First Biden-Harris Executive Orders on Health Care
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration issued their first executive orders and presidential memorandums addressing access to health care, including reproductive health care. President and CEO Dr. Jamila Perritt responded:
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration issued their first executive orders and presidential memorandums addressing access to health care, including reproductive health care. President and CEO Dr. Jamila Perritt responded:
"Today's actions of rescinding the global gag rule and taking the important first step of undoing the harmful domestic gag rule are critical for patients accessing health care in the U.S. and around the world. The domestic gag rule forbidding discussion of abortion put Title X providers in an untenable position - withhold vital information and violate professional ethics or leave the program. Pregnant people need accurate information about their options and referrals right away. No one should be denied information, no matter where they're receiving care, their source of insurance, their income, or the health care services needed-especially time sensitive care like pregnancy care.
I look forward to the additional steps that the Biden-Harris administration will take to protect and expand access to health care, including reproductive health care.
"We are pleased to see the Biden-Harris administration opening a special enrollment period to provide people needing health care coverage during the pandemic an opportunity to sign-up and will direct agencies to re-examine policies that undermine Medicaid and reduce access to coverage. These executive orders are welcome news for patients.
"This is just the beginning. I look forward to the additional steps that the Biden-Harris administration will take to protect and expand access to health care, including reproductive health care. We call on the administration to omit harmful coverage bans on abortion care like the Hyde Amendment in the Presidential budget, remove medically unnecessary restrictions on medication abortion, continue to restore the Affordable Care Act and expand its reach to provide communities equitable, fair health care coverage, and act swiftly to get communities the COVID-19 relief they need.
"That is why we call on Congress and the Administration to implement the Blueprint for Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice, a comprehensive and proactive policy agenda endorsed by more than 100 bold, progressive organizations.
"The last four years have been incredibly harmful when it comes to health care, racial justice, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, and many other issues. It will take time and work to reverse the damage and improve outcomes for all people. As physician advocates we are excited to partner with the Biden-Harris administration to achieve our vision of a world where people can access care they need regardless of their zip code, income level, or source of insurance."
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
Oklahoma Supreme Court Blocks First US Religious Public Charter School
One coalition said the ruling "safeguards public education and upholds the separation of religion and government."
Faith leaders, parents, and educators on Tuesday applauded the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling against the establishment of the first U.S. taxpayer-funded religious charter school—which was widely seen as a test case for Christian nationalists' broader efforts to break down the barrier between church and state as well as further undermine public education.
The court's decision against St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Catholic Charter School came in a case filed last October by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. Unlike some fellow Republicans, he argued that the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board's approval of the online institution violated the state and federal constitutions.
"This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty," Gentner said in response to the ruling. "The framers of the U.S. Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma's Constitution clearly understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the state from sponsoring any religion at all."
"Now Oklahomans can be assured that our tax dollars will not fund the teachings of Sharia Law or even Satanism," he continued. "While I understand that the governor and other politicians are disappointed with this outcome, I hope that the people of Oklahoma can rejoice that they will not be compelled to fund radical religious schools that violate their faith."
"If this school is kept alive through appeals, it will continue to present an existential threat to the great state of Oklahoma and to the United States writ large."
The decision was also praised by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, which—along with local lawyers—represent Oklahomans challenging the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa's attempt to create a publicly funded Catholic school.
"The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision safeguards public education and upholds the separation of religion and government. Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students," the groups—which filed a brief supporting Gentner's suit—said in a joint statement Tuesday.
"St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school," the coalition added. "We will continue our efforts to protect public education and religious freedom, including the separation of church and state."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten and AFT-Oklahoma president Mary Best similarly welcomed the decision as "a crucial victory for religious liberty, pluralism, and freedom over the forces of extremism and sectarianism."
"One of the clearest foundations of American democracy is the freedom to practice, or not to practice, religion," they said. "The framers never intended to require public funding of religious institutions or schools, and, in fact, religious freedom itself is reliant on the distinction. Liberty ends when someone is compelled to support another's private beliefs, and if the attorney general had lost, Oklahoma would have been forced to siphon millions of dollars from public schools into private hands."
"The combination of the Constitution's free exercise clause and the concept of separation of church and state underpins our democracy, and this decision preserves that distinction," the AFT leaders added. "This case should never have had to be brought in the first place; a charter school for religious purposes paid for by public money should have been rejected as unconstitutional from the start. If this school is kept alive through appeals, it will continue to present an existential threat to the great state of Oklahoma and to the United States writ large."
The Oklahomanreported that "it's a virtual certainty the ruling Tuesday will be appealed, likely to a federal court," and shared statements from Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla as well as Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, a former state education secretary who, as the newspaper noted, "tried—and failed—three times to insert himself into the legal case before the state Supreme Court."
Alarms Raised Over For-Profit Medicare Advantage Using AI to Deny Care to Seniors
"Insurers using AI to deny needed care to seniors and people with disabilities means sacrificing patient needs on the altar of corporate greed," said one campaigner.
Dozens of Democratic U.S. lawmakers joined consumer and patient advocates on Tuesday in sounding the alarm over the use of artificial intelligence by companies providing Medicare Advantage plans to deny healthcare to their senior customers.
