Archive for the 'Debra Ness' Category

Through the Looking Glass on Contraceptive Coverage

Published on February 3, 2012 in Debra Ness. 0 Comments

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Birth control is basic health care for women. So the recent firestorm of criticism about the administration’s decision that insurers must cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without co-pay is, at best, overwrought.

The religious community, led by the Catholic Church, has overreacted in ways that have distorted the administration’s actions. Contrary to their claims, no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception, nor will any woman be forced to buy or use contraception.

Perhaps more importantly, to set the record straight, no church or other house of worship will be required to offer employees coverage for contraceptive health services.  That’s the carve-out for religious institutions. It’s a big one.  (Religiously affiliated institutions, including large hospitals and universities, that employ people of different faiths, will have to provide coverage.)

So why the furor? At its core, it’s because many opponents of a woman’s right to choose also oppose contraception.  They don’t want women to exercise their consciences or get the contraceptive coverage they need.

These are extreme views far outside the mainstream.

So let’s be clear.  Ensuring women’s access to contraception means fewer unintended pregnancies, healthier women and stronger families.

That’s why there’s an overwhelming consensus in this country that women should have coverage for contraception.  Twenty-eight states already require insurers to cover contraception.  Ensuring that coverage for women in every state, without expensive co-pays, is one of the most important advances for women in the health reform law.

That advance is long overdue. Nearly all women of reproductive age use contraception – including 98 percent of Catholic women. Reproductive health care is women’s health care.

Refusing to allow employers to substitute their views for those of women was the right thing to do.

So it’s time for all of us to take a stand.  It’s time to urge every member of Congress to say ‘no’ to Senator Marco Rubio’s irresponsible legislation, which would dramatically expand the birth-control refusal clause and potentially allow any employer to use personal religious beliefs to deny contraceptive coverage to employees.

At times these days, it feels like we’ve stepped through the looking glass.  Those who oppose abortion want to deny women the contraceptive coverage that reduces unintended pregnancies.  The Susan G. Komen organization withdraws funds to Planned Parenthood, which screens millions of women for breast cancer.

These are bad decisions, bad policy, bad for women’s health.

If you care about women’s health, you put your ideology aside and you help make contraception and breast cancer screening available.

The Administration’s rule exempting churches and other religious institutions from the refusal clause is a compromise that should not be weakened. 

After 39 Years, Let’s End the War on Women

Published on January 22, 2012 in Debra Ness and Reproductive Health. 5 Comments

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

It’s been 39 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade – but the battles over access to the full range of reproductive health care services still rage on.

In 2011, the number of abortion restrictions introduced in state legislatures reached a three-decade high. But such laws – like the ultrasound law in Texas, which requires providers to perform ultrasounds, describe the fetus and give women the option to hear the fetal heartbeat – aren’t just problematic in that they put barriers between women and their health care.  They are affirmatively bad for women’s health. They require unnecessary and invasive procedures not recommended by doctors. This is especially problematic when women are directed or tricked into seeking care at crisis pregnancy centers – which often have no qualified medical professionals on staff.

Women deserve sound medical advice from actual medical professionals.

The Texas sonogram law is just one example of the attacks on women’s reproductive health over the past year. They have been far-reaching and dangerous – and anti-choice extremists show no signs of letting up.

Not only is access to abortion services out of reach for many women, but so is birth control, maternity care, and social services to help them raise healthy families. It’s time to recommit to protecting and expanding common sense policies that improve women’s health by providing access to affordable, high quality reproductive health services. The National Partnership has joined the Trust Women Silver Ribbon Campaign virtual march to make sure our elected officials know that restricting women’s health services is unacceptable. Join us!

At Stake: A Fundamental Protection for Millions of Workers

Published on January 12, 2012 in Debra Ness and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

Cross-posted from the Huffington Post.

It may be the single most important law ever passed to address the needs of workers trying to meet their work and family responsibilities. And this week, in the midst of an economic downturn that has made job protection especially critical, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could undermine one of its core provisions. The justices’ decision will determine whether millions of state government workers will have the fundamental right to take job-protected, unpaid leave when they are seriously ill.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) became law nearly 20 years ago. It was designed to help address the rampant discrimination women faced in the workplace due to their caregiving responsibilities and their ability to get pregnant. We at the National Partnership know this well. We drafted and led the fight to pass the critical legislation.

