. In fact, half of all adult women with disabilities receive health coverage through Medicaid. Again, even if some of these women have Medicare, they still need Medicaid to help with cost sharing and coverage of services that Medicare does not cover.
  • Women also comprise the vast majority of non-elderly adults on Medicaid, most of whom are mothers struggling to raise their children in tough economic times. Medicaid also helps the children of these mothers. The program covers 1 out of every 4 American children, providing them with the care they need to grow up healthy.

The bottom line is this: Medicaid provides necessary medical services to a diverse group of beneficiaries and is an especially important source of health care for women. Cuts to Medicaid would therefore be devastating to the physical and financial health of women and families. We need your help to make sure these proposals don’t become a reality.

Cross-posted from the National Women’s Law Center blog.

NWLC Logo

 

 

 

 

Keep Medicaid Safe to Keep Women Healthy!

Published on November 17, 2011 in Keely Monroe and Medicaid. 2 Comments

Blog Rally Banner

Keely Monroe

Keely Monroe, Program Coordinator, Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need

With a little over a week for the Congressional super committee to complete its work, we must raise our voices to ensure Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are protected in the final deficit reduction package. 

What does the Super Committee have to do with women’s health?  A LOT, because the committee is considering making big cuts in programs like Medicaid that are important for the health of women across our lifespan!

Medicaid is essential to the health care women need because we are the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries and will suffer disproportionately if cuts are made.  Medicaid provides vital health care services to the most vulnerable and underserved women in our country.  This care includes family planning, prenatal and maternity care to breast and cervical cancer screening and, later in life, long-term care in the community or nursing facilities.  The ACA expands Medicaid eligibility so that more women will have coverage for the care they need (starting in 2014).  If the Super Committee cuts the Medicaid budget, they threaten the ACA’s guarantee to do that.

Make your voice heard!  Tell the Super Committee that they must REJECT a plan that cuts Medicaid.  Instead, we need to urge them to support a balance approach to deficit reduction, including revenue increases, so that women’s health will be protected.

 For more information on Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need, please visit us at http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/.

Raising Women's Voices logo

 

 

 

How Washington’s Budget Priorities Injure Immigrant Women

Published on November 17, 2011 in Anjela Jenkins and Medicaid. 0 Comments

Blog Rally Banner

Many women in the United States take a huge step forward under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). With the ACA’s provisions for more affordable private healthcare, expanded access to public health coverage, and mandated insurance coverage for the wide range of preventive care services, the future looks bright. But the Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—more commonly known as the supercommittee—is changing that. Many women, including many Latinas, stand to be hurt as the supercommittee tries to reach a deal to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Safety net programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, have received great deal of attention as targets for cost-savings: proposals have suggested $50 billion to $185 billion in reductions on Medicaid spending, while most proposals seek to chop $400-500 billion from Medicare.

Cuts to both of these programs would be devastating for millions of Americans, including Latinas. About one-quarter of Latinos are Medicaid recipients, including 14% of Latinas aged 19-64. Considering that almost three times as many Latinas are uninsured as receive Medicaid, some Latinas may be newly-eligible for Medicaid under the ACA expansions. Medicare cuts would also be devastating for the health of elderly Latinas: 58% of Latina Medicare beneficiaries live on annual incomes of less than $10,000 (compared with less than a quarter of white women at that income level).

As we wait to see if the supercommittee recommends massive cuts to these basic safety net programs, one thing is both clear and painfully ironic: some the same individuals who think the U.S. apparently cannot afford our already bare-bones safety net programs think that we can afford to spend billions of dollars every year on immigration enforcement and detention, where our mothers, sisters, and friends lose their health, their dignity, their families, and even their lives.

Apparently, it is not a priority for the U.S. to spend money on maintain basic healthcare for our children, parents, and grandparents. Instead, we prioritize paying the price of incarcerating over 30,000 immigration detainees per day, which adds up to hundreds of thousands of immigration detainees per year (to say nothing of similarly high numbers of penal inmates who languish in jails and prisons for minor drug crimes or because they couldn’t afford a decent lawyer). For fiscal year (FY) 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enjoyed a budget of over $5.5 billion, approximately half of which was allocated to detention and removal. The House of Representatives proposed to increase the amount of money for immigration detention and removal next year; for FY2012, the House approved monies that amount to $5.5 million per day to be spent on immigration detention. While relatively small, compared to the $50+ billion proposed to be slashed from Medicaid, it is clear that there is fat to be cut from the country’s annual expenditures, rather than getting rid of the meat and potatoes of many struggling Americans.

