Health

No Image

Oregon’s Criminal Justice System To Be Examined Over Treatment Of Mentally Ill People

Some Oregon inmates with mental illness are in jail rather than a state mental health hospital. A federal judge will hear arguments Tuesday that Oregon is not providing timely, appropriate care.



AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

Oregon’s criminal justice system will be examined in a Portland courtroom tomorrow. At issue is how the state treats defendants with mental illnesses. The lawsuit accuses Oregon of letting mentally ill people languish in jail rather than provide the health care they need at the state psychiatric hospital. Oregon Public Broadcasting’s Conrad Wilson reports.

CONRAD WILSON, BYLINE: In December, Carlos Zamora-Skaar was arrested on a felony burglary charge. Court documents show he was undergoing a severe mental health crisis at the time. A few weeks after his arrest, a judge ordered a psychological evaluation at the Oregon State Hospital.

Amanda Thibeault is Zamora-Skaar’s criminal defense attorney.

AMANDA THIBEAULT: January came and went. February came and went. And he was just languishing in jail, where a mentally ill person shouldn’t be.

WILSON: In court, he made delirious statements during hearings, so much so that after months in jail, a judge found him unable to aid in his own defense and ordered him this time to receive treatment at the Oregon State Hospital. But for weeks, that didn’t happen.

It wasn’t until late last month that Zamora-Skaar was finally admitted to the state hospital. The idea is to treat his mental illness until he’s able to aid in his defense. And only then, Thibeault says, can his criminal case move forward.

THIBEAULT: This is happening statewide.

WILSON: Attorneys and mental health experts say, right now, there are about 40 people like Zamora-Skaar with mental health issues who are waiting in Oregon jails to get transferred to the state hospital for treatment.

Emily Cooper is the legal director for Disability Rights Oregon, a nonprofit that sued the state nearly 20 years ago over the same issue and won.

EMILY COOPER: People with mental illness don’t belong in places that are intended to punish. They should be in places that are designed to treat.

WILSON: In 2002, a federal judge found the state can’t keep people in county jails for more than seven days when a state court judge has found they need to be at the state psychiatric hospital.

COOPER: It’s not happening.

WILSON: For years, it was. But in the last year or so, Cooper says the state has a backlog because it’s lost control of the situation.

COOPER: The problem is, nationally and here in Oregon, we haven’t appropriately funded a community behavioral health system to meet the needs of those individuals. And so what’s happened – again, here in Oregon and nationally – is jails have become the de facto mental health provider.

LEE EBY: And that’s to a large extent very true.

WILSON: Captain Lee Eby is the jail commander in Clackamas County, Ore. He says he regularly has people in his jail who are waiting past the seven-day window to be sent to the state hospital for treatment. He says jails have become the new mental hospitals.

EBY: And that’s not the way it should be. And if there’s one thing I would change, it would be that – is to get away from that notion of criminalizing some of the behavior, not having the resources to deal with it.

WILSON: The state’s psychiatric hospital is run by the Oregon Health Authority. Patrick Allen is the agency’s director. He acknowledges it’s taking longer than seven days to admit people from jails.

PATRICK ALLEN: The challenge is that this rate of sending people to us continues to accelerate.

WILSON: He says he’s working to reduce the amount of time people are waiting and to speed up the discharge process for those who no longer need hospital-level care. But Allen says the hospital is also dealing with things that are outside his control.

ALLEN: Sixty percent of people referred to us on an aid and assist order were homeless at the time of their arrest. To me, that speaks volumes in terms of the nature of the kind of problem that we’re struggling with.

WILSON: And while Allen says he’s doing everything he can, that’s of little comfort to those in a jail cell rather than a hospital bed.

For NPR News, I’m Conrad Wilson in Portland.

(SOUNDBITE OF 36’S “APARTMENT 451”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Storytelling Helps Hospital Staff Discover The Person Within The Patient

Thor Ringler (right) interviewed Ray Miller (left) in Miller’s hospital room at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wis., in April. Miller’s daughter Barbara (center) brought in photos and a press clipping from Miller’s time in the National Guard to help facilitate the conversation.

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR

Bob Hall was recovering from yet another surgery when the volunteer first walked into his hospital room. It was March 2014, and unfortunately Hall had been in and out of the hospital quite a bit. It had been a rocky recovery since his lung transplant, three months earlier, at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wis.

But the volunteer wasn’t there to check on his lungs or breathing. Instead she asked Hall if we wanted to tell his life story.