By ensuring that all eligible workers in the public and private sectors could take job-protected, unpaid time off to recover from their own serious medical conditions and those of their families, the FMLA has made a huge difference in the lives of millions of workers. It has allowed them to keep their families safe and healthy without sacrificing their livelihoods and economic security.

New mothers and fathers have been able to take time to bond with their newborns or newly adopted children. Adult children have been able to help their elderly parents recover from serious medical conditions or treatments. Women with complicated pregnancies have been able to stay home to improve their health and the health of their babies. And men who have gotten seriously ill or injured have been able to take time to recover. Since its passage, the law has been used more than 100 million times in situations like these.

So when Maryland state worker Daniel Coleman requested time off under the FMLA to recover from a serious health condition, he didn’t expect a problem. After all, his doctor had prescribed two weeks of bed rest.

He didn’t expect to be fired the next day.

And he didn’t expect that this simple request would flip his life upside down.

Sadly, that’s exactly what happened.

In the nearly seven months of unemployment that followed, Coleman struggled to provide for his family, including his two college-aged sons. He exhausted his 401k.

Knowing his rights had been violated, and appalled that other state workers may have suffered the same injustice, Coleman decided to challenge the state of Maryland. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if the state can be held accountable for its unlawful actions – and whether all state workers are protected by the self-care provision of the FMLA.

The questions before the Supreme Court have to do with Congress’ intent. Did lawmakers intend to remedy sex discrimination by enacting the FMLA? And did they intend for state workers to be covered by the law?

The answer to both is unquestionably “yes” — and that is why it is imperative that the Court vindicate the rights of Daniel Coleman and, in doing so, uphold state workers’ rights to self-care leave under the FMLA.

In 1993, the Court considered this very question as it related to the FMLA’s family-care provision. In Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, in a ruling penned by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court rightfully found that Congress intended to grant state workers family-care leave under the FMLA. The Court should rule the same way about self-care in this case.

The National Partnership led a coalition of 10 top civil and workers’ rights organizations in filing a friend-of-the-court brief that makes this very argument. We urge the Court to uphold self-care rights for state workers based on congressional intent.

What is at stake in this case is whether the Supreme Court will respect Congress’ ability to make laws designed to remedy pervasive and unconstitutional discrimination, and whether millions of state workers can continue to count on FMLA leave when they get sick. Only one ruling is acceptable: that the state of Maryland be held accountable for firing a hardworking employee who simply asked for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to recover from a serious medical condition.

For more information on Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, visit www.NationalPartnership.org/Coleman.

Toward a More Family Friendly Nation

Published on January 4, 2012 in Debra Ness and Work & Family. 1 Comment

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

It’s not literally the 99 percent versus the privileged few, but it’s one of the most noteworthy divides I have seen.

Most of us who earn paid sick time cannot imagine that any workers in this country do not.

[Cross-posted from The Huffington Post]

And tens of millions of workers who toil for years — caring for kids, the elderly or the infirm; cooking food or delivering it to our tables; cleaning cars, homes or streets; guarding our factories and office buildings — cannot imagine being able to stay home with strep or stomach flu, or to care for a sick child, without losing a day’s pay or possibly their job.

Yet in terms of economic security, a chasm divides those two Americas.

One is filled with people with some measure of job and economic security and usually health insurance of some kind. The other is filled with people who find the deck stacked against them every time illness strikes or health needs arise.

That is why Sunday, January 1, 2012, was such an important day. It marked not only the beginning of a new year but, let’s hope, a new era when paid sick days will become the norm for all workers in this country.

For sure we will see progress in Connecticut, because lawmakers there listened to their constituents instead of the business lobby and enacted a law guaranteeing many workers the right to earn paid sick time. It is the country’s first statewide paid sick days measure, and it took effect on Sunday. Seattle also passed a paid sick days law this year, the nation’s third city to put such a standard in place.

January 1, 2012, is the day when hundreds of thousands of workers in Connecticut finally gained the right to earn job-protected paid sick days. It’s a huge step, and long overdue. The new law will help those workers, their families, the public’s health and the state. But perhaps even more important, Connecticut’s experience will add to the growing body of evidence that paid sick days are good for businesses and economies as well. Studies show that San Francisco’s law, the nation’s first, is working well for businesses as well as workers.