The supercommittee may see our social programs as bloated or ripe for the picking, but people need them now more than ever. Even so, the U.S. diverts valuable resources—to the tune of billions of dollars per year— into the pockets of large corporations who carry out the government’s ill-advised policies that harm our communities. Latinas of all ages and immigration statuses have a great deal riding on the supercommittee’s upcoming recommendations as Washington has consistently shown that Latinas’ rights are not on the list of priorities. National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health is committed to showing how cutting social spending will hurt Latinas’ health; how prioritizing spending on the incarceration of immigrants is an insult to their dignity; and how sacrificing the health of many low-income residents of this country in service of putting money in the pockets of large corporations should be an affront to everyone’s sense of justice.

Cross-posted from the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health blog.

Latina Institute Logo

Why Now is the Time to Support, Not Undermine, Medicaid

Published on November 17, 2011 in Medicaid and Natalie Camastra. 2 Comments

Blog Rally Banner

Natalie Camastra

Natalie Camastra, Policy Intern, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), as the only national organization advocating for reproductive justice and health for millions of Latinas, their families and their communities, strongly urges the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or “Supercommittee” to reexamine their logic when considering cuts or reforms to Medicaid in order to achieve deficit reduction. In this time of economic recession, high rates of uninsurance, and disturbingly high levels of poverty, especially for Latinas, NLIRH argues we must reaffirm our commitment to the health of the nation’s most vulnerable, not inhibit Medicaid’s ability to serve these groups. Cuts will only serve to decrease the positive economic impact Medicaid has in our states and potentially raise health care costs by shifting towards disease treatment and emergency room costs: both consequences have a real human toll that the Supercommittee must take into account as the November 23 deadline approaches.

Medicaid is a lifeline for Latinas, their families and their communities. Recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more than one-in-four Latinos, and one-in-two Latino children, depend on Medicaid or CHIP – Medicaid’s Children’s Health Insurance Program – for their health insurance.

One of the ways in which Medicaid supports Latina health is through its economic support of community health centers (CHCs,) which provide care regardless of one’s ability to pay. About 36% of community health centers patients rely on Medicaid to pay for their services and about 35% of CHC patients are Latino.  CHCs are also an especially important lifeline for Latina immigrants, who do not qualify for Medicaid because of the five-year disqualification period for lawful permanent residents. In 2009, CHCs treated 865,000 migrant and seasonal farm workers, many of whom were Latinas. Although not one in the same, Medicaid supports the viability of community health centers to provide key services to Latinas, especially recent immigrants.

Many of the proposals submitted for Supercommittee consideration involve some form of cuts or reforms to Medicaid. Most reforms would have the impact of shifting costs to already-cash strapped states to pay for their Medicaid programs.  These states, already struggling with their own budget woes, would most likely cut reimbursements to providers, disincentivize service providers’ participation in Medicaid, and therefore reduce services and contribute to worse health outcomes for the poor, disabled, and pregnant women.

While highlighting Medicaid’s positive impact for our communities should be reason enough to protect Medicaid, we recognize the importance of debunking the idea that cutting or shifting Medicaid costs to states will lead to deficit reduction. Here are ways in which this thinking is incorrect:

  • Medicaid is especially necessary during a recession, let alone the greatest recession since the Great Depression. In recent years, not only has private health insurance been out of reach for the unemployed and underemployed, but many have fallen into the poverty bracket that qualifies them for Medicaid.
    • Medicaid works counter-cyclically from the economy.  During times of economic recession, Medicaid enrollment and spending increases.
    • In the year between 2009 and 2010, while unfortunately one million more Latinos fell into poverty, the uninsurance rate went slightly down during that year because more Latinos became covered through Medicaid.
  • Medicaid directly stimulates the economies of statesby putting doctors and our health care system to work.
    • Medicaid directs federal dollars into state economies, employs health sector professionals, which sets off the economic multiplier effect, and increases state tax revenues. Community health centers have an economic impact of $12.6 billion in their local communities and by 2015, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, community health centers could add nearly 300,000 jobs and generate $54 billion in total economic activity.
  • Medicaid gives access to preventive services for our nation’s most vulnerable populations, which helps decrease the need for costly health care, such as disease treatment and emergency room visits.
    • Over five years, community health centers could save our health care system $122 billion dollars by providing primary and preventive care.
  • Medicaid is an economically efficient program.
    • The high cost of medical care has been driving up the cost of health insurance. Over the past ten years, Medicaid has been containing the cost of medical care better than the private health insurance market has.
  • Medicaid is designed to help our nation’s most vulnerable.
    • The human toll of proposed Medicaid reforms can be very high. We urge our Congressional leaders to not place the burden of our federal budget woes on the backs of our nation’s most poor.

The reality is that the Great Recession has hit the Latino community especially hard and the health care uninsurance rate for Latinas continues to be higher than for other groups. At this time of economic difficulty, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health continues to advocate a standard of care that will respect the dignity of Latina women. We recognize that protecting the Medicaid program is an essential part of that mission.