Hall was being treated at the VA because he had served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. After the war, he had a political career as a Massachusetts legislator, and then led professional associations for 30 years.

Hall, who was 67 at the time, welcomed the volunteer and told her he’d be happy to participate.

“I’m anything but a shy guy, and I’m always eager to share details about my life,” Hall says, half-jokingly.

He spoke to the volunteer for more than an hour about everything — from his time as “a D student” in high school (“I tell people I graduated in the top 95 percent of my class”) to his time in the military (“I thought the Marines were the toughest branch and I wanted to stop the communists”). He finished his story with a description of his health problems — those that that finally landed him in the hospital, and many that continue to the present day.

The interview was part of a program called My Life, My Story. Volunteer writers seek out vets like Hall in the hospital, and ask them about their lives. Then they write up this life story, a 1,000-word biography, and go over it with the patient, who can add more details or correct any mistakes.

“Of course, being a writer I rewrote the whole thing,” Hall confesses with a smile.

Once the story is finished, it’s entered into to the patient’s electronic medical record, so any doctor or nurse working anywhere in the VA system who opens the medical record can read it.

Hall was one of the earliest patients interviewed for the project, back in 2014. Today more than 2,000 patients at the Madison VA have shared their personal life stories.

Project organizers say My Life, My Story could change the way providers interact with patients at VA hospitals around the country.

Bob Hall was one of the earliest patients to be interviewed for the My Life, My Story program at the VA hospital in Madison, Wisc. “I’d never experienced something like that in a hospital before,” Hall says.

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR

A close-up of Hall’s photograph of his conversation with children in a Vietnamese village. He served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War — an important part of his personal story.

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR

Personalizing impersonal records

“If you’re a health care person, if you’re someone who is in the [electronic medical] record all the time, you’ll know that the record is a mess,” says Thor Ringler, who has managed the My Life, My Story project since 2013.

Clinicians can get access to a lot of medical data through a patient’s electronic medical record, but there’s nowhere to learn about a patient’s personality, or learn about her career, passions or values, Ringler says.

“If you were to try to get a sense of someone’s life from that record, it might take you days,” Ringler says.

The idea for My Life, My Story came from Dr. Elliot Lee, a medical resident who was doing a training rotation at the Madison VA in 2012. The typical rotation for medical residents lasts only about a year, so Lee wanted to find a way to bring these new, young doctors quickly up to speed on the VA patients. He wanted a way for them to absorb not just their health histories, but more personal information, like their hobbies, and which hospital staffers knew them best.

“It seemed to make sense that the patient might know a lot about themselves, and could help provide information to the new doctor,” Lee recalls.

But the question remained: What was the best way to get patients to share these details, to get their life stories into the records? Lee says he and some colleagues tried having patients fill out surveys, which were useful but still left the team wanting more. Next, they tried getting patients to write down their life stories themselves, but not many people really wanted to. Finally, an epiphany: Hire a writer to interview the patients, and put what they learned on paper.

It wasn’t hard to find a good candidate: A poet in Madison, Thor Ringler, had also just finished his training as a family therapist. He was good at talking to people, and also skilled at condensing big thoughts into concise, meaningful sentences.

“Of course!” Ringler remembers thinking. “I was made for that!'”

Thor Ringler has run the My Life, My Story program at the the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison since 2013. In that time the program has recorded life stories of more than 2,000 veterans — and placed the short biographies in each vet’s’ electronic medical record.

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR

Under Ringler’s guidance, the project has developed a set of training materials to allow other VA hospitals to launch their own storytelling programs. About 40 VA hospitals around the U.S. are currently interested, according to Ringler.

Based on his experience building the program in Madison, Ringler estimates hospitals would need to hire just one writer — working half- or full-time, depending on the hospital’s size — to manage a similar storytelling program. That means the budget could be as low as $23,000 a year. That relatively small investment can pay huge dividends in terms of patient satisfaction, Ringler says, by restoring personal connections between patients and the medical team.

“If we do good stories, people will read them, and they will want to read them,” he adds.

In addition to the interest from within the VA system, the idea has spread farther — to hospitals like Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn.

A ‘gift’ to doctors and nurses

There is also research suggesting that when caregivers know their patients better, those patients have improved health outcomes.

One study, for example, found that doctors who scored higher on an empathy test had patients with better-controlled blood sugar. Another study found that in patients with a common cold, the cold’s duration was reduced by nearly a full day for those patients who gave their doctor a top rating for empathy.