But as 2012 begins, more than 40 million workers in the United States cannot earn a single paid sick day. Low-wage, women and Latino workers are disproportionately affected.

Several cities and states are considering paid sick days measures, but the battle against a relentless, well-funded business lobby is tough everywhere.

So let’s keep our eyes on Connecticut, where a recent poll by Hart Research Associates found that voters look favorably on lawmakers who supported the new law. An overwhelming majority identify paid sick days as central to families’ economic security. They are poised to reward legislators who voted for the law, the poll found.

Let’s tip our hats to Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy and to all the lawmakers there and in Seattle who, in 2011, said “no” to the business lobby and “yes” to refusing to force hardworking families to make impossible choices when illness strikes.

Let’s all pay attention to this issue in 2012, an election year when we take measure of our status, refine our values, and decide the kind of country we want to be.

If we do that, we can make this year’s victories a real turning point, rather than an anomaly at this time when workers seem to lose more often than they win.

By making paid sick time a priority for all workers, we can close one painful divide and give all hardworking people the chance to earn a few days off to recover when illness strikes or a family member needs care. It’s time.

Shameful: Partisan Politics Block Another Highly Qualified Judicial Nominee

Published on December 7, 2011 in Debra Ness and Judges & Supreme Court. 1 Comment

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

Cross-posted from Huffington Post.

All year, we’ve seen partisan politics impede the progress America needs — from jobs to anti-discrimination measures to work and family advances to the safety net. On Tuesday, we had a stark reminder that our system of justice too can fall victim to political gamesmanship.

After more than a year of stall tactics and procedural roadblocks, the Senate failed to close debate and hold an up-or-down vote on the nomination of an impeccably qualified lawyer, Caitlin Halligan, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. By blocking a nominee with exemplary qualifications and bipartisan support in the legal community, the Senate has put politics ahead of qualifications and competence for judicial nominees, threatening access to justice in this country.

Caitlin Halligan has the kind of impressive academic and legal background that has won support from those on both sides of the political aisle in the past. She graduated with honors from Georgetown University Law Center, clerked for Justice Stephen G. Breyer on the Supreme Court and Judge Patricia M. Wald on the D.C. Circuit Court, and she has spent much of her career in government service. She is currently the general counsel to the New York County District Attorney’s Office and previously served as the solicitor general of the state of New York. As solicitor general, she argued five cases before the Supreme Court and was counsel of record in more than 50.

These outstanding qualifications and demonstrated commitment to equal justice garnered Halligan praise and support from diverse legal scholars and organizations with diverse agendas and judicial philosophies since she was nominated 14 months ago. And her background prompted the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to give her a “highly qualified” rating by unanimous agreement.

If an eminently qualified nominee like Caitlin Halligan cannot get an up-or-down vote in the Senate, how will any future nominee be seriously considered? And how will the nation get out of the judicial crisis we are facing?

More than one in eight federal judgeships in the country — 99 positions — are, or soon will be, vacant. And 29 of them qualify as judicial emergencies. Members of the Senate not only chose to ignore Caitlin Halligan’s merits, but they also ignored the urgent need to fill three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. Arguments that the court can adequately handle its caseload as is are nothing more than a short-sighted attempt to mask the obstructionist, partisan tactics that drove Tuesday’s vote. The court’s caseload demands a full bench. Without it, justice for more Americans will be delayed.

The Senate also missed an important opportunity to add diversity to the court. When our courts are more reflective of the population, people have more confidence that judges understand the real-world implications of their rulings. Caitlin Halligan would have been only the sixth female judge in the 118-year history of the D.C. Circuit, which makes the failure to bring her nomination to a vote even more disappointing.

Justice in this country depends on having qualified judges on our courts who have a demonstrated commitment to equal justice for all. Americans depend on our court system to resolve disputes as efficiently as possible, and we depend on judges to provide equal consideration and to apply the law without regard to politics or personal agendas. What happened with Caitlin Halligan raises deep concerns about the courts’ future ability to do so. The Senate must end the partisanship, objectively consider all of the nominees who are awaiting confirmation, and act quickly to put an end to this judicial crisis.

Birth Control Under Attack

Published on November 22, 2011 in Debra Ness and Reproductive Health. 5 Comments

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.

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.

Getting Back on Track with Family Friendly Policies

Published on October 31, 2011 in Debra Ness and Work & Family. 1 Comment

Debra Ness, President

Cross-posted from Huffington Post.