This blog post is cross-posted from the National Latina Institute on Reproductive Health’s blog.

Latina Institute Logo

Paid Sick Days: Healthier Families, More Than $1 Billion in Savings

Published on November 17, 2011 in Vicki Shabo and Work & Family. 0 Comments

Vicki Shabo, Director of Work and Family Programs

Health reform has underscored the imperative to increase access to health care, improve quality and reduce costs. According to a thought-provoking new report released by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) this week, paid sick days can – and should – play a significant role in reaching these goals.

Paid Sick Days and Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Room Visits finds that, regardless of workers’ access to health insurance, there are undeniable connections between the ways in which private sector workers use the health care system and whether they have access to paid sick days. And these connections can result in significant costs for working families’ health, their financial security and the effectiveness of the system overall.

Currently, more than 40 percent of the private sector workforce – and more than 80 percent of the lowest-wage workers – don’t have paid sick days. These workers often can’t afford to lose income or risk their jobs by taking unpaid time off to get the medical care they need. They are left with no choice but to use expensive emergency rooms to get primary care for themselves or their families during non-work hours, or to delay getting care until their health problems worsen and they need care for more severe conditions – at even greater costs.

IWPR’s findings demonstrate that the barrier that prevents workers without paid sick days from getting timely, affordable care is a huge and costly problem for workers, their families and our nation. According to the report, workers with paid sick days are less likely than those without to use hospital emergency rooms or to delay care for themselves or family members. They also report better health. The analysis reveals that if all workers had paid sick days, 1.3 million emergency room visits could be prevented each year. The country would save an astounding $1.1 billion in health care costs annually. And more than $500 million of these savings would be to public programs like the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare and Medicaid.

Emergency room use is a significant source of rising health care costs, according to the report. In fact, emergency room use has risen 30 percent in the last decade. Controlling these costs could benefit our health care system in important ways. And, as IWPR concludes, increasing workers’ access to paid sick days is a “low-cost route to reining in emergency department costs – while simultaneously improving health.” In other words, paid sick days are a win-win.

With this new report, IWPR has pinpointed a modest, common sense way to increase access to health care and reduce costs. Congress should take note of the new data and the growing support for paid sick days in states and cities across the country and move quickly to pass the Healthy Families Act. By doing so, it will increase access to paid sick days, promote the health of working families and save money for taxpayers and the government. There couldn’t be a better time to take this essential step.

Read the full Institute for Women’s Policy Research report here.

Gaps in Access to Paid Leave are Significant, Sustained – and Unacceptable

Published on November 15, 2011 in Debra Ness and Work & Family. 1 Comment

Debra Ness, President

The Census Bureau released a report last week that every family and every lawmaker should note. Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961–2008 builds on data collected over the past 40 years, adding new data from 2006 to 2008, to offer a new look at how families in this country are managing work when babies are born.

The results are striking. The report finds that use of paid leave among first-time mothers has been largely stagnant for nearly a decade. From 2006 to 2008, more than half of first-time mothers either quit their jobs or took unpaid leave. Some women are financially secure enough to quit their jobs to spend more time with their babies without falling into poverty or enduring hardship – but for most women, quitting a job or taking unpaid leave means risking their families’ economic security.

What is especially striking about the new data is the stark divide based on socioeconomic status. The new report finds that two-thirds of first-time mothers with bachelor’s degrees or higher (66 percent) take paid leave, compared to only one in five mothers without high school diplomas (19 percent).

We know from working on this issue for years that working moms who don’t take paid leave aren’t ignoring the option to do so; they simply have no access to paid leave. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ National Compensation Survey reports that a mere 11 percent of working people in this country have access to paid leave through their employers, and fewer than 40 percent have access to employer-provided short-term disability insurance.

Context is important here. The new Census data goes through 2008 – so it does not cover the recession and jobless recovery the last few years have brought. The cutbacks and job insecurity most families are experiencing now aren’t reflected. Since the recession hit, more women are working part time. The new Census report tells us that only 21 percent of part-time working mothers take paid leave, compared to 56 percent of those who work full time. So women who used to have paid leave in their full-time jobs may have lost it altogether when they transitioned to part-time work.

This report is one more reminder that our workplace policies are not advancing to meet the needs of 21st century workers. Access to paid leave is a fundamental workplace policy guaranteed in every developed country except the United States. It’s time to change that.

Women who take paid leave work longer into their pregnancies and return to work sooner. That’s good for families’ short- and long-term economic security, good for businesses and good for our economy.

Now more than ever, it’s time for Congress to adopt the national paid leave standard the country needs.