University of Colorado professor Heather Coats studies the health impact of biographical storytelling. She notes a 2008 study found that radiologists did a more thorough job when they were simply provided a photo of the patients whose scans they were reading.

“They improved the accuracy of their radiology read,” Coats says. “Meaning [fewer] misspelled words; a better report that’s more detailed.” Current research is investigating whether storytelling might have a similar effect on clinical outcomes.

And, Coats adds, the benefits of the kind of storytelling happening at the VA don’t just accrue to the patients.

“I consider it a gift to the nurses and the doctors,” Coats says.

A survey of clinicians conducted by the Madison VA backs that up: It showed 85 percent of them thought reading the biographies of patients produced by Thor Ringler’s team of writers was “a good use” of clinical time and also helped them improve patient care.

“It gives you a much better understanding about the entirety of their life and how to help them make a decision,” says Dr. Jim Maloney, a VA surgeon who performed Bob Hall’s lung transplant in 2013.

That’s critical for doctors like Maloney, because only about half the people who undergo a lung transplant are still alive after five years. Maloney believes knowing more about a patient’s life story makes it easier for the doctor to have difficult but necessary conversations with a patient — to learn, for example, how aggressively to respond if a complication occurs.

Jim Maloney, a transplant surgeon at the Madison VA, says being able to read a patient’s personal story, along with their medical story, helps him help them through difficult decisions. “It gives you a much better sense of the entirety of their lives,” Maloney says.

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Bram Sable-Smith for NPR

Maloney says the stories generated by My Life, My Story give the entire transplant team near immediate access to a valuable tool, one that helps them connect quickly with patients and family members, and start conversations about sensitive issues or difficult choices about end-of-life care.

Dr. Tamara Feingold-Link has also experienced the power of being able to read a patient’s life story. Now a second-year medical resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Feingold-Link first encountered one of the biographies generated by My Life, My Story when she was on rotation at a Boston-area VA. Her attending physician asked her to run a meeting with a patient’s family.

“I barely knew the patient, who was so sick he could hardly talk,” Feingold-Link recalls.

She noticed his medical record included the patient’s life story, something she had never seen before. She immediately read the story.

“It brought me to tears,” she remembers. “When I met his family, I could connect with them immediately.”

“It made his transfer to hospice much smoother for everyone involved,” she says.

Now Dr. Feingold-Link has started a similar program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Meaningful stories go beyond medical care

Bob Hall has learned the stories can be meaningful to caregivers even when they’re not working. During one of his stays at the Madison VA, a nursing aide came into his room after she read his life story in his medical record.

“She came in one night and sat down on my bed just to talk to me for a while, because she’d read my story,” Hall says. “I found out later she wasn’t on the clock. She just came in after her shift ended to chat for a while.”

It’s been 5 years since Hall’s lung transplant, and he’s doing well. He even found a part-time job putting his writing skills to work as part of the My Life, My Story team. In just two years, Hall has written 208 capsule biographies of veterans who come to this hospital for care, just like he did.

“Dr. Maloney came to me one day recently, and I was telling him how many stories I’d done,” Halls says, “and he says, ‘You know I think you’ve given more back to the VA with these stories than they gave to you.'”

“I said, ‘Doctor, I don’t think that’s true, but it’s very kind of you to say so.’ It made me feel good.”

This story is part of NPR’s reporting partnership with Kaiser Health News.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions

Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas speaks during a protest against recently passed abortion-ban bills at the state Capitol on May 21 in Atlanta.

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States, but a strong majority would like to see restrictions on abortion rights, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll.

What the survey found is a great deal of complexity — and sometimes contradiction among Americans — that goes well beyond the talking points of the loudest voices in the debate. In fact, there’s a high level of dissatisfaction with abortion policy overall. Almost two-thirds of people said they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied, including 66% of those who self-identify as “pro-life” and 62% of those who self-identify as “pro-choice.”

“What it speaks to is the fact that the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. “People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don’t fall along one side or the other. … The debate is about the extremes, and that’s not where the public is.”

The poll comes as several states have pushed to limit abortions in hopes of getting the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue. Abortion-rights opponents hope the newly conservative court will either overturn Roe or effectively gut it by upholding severe restrictions. The survey finds that while most Americans favor limiting abortion, they don’t want it to be illegal and don’t want to go as far as states like Alabama, for example, which would ban it completely except if the woman’s life is endangered or health is at risk.