As National Work and Family Month drew to a close this time last year, working families were hopeful that the upcoming election would mean that the economy would turn around, families would regain control of their finances and economic security, and the country would finally get back on track after a crippling recession.

Sadly, we ended up with a deadlocked Congress, and legislators at every level who are determined to undermine the social safety net and basic workplace rights that are the fabric of our nation — and central to the economic security of families. The result has been workers continuing to struggle to hold onto their jobs, keep their homes, put food on the table and care for their families, including children and elderly relatives.

The past year has been hard for many working families, but it has also provided some promising and hopeful victories. Some family friendly policies, like paid sick days, have weathered the storm and will soon be available to hundreds of thousands more working people, helping them meet their families’ health needs while protecting their economic security.

Connecticut made history in June by becoming the first state to pass a paid sick days law that gives workers the right to earn job-protected paid sick days to use to recover from illness or to care for a sick child or family member. Soon after, the Seattle City Council followed suit by passing a similar law that resulted from an unprecedented collaboration between workers, forward-thinking businesses and advocates. And in Philadelphia, the City Council has taken a significant step toward ensuring workers in the city have the basic right to earn paid sick time.

So this year we have seen great momentum and support for at least one common sense, modest policy that can make a tremendous difference for working families. Other family friendly policies are already on the books in other states. Just in time for National Work and Family month, the National Partnership has launched a comprehensive database that makes it easier to identify all of these existing work and family policies. Check it out at www.nationalpartnership.org/wfdb.

This new work and family database makes clear that lawmakers around the country recognize the need for and benefits of policies that ensure working people can be good workers and good family members. But if our country is ever going to demonstrate that it truly values families, and if we are serious about getting the country and economy back on track, then we need national work and family policy standards.

More than 40 percent of the private-sector workforce doesn’t have a single paid sick day. Only 11 percent have paid family leave through their employers, and fewer than 40 percent have paid medical leave through employer-provided short-term disability insurance. The United States is the only developed country that does not guarantee workers paid leave.

It is time for the nation’s policies to catch up with the rest of the world, and with the needs of 21st century families. To start, we need a national paid sick days standard and national paid family and medical leave.

This year, we have seen that progress is possible, even in difficult economic and political times. The momentum must continue so that families and the country can get back on track.

Welcome Progress, But the Final Verdict on ACOs Is Yet to Come

Published on October 28, 2011 in Debra Ness and William Kramer. 2 Comments

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

Last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) may have done what once seemed impossible.  Its final rule on Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) seems to have put an end to the rancor and bitter debate on this particular issue, shaping a framework that just about all parties can accept.

By responding thoughtfully to comments on the proposed rule, and balancing competing interests, the agency has given us a welcome respite from the pitched battles that are raging over so many aspects of health reform.  But the real measure of success will be whether successful ACOs are soon in place, providing better-coordinated, more patient-centered care for millions of patients and giving us all a way to get better value for our health care dollars.

William Kramer, Executive Director for National Health Policy, PBGH

We believe last week’s announcement will encourage more providers to participate in this program.  From the perspective of consumers, we applaud the strong emphasis on patient-centered criteria that should pave the road to better care.  And especially as advocates for our oldest, sickest and highest risk patients, we applaud this

effort to incentivize better primary care, increased coordination, and shared accountability across providers. From the perspective of purchasers, we believe that CMS has crafted a foundation to hold providers accountable for quality performance and cost savings, and created a path to move providers away from today’s perverse fee-for-service system.

We are very pleased that this final rule will require ACOs to use beneficiary experience of care and outcome measures to evaluate performance. We believe CMS landed in a better place with respect to the quality measures ACOs must report on.  While we appreciated the comprehensiveness of the original list of 65 measures, there were a number of measures that added minimal value.  The final list of 33 measures is a stronger set that focuses on highest impact measures and, very importantly, includes measures of patient experience, functional status and clinical outcomes, care coordination and safety.  We would, however, have liked pay-for-performance to occur sooner in the program, especially for measures that are already in use.  Finally, we are very pleased that this final rule continues to ensure full transparency, notification and choice for beneficiaries. These provisions are all essential to engaging consumers in a positive way and realizing the promise of successful ACOs.

