Last week, the Trump administration announced a second round of drug pricing proposals that, while relatively modest on their own, take important steps toward future reforms that could significantly reduce prices now burdening both consumers and the overall health care system.
The 2018 elections provide a chance to bring oral health issues to the forefront of policymaker and public discussions—an important opportunity for an issue that is often forgotten, left behind, or misunderstood. Numerous seats are up for election this year including full U.S. House of Representatives, a third of the U.S. Senate, 36 governorships and many seats in state and local governments.
The Trump administration’s zero-
59 million seniors and people with disabilities rely on Medicare for their health care, but it doesn’t cover part of the body that causes all kinds of health problems—the mouth. Families USA has worked with a diverse group of consumer and industry leaders to produce this white paper, An Oral Health Benefit in Medicare Part B: It’s Time to Include Oral Health in Health Care.
Medicare doesn’t cover one part of the body that causes many health problems—the mouth. Two-thirds of the seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare do not have any oral health coverage and their health is worse for it. Millions of people could live healthier, happier lives if oral health coverage is added to Medicare.
Many factors could prevent numerous communities from fully participating in the 2020 Census. These factors include underfunded Census outreach, a proposed Census question asking about citizenship, and broader policy changes that could increase immigrants’ fears about responding to the Census. Without vigorous action to prevent a significant undercount, states will suffer major cuts to federal health care funding, with grim results for health care and other critical state services.
41 Consumer and Patient Groups Urge the Trump Administration to Take Real Action on Prescription Drugs
Families USA, Public Citizen, and 39 other national and state-based organizations including the Services Employees International Union, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice submitted a comment letter in response to the Request for Information (RFI) from the Trump Administration regarding HHS’ Blueprint on Prescription Drug Costs.
Join us on Wednesday, July 18 at 2PM EST for a Health Action Webinar
On July 7, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a policy change that could fundamentally undermine the individual market, endangering health care for millions of people who get health care through the individual marketplace. CMS announced it will not distribute more than $10 billion out of a "risk adjustment" pool which is funded by insurers who participate in the individual and small-business markets. The risk adjustment program collects funds from insurers that cover healthier people and redistributes those funds to plans that have sicker enrollees.
Family separation - even for short periods of time - is distressing, traumatic and damaging to the health and well-being of children and parents. Longer periods of separation will lead to sustained and heightened distress and “toxic stress” that will have physiological effects on a child’s neuroendocrine and immune systems, stress regulatory system, and brain development with long-term implications for their health and well-being.
The vetting process that the administration is using to reunite parents with their children is wholly inappropriate. The process, established by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPRA), requires background checks of sponsors, in-person checks of where the child would live, and a full screening of people who live in that home. The judge in the ACLU lawsuit has ruled that while the government should be mindful of the best interest of each child it releases, it does not have to follow every single step of the process established by TVPRA as it was designed for screening non-parental sponsors of unaccompanied children to assure that potential placements are safe and appropriate. This process was not intended to assess placement of children who entered the U.S. together with their parents.