A total of 77% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe, but within that there’s a lot of nuance — 26% say they would like to see it remain in place, but with more restrictions added; 21% want to see Roe expanded to establish the right to abortion under any circumstance; 16% want to keep it the way it is; and 14% want to see some of the restrictions allowed under Roe reduced. Just 13% overall say it should be overturned.

Loading…

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here

Even though Americans are solidly against overturning Roe, a majority would also like to see abortion restricted in various ways. In a separate question, respondents were asked which of six choices comes closest to their view of abortion policy.

In all, 61% said they were in favor of a combination of limitations that included allowing abortion in just the first three months of a pregnancy (23%); only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman (29%); or only to save the life of the woman (9%).

Anti-abortion demonstrators hold a protest on May 31 outside the Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Center in St. Louis, the last location in the state that performs abortions.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Eighteen percent said abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants during her entire pregnancy. At the other end of the spectrum, 9% said it should never be permitted under any circumstance.

More than half (53%) of Americans say they would definitely not vote for a candidate who would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would limit or overturn Roe.

Politically, abortion has been a stronger voting issue for Republicans than for Democrats. This poll found that abortion ranks as the second-most-important issue for Republicans in deciding their vote for president, behind immigration. But for Democrats, it is fifth — behind health care, America’s role in the world, climate change and personal financial well-being.

The poll also notably found the highest percentage of people self-identifying as “pro-choice,” those who generally support abortion rights, since a Gallup survey in December 2012. In this survey, 57% identified that way versus 35%, who called themselves “pro-life,” those who are generally opposed to abortion rights.

Loading…

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here

The percentage self-identifying as “pro-choice” is an increase since a Marist Poll in February, when the two sides split with 47% each. The pollsters attribute that shift to efforts in various states to severely restrict abortion.

“The public is very reactive to the arguments being put forth by the more committed advocates on both sides of the issue,” Carvalho said, adding, “The danger for Republicans is that when you look at independents, independents are moving more toward Democrats on this issue. … When the debate starts overstepping what public opinion believes to be common sense, we’ve seen independents moving in Democrats’ corner.”

In the case of self-identification, 60% of independents identified as “pro-choice.” Asked which party would do a better job of dealing with the issue of abortion, a plurality of Americans overall chose Democrats (47%) over Republicans (34%).

Independents chose Democrats on the question of which party would do a better job by an 11-point margin (43% to 32%).

Loading…

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here

Asked if they’d be more likely to support state laws that decriminalize abortion and make laws less strict or ones that do the opposite, 60% of Americans overall, including two-thirds of independents, chose laws that decriminalize abortion and are less strict.

What specifically do Americans support and oppose?

The poll also asked a long series of questions to try to figure out what Americans support or oppose when it comes to potential changes to abortion laws pending in several states. Poll respondents were not told which states these proposals come from.

The poll found that Americans are very much against requiring fines and/or prison time for doctors who perform abortions. There was also slim majority support for allowing abortions at any time during a pregnancy if there is no viability outside the womb and for requiring insurance companies to cover abortion procedures. A slim majority also opposed allowing pharmacists and health providers the ability to opt out of providing medicine or surgical procedures that result in abortion.

At the same time, two-thirds were in favor of a 24-hour waiting period from the time a woman meets with a health care professional until having the abortion procedure itself; two-thirds wanted doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges; and a slim majority wanted the law to require women to be shown an ultrasound image at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure.

Loading…

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here

“What’s most interesting here,” Carvalho said, is that “the extremes are really outliers. When they advocate for their positions and change the debate toward the most extreme position on the issue, they actually do the opposite. They move public opinion away from them.”

The more vocal advocates on either side, however, have had the ability to shift the debate and public opinion to their point of view. Consider that many of the specific items above, at one point or another, have been hotly debated.

When does life begin?

The poll also asked the very big question of when Americans think life begins. There was not an overwhelming consensus. A plurality of the six choices given, but far less than a majority, said life begins at conception (38%). Slightly more than half (53%) disagreed, saying that life begins either within the first eight weeks of pregnancy (8%), the first three months (8%), between three and six months (7%), when a fetus is viable (14%) or at birth (16%).

Loading…

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here

Gender gap? Try a stark party divide, particularly among women

The most acute divide among Americans on the issue of abortion, arguably, is not a gender divide but between the parties — and of women of different parties.

For example, 54% of men identified as “pro-choice,” compared with 60% of women. For women of the different parties, 77% of Democratic women identified as “pro-choice,” while 68% of Republican women identified as “pro-life.” (A lower percentage of Republican men, 59%, considered themselves “pro-life.”)