Nobody got everything they wanted in the final rule and we, too, have concerns.  We are disappointed that the upfront anti-trust review process is no longer mandatory, but glad there is strong acknowledgement that there must be close monitoring for any signs of cost-increasing market concentration.  We are glad to see that the final rule requires CMS to share ACO applications and new types of data that will strengthen the ability of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to assess and monitor the market impacts.

It is also unfortunate that the provisions requiring beneficiary participation on ACO boards have been tempered, rather than expanded to include representation from a diverse range of community stakeholders, including purchasers, labor and community-based groups. It is now incumbent on CMS to closely monitor ACOs to ensure that they reflect the community interests they are intended to serve, and that consumers, beneficiaries and other key stakeholders are engaged in the design, governance and evaluation of their performance. Consumers and purchasers hope and expect that these provisions will be strengthened down the road if needed.

Every leader from every sector has a list like this – things they like, and things they don’t like, in the final rule. But the time for tallying who won and who lost, and by how much, is over. Now it’s time for all parties to come together to create successful ACOs that deliver care that is patient-centered, that improves quality and care coordination, and that lowers costs. The stakes are too high to let anything stand in our way, or to let opponents of reform exploit any remaining differences.

We said before this rule was released that it’s time for a new dynamic where we come together to implement the reforms the nation so urgently needs. ACOs are one of many promising models and initiatives that will be tested by the CMS Innovation Center over time. It is well past time to leave our broken, dysfunctional health care system behind and give the Accountable Care Organization model the test it deserves.

The final rule gives us a chance to do that. That’s all we could ask. CMS has done its part. Now it’s time for the rest of us to do ours. If we do, patients, their families and family caregivers, our economy and our nation will benefit.

Debra L. Ness is President of the National Partnership for Women & Families. William Kramer is the Executive Director for National Health Policy at the Pacific Business Group on Health. Together, they co-chair the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project, a group of leading employer, consumer, and labor organizations working toward a common goal: to ensure that all Americans have access to publicly reported health care performance information.

Cross-posted from the Health Affairs Blog.

Realizing the Full Potential of Health Reform

Published on October 11, 2011 in Debra Ness, Health Care, Quality and Reform. 0 Comments

Debra Ness, President

When it passed, we recognized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the greatest advance for women’s health in a generation.

This new law is already beginning to eliminate the punitive and predatory insurance practices that have penalized women and families for decades, and instead bringing us closer to the day when essential women’s services are fully covered, prevention is a priority, and care is coordinated so family caregivers don’t struggle to shoulder impossible loads. The benefits to women – and their families – are myriad. Health reform means insurers cannot charge women more because of our gender, or deny or cap our coverage when we get sick. It means coverage for breast and cervical cancer screenings and family planning services. It ends the days when young adult children were kicked off their parents’ insurance policies.

So why is a law that’s brought so much progress, and even more promise, in such great peril? Because too many lawmakers are putting politics ahead of the best interests of their constituents, who urgently need reliable, affordable, comprehensive and well-coordinated health care. They are more interested in throwing up roadblocks and scoring political points than focusing on what the country needs.

It’s time to take a step back and reconsider what’s best for women and families, for our economy and for the country. We need to realize the promise of health reform by allowing implementation to proceed. And we need to adopt the family friendly policies that will allow workers to access the health care services they need, while holding onto their jobs.

I read with interest a recent study by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation scholar which found that more adults postpone or go without medical care for nonfinancial reasons than for financial reasons. The researcher, Jeffrey T. Kullgren, notes that: “Many patients also have nonfinancial reasons they can’t get the health care they need when they need it. They may live a great distance from the doctor, and traveling is a challenge. They may work jobs that make it hard to go to a doctor’s office during a normal business day, where leaving work would mean they wouldn’t get paid or might risk losing their job.”

That’s not a huge surprise when you consider that nearly 44 million workers in the United States don’t have paid sick days. A mere 11 percent have access to paid family leave through their employers, and fewer than 40 percent have access to paid medical leave through employer-provided short-term disability insurance. When workers are without these basic protections, they are forced to choose between their health and their financial security when illness strikes – and in this job market, it’s no surprise many choose to forgo treatment and preventive care rather than risking their jobs or their paychecks.

So instead of continuing the posturing and politicking and efforts to repeal health reform, let’s get to the business at hand – work together to implement the Affordable Care Act, and adopt paid sick days and paid family and medical leave. Then, we’ll be on track for healthier workers, healthier families, and a healthier country.