Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Each year, New York City invests about $2 billion to encourage private development in the form of tax incentives and grants. But, according to a report released yesterday by the Center for Popular Democracy, the city does not require as a prerequisite for those grants progressive development practices that ensure worker safety and health.

Under programs offered by the New York Economic Development Corporation, the city in 2013 handed out millions in lucrative tax incentive financing to corporate entities at 596 locations. Thousands more of these projects are ongoing in New York City through other funding mechanisms known as public benefit corporations.

During 2011 and 2012, 36 construction workers in New York City lost their lives on the job. Most of these deaths occurred on construction projects where no mandatory safety and health training was required.

These horrific stories of construction worker fatality could all change with the de Blasio administration and the reintroduction of the Safe Jobs Act. If the Safe Jobs Act is approved by the New York City Council and signed into law, it will mandate safety and health training for all tax-incentivized development projects.

City residents should be outraged that their tax dollars are paying for the unsafe practices of unsavory developers and lining the pockets of construction contractors with a known record of safety and health violations.

An example of these egregious acts is the Brooklyn Bridge Park project, which is tax-incentivized. In 2012 a worker was struck in the face by a heavy metal end cap that dislodged during a water supply pressure test. At the same construction site, a pedestrian was struck by falling debris. During the past seven years, Brooklyn Bridge Park contractor Hudson Meridian has been cited seven times for failure to provide adequate guard rails to protect construction workers.

Continue Reading

In rare and welcome show of bipartisanship, a bill inspired by Public Citizen’s 2012 report on the state of worker safety in the state of Maryland is headed to Governor Martin O’Malley’s desk to be signed.

The bill, HR 951, will establish a working group to make recommendations to Maryland’s General Assembly about the effects of requiring all state contractors to adhere to a variety of measures designed to keep workers safe.

If all goes according to plan, the new rules could be in place as early as 2015.

Continue Reading

Follow on Twitter

Congress passed – unanimously in the Senate and without debate – and President Obama will sign, H.R. 2019, the “Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act” (named after a 10-year old child who died last year of brain cancer). If the legislation actually did what it touts – to finance pediatric research – it would be a noble bill for a noble cause.

But it is a fig-leaf bill. Its real purpose is to begin dismantling the presidential public financing system, and is very unlikely to produce any revenues for pediatric research.

The bill was originally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. After Harper was unable to persuade Congress to approve earlier legislation that would have entirely defunded the public financing program, Harper re-worked the bill into what it is known now.

The legislation transfers public funds used to pay for the nominating conventions into the general treasury, then states that those funds may be used for pediatric research, if Congress ever decides to appropriate the funds for that purpose.

This same Congress slashed National Institute of Health (NIH) funding by $1.55 billion, which finances the pediatric research program, in the appropriations bills, and then placed caps on any further spending by NIH. The Kids First Research Act, if ever implemented, would transfer from the presidential public financing system to pediatric research, a pittance of what Congress slashed from the research budget. And even that pittance is not likely to happen. Given current spending caps on governmental agencies, Congress also would have to pass legislation lifting the spending ceiling for the National Institutes of Health to carry through with this appropriation, something that this Congress is very unlikely to do.

Continue Reading

By Sabrina Morello

“If equity and social solidarity in access to health care and financing health care were fundamental goals of a health care system, the single-payer system provides an ideal platform for achieving these goals” said Tsung-Mei Chen, MA Health Policy Research Analyst at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Health at Princeton University. Last week, Chen and other experts, including those from Canada, Denmark and Taiwan, provided testimony outlining the benefits of single-payer health care systems in their respective countries to members of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging.

Subcommittee chair U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) began the hearing by laying out an array of issues with our current fragmented health care system, with an emphasis on the fact that we are the only major industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care as a fundamental right. Senator Sanders cited 2012 data showing 15 percent of our population (more than 48 million Americans) are left uninsured and even more have high deductibles and co-pays or caps on coverage that end up driving citizens into bankruptcy.

This statistic stands out sharply from countries like Taiwan, which established a single-payer system in 1995, and currently has more than 99.6 percent of its population covered by national health care, according to Dr. Ching-Chuan Yeh, former Minister of Health for Taiwan, Professor at the School of Public Health, College of Medicine at Tzu-chi University. Dr. Yeh’s testimony was a poignant example of a far more equitable system than exists in the U.S.: “[a]ccess to health care is an inalienable right in [Taiwan’s] constitution. Residents living in remote mountainous areas and offshore islands, and the poor, the disabled, the aged get pretty much the same access and health care as anyone else.”

In addition to being inequitable, the care we do provide in America seems to lag behind single-payer nations in regards to health outcomes. Victor Rodwin, PhD, MPH, Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service at NYU, notes that among 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, France, a single-payer nation, has the lowest rate of avoidable mortality (an important indicator of quality of care) while the U.S. has the highest rate. Our nation could avoid about 101,000 deaths if we were able to decrease our avoidable mortality levels to those seen in France.

Continue Reading

By Samantha Aster

Although the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said it will abandon its feverish efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it appears to be fighting to block funding for the law rather than trying to kill the program outright. With an eye toward making the ACA unworkable, The Chamber is now focusing on repealing two key funding components: the medical device tax and the annual fee on health insurance companies.

Were the Chamber to succeed in removing funding, parts of the law would cease to function properly and would eventually fail altogether. Public Citizen does not endorse the ACA, but we do support the law being fully funded in order to move toward state-level single-payer systems, which the law’s waiver process enables. States that want to establish stronger programs can do so using this mechanism, and by establishing state level single-payer systems we hope to clear a path to eventually move toward Medicare-for-all at the federal level.

The Chamber in its lobbying efforts and messaging argues the ACA imposes substantial financial burdens on employers and individuals, and frequently labels the law a “job killer.” In making these claims, the Chamber consistently relies on exaggerated and overstated data which, when given a second look, undermine the integrity of its argument.

The medical device tax: A necessary revenue stream

The ACA is funded in part by a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices. The medical device industry and the Chamber argued that the tax would increase costs, “suppress innovation” and “kill jobs,” but this could not be further from the truth.

Not only can the medical device industry afford the tax – with estimated total sales of over $100 billion – but the industry has been accused of relying on anti-competitive practices that result in almost no price competition in the market. The lack of transparency in pricing and the industry’s coziness with physicians stifles innovation, since manufacturers have little incentive to create or improve devices that increase quality of care. This tax, coupled with the ACA’s focus on cutting costs, may provide incentives for manufacturers to find ways to deliver more cost-effective care.

The U.S. Chamber pointed to a recent survey to support its opposition to the tax. The survey, conducted by the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the trade group representing medical device manufacturers, claims that the tax has forced medical device manufacturers to eliminate jobs, reduce innovation and move jobs overseas.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.