Throughout the poll, the divide was stark. On Roe, for example, 62% of Republican women said overturn it or add restrictions; 73% of Democratic women said keep it the way it is, expand it to allow abortions under any circumstance or reduce some of the restrictions.

Eighty-four percent of Democratic women said they are more likely to support state laws that decriminalize abortion and make laws less strict; 62% of Republican women said they are more likely to support laws that criminalize abortion or make laws stricter.

On requiring insurance companies to cover abortion procedures, 75% of Democratic women support that, while 78% of Republican women oppose it, higher than the 63% of Republican men who said the same.

Republican women also stand out for the 62% of them who said they oppose laws that allow abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest. They are the only group to voice majority opposition to that. Fifty-nine percent of Republican men, for example, said they would support such a law.

And Republican women are the only group to say overwhelmingly that life begins at conception. About three-quarters said so, compared with less than half of Republican men and a third of Democratic women.

It’s a reminder that Republican women, in many ways, are the backbone of the movement opposing abortion rights.


The survey of 944 adults was conducted by live interviewers by telephone from May 31 through June 4. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Editor’s note: The survey asked respondents to identify as either “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” This question wording, using the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” was included in the survey because it has tracked the public debate on abortion over decades. It is sensitive to current events and public discussion even though it does not capture the nuanced positions many people have on the issue.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Social Security Error Jeopardizes Medicare Coverage For 250,000 Seniors

The Social Security Administration didn't deduct premiums from some seniors' Social Security checks that were supposed to pay for Medicare Advantage and private drug coverage.

Thinkstock/Getty Images

A quarter of a million Medicare beneficiaries may be receiving bills for as many as five months of premiums they thought they had already paid.

But they shouldn’t toss the letter in the garbage. It’s not a scam or a mistake.

Because of what the Social Security Administration calls “a processing error” in January, it did not deduct premiums from some seniors’ Social Security checks and it didn’t pay the insurance plans, according to the agency’s “frequently asked questions” page on its website.

The problem applies to private drug policies and Medicare Advantage plans that provide both medical and drug coverage and that substitute for traditional government-run Medicare.

Some people will discover they must find the money to pay the plans. Others may find their plans canceled. Medicare officials say approximately 250,000 people are affected.

Medicare and Social Security say they expect that proper deductions and payments to insurers will resume this month or next. Insurers are required to send bills directly to their members for the unpaid premiums, according to Medicare.

But neither agency would explain how the error occurred or provide a more exact number or the names of the plans that were shortchanged. The amount the plans are owed also wasn’t disclosed. A notice to beneficiaries on Medicare’s website lacks key details.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, and two colleagues wrote to both agencies about the problem on May 22 but have not received a response from Medicare. Social Security’s response referred most questions to Medicare officials.

Organizations that help seniors say they are getting some questions from Medicare beneficiaries.

Two seniors in Louisiana lost drug coverage after their policies were canceled due to the SSA error, says Vicki Dufrene, director of the state’s Senior Health Insurance Information Program. One woman had the same drug plan since 2013, which dropped her at the end of April. She was without coverage for the entire month of May until earlier this week, when Dufrene was able to get her retroactively re-enrolled.

Dufrene says some people might not notice that their checks did not include a deduction for their Medicare Advantage or drug plan premiums. If their check was a little more than expected, they could have assumed that extra amount was the expected cost-of-living increase, among other things.

In Ohio, a Medicare Advantage plan reinstated a member due to unpaid premiums less than 48 hours after the state’s health insurance information program for seniors got involved, says director Christina Reeg.

Medicare beneficiaries have had the option of paying their premiums through a deduction from their Social Security checks for more than a decade, she says. However, they can also charge payments directly to a credit card or checking account instead of relying on Social Security.

Humana spokesman Mark Mathis says about 33,000 members were affected — or fewer than 1% of its total Medicare membership. None of those members lost coverage. The company blamed Medicare’s nearly 15-year-old IT systems for the failure and urged the agency to invest in new equipment.

A UnitedHealthcare representative says none of its 32,000 Medicare Advantage or Part D members affected by the SSA problem lost coverage. The company has the highest Medicare enrollment in the U.S.

Aetna has not received payments for Medicare Advantage and drug plans for the months of February through May for 43,000 affected members, says spokesman Ethan Slavin. Customers will receive bills for the unpaid premiums and can set up payment plans if they can’t pay the entire amount.