Fifty-one Democratic members of Congress and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Books LaSure on Tuesday expressing their concern over Medicare Advantage (MA) providers' increasing use of algorithmic systems to deny patient care.
"Plans continue to use AI tool to erroneously deny care and contradict provider assessment findings," the letter notes. "Last year, a class action lawsuit was filed alleging that UnitedHealth Group unlawfully used an AI algorithm, nH Predict, to deny rehabilitative care to sick Medicare Advantage patients."
"The lawsuit cites an investigation suggesting that UnitedHealth Group pressured employees to use the algorithm to issue payment denials to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and set a goal for employees to keep patient rehabilitation stays within 1% of the length of stay predicted by nH Predict," the lawmakers continued.
MA plans are not part of Medicare. They are a private health insurance "scam" created by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush "as a way of routing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of for-profit insurance companies," according to frequent Common Dreams opinion contributor Thom Hartmann.
Advocates have warned about the use of AI in MA denials since at least last year, while imploring congressional and regulator action to protect seniors and people with disabilities from being preyed upon by what critics have called "Medicare disadvantage" companies.
In February, CMS "clarified that Medicare Advantage organizations may use algorithms, artificial intelligence, and related technologies to assist in making coverage determinations, but these technologies may not override standards related to medical necessity and other applicable rules for how coverage determinations by Medicare Advantage organizations are made."
Rights groups echoed the lawmakers' concerns about the use of AI for MA denials.
"Medicare Advantage insurers using AI to deny needed care to seniors and people with disabilities means sacrificing patient needs on the altar of corporate greed," Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert said. "CMS must expand upon the steps it has already taken to improve oversight of companies using AI to deny care that would be covered by traditional Medicare."
"It is time to protect enrollees by cracking down on Medicare Advantage insurers using AI to deny needed care through additional reporting requirements and increased enforcement actions against bad actors," Gilbert added.
David Lipschutz, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, said in a statement that "in our experience, MA plans' use of AI or algorithmic software has led to more inappropriate denials and premature terminations of care—this must end."
A report published earlier this month revealed that MA plans have overcharged the federal government by $612 billion since 2007—and $82 billion last year alone. Another report published last year by Physicians for a National Health Program found that MA plans are also overcharging U.S. taxpayers by up to $140 billion per year, enough to erase all Medicare Part B premiums or fully fund Medicare's prescription drug program.
A 2022 U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigation found that insurance companies and other brokers are "running amok" with "fraudsters and scam artists" making false or misleading claims to dupe seniors into buying MA plans. In February 2023, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) reintroduced legislation to change the official name of MA to "alternative private health plan" to make clear that such coverage is offered by for-profit companies.
Conserving Just 1.2% of Earth's Land Could Save Most Threatened Species From Extinction
More than a third of the sites identified as most vulnerable lie within a mile and a half of lands that are already protected, making the task entirely "doable," said one scientist.
Researchers revealed in a study published Monday that world governments are not doing enough to save the most endangered plant and animal species from extinction, and called for a more targeted approach to protect biodiversity.
Eric Dinerstein, a senior biodiversity expert at Resolve, led a team of researchers in the analysis, which was published in Frontiers in Scienceand revealed that conserving just 1.2% of the Earth's surface would avert the extinction of the most threatened species on the planet.
The scientists set out to identify the rarest species in the world in limited habitats, with Dinerstein noting that the majority of species are rare.
Most species "either have very narrow ranges or they occur at very low densities or both," he told The Guardian, suggesting that setting aside large percentages of the Earth's land isn't needed to protect the most threatened animals.
For example, the World Wildlife Fund identifies the Javan rhino as the most endangered species on Earth, having suffered "a staggering decline in their numbers due to hunting and habitat loss." Javan rhinos are found only on the island of Java, Indonesia.
Similarly, the Amur leopard has been critically endangered since 1996 and is only found in "a relatively small region of the far east of Russia and northeastern China at present."
"It's almost as if countries are using a reverse-selection algorithm and picking the non-rare sites to add to the global areas under protection. The call to arms of this paper is that we have to be doing a much better job in the next five years."
The study identified 16,825 sites around the world that should be prioritized for conservation over the next five years in order to prevent the extinction of animals and plants that are found only in those places.
Dinerstein told The Guardian that protecting the most vulnerable places is entirely "doable," especially considering 38% of the identified sites are within one and a half miles of areas that are already protected.
More than half the sites are in the Philippines, Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Colombia.
"Only 7% of the new protected areas between 2018 and 2023 overlapped with the conservation imperative sites," Dinerstein warned, calling for a more targeted approach. "It's almost as if countries are using a reverse-selection algorithm and picking the non-rare sites to add to the global areas under protection. The call to arms of this paper is that we have to be doing a much better job in the next five years."
The United Nations Environment Program reported in 2021 that 16.6% of the world's land surface and waters are currently protected.
Through land purchases, the creation of protected areas on federal lands, the leasing of community reserves and forests, and the expansion of Indigenous rights and land sovereignty, the study says, all of the key sites identified by researchers could be protected over the next five years for roughly $29 billion to $46 billion.