These and other affected insurers must allow their members at least two months from the billing date to pay. And they must offer a payment plan for those who can’t pay several months of premiums at once, Medicare says. With both steps, “plans can avoid invoking their policy of disenrollment for failure to pay premiums while the member is adhering to the payment plan,” Jennifer Shapiro, the acting director for the Medicare Plan Payment Group, warned the companies in a May 22 memo.

Lindsey Copeland, federal policy director for the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy group, says she is concerned that older adults will view the bill with suspicion.

“If you think your premiums are being paid automatically and then your plan tells you six months later that wasn’t the case, you may be confused,” she says.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Contact Susan Jaffe at Jaffe.KHN@gmail.com or @susanjaffe

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

What Missouri’s Fight Over Abortion Means For An Illinois Clinic Across The River

NPR’s Ari Shapiro talks with Alison Dreith, the director of Hope Clinic in Granite City, Ill., about how the uncertainty of Missouri’s last abortion clinic is affecting her patients and staff.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Missouri’s only clinic that performs abortions is fighting to stay open. That fight against the state’s health department is playing out in the courts today. Last week we asked the head of Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services, Randall Williams, how the closure of this clinic might affect Missouri women’s access to abortion.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)

RANDALL WILLIAMS: Access is always important to us, and so as you know, Missouri is contiguous to eight states. And so there certainly are abortion facilities very close by in Illinois and Kansas.

SHAPIRO: Alison Dreith directs one of those nearby facilities. She runs the Hope Clinic in Granite, Ill., roughly 20 minutes’ drive from St. Louis. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

ALISON DREITH: Thanks for having me.

SHAPIRO: How have you and your staff been preparing for the possibility that Missouri may one day be left without a clinic that provides abortions?

DREITH: Well, I think abortion providers all across the country have theoretically been planning for this day since Trump was elected to office, and those conversations have picked up more rapidly and frequently since the beginning of 2019. And now we have had to rapidly put in some of that crisis management planning into practice over these past two weeks.

SHAPIRO: Can you give us examples of some of the kinds of steps you’re talking about?

DREITH: Yeah, some of the steps we have taken is hiring new staff, considering patient flow and how to allow patients to expect the same safe and compassionate care that they always have from us without having to be in the clinic longer hours. We’ve been utilizing volunteers to do mundane clerical work for us that we once had the opportunity to do so. We’ve been increasing our number of patients and staying open longer hours than what we would have normally expected.

SHAPIRO: I imagine your clinic’s capacity is limited in some respect. Can you scale up to the degree that you think you might have to?

DREITH: Absolutely not right off the bat. We see about 3,000 patients a year here at Hope Clinic, and from the…

SHAPIRO: And is that all for abortions, or does that include STI treatment, birth control?

DREITH: Just abortions.

SHAPIRO: OK.

DREITH: The last report I think from the Guttmacher Institute of abortion patients in Missouri was 3,500 in 2017. That is more than double of what we currently see, and we wouldn’t expect to take on all of those patients where there are a number of neighboring states that could provide services much more close to home for patients. But we are in a unique position that we’re so close to downtown St. Louis and that remaining abortion provider in Missouri and that we also go to 24-weeks gestation, which a lot of our other neighboring states do not.

So we have already seen about a 30% increase of abortion patients in the past two years since Missouri passed its last ban on abortion in 2017, but we have seen an increase in those numbers already in 2019 compared to the same time last year. And we expect that to continue to go up not only with Missouri patients but from several other neighboring Midwest and states in the South.

SHAPIRO: You prepared for something similar to this in 2016 when Kentucky was left with only one clinic providing abortions. Has this been different from that?

DREITH: Yeah, I think so because all of our abortion providers and including myself are Missouri residents, and they also provide gynecological care in the state of Missouri. And so for a lot of reasons, we feel like we’re a clinic that is operating in two states – abiding by the Illinois law but also feeling the direct impact of what’s happening in Missouri both professionally and medically and also personally.

SHAPIRO: Alison Dreith is the director of the Hope Clinic in Granite, Ill., just outside St. Louis, Mo. Thanks so much for speaking with us today.

DREITH: Thanks, Ari. Have a great day.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

VA Secretary Robert Wilkie On Allowing More Veterans To Seek Private Health Care

NPR’s Ari Shapiro talks to Robert Wilkie, secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, about a new program that launches June 6 that would allow more veterans to seek private health care.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

We’re going to spend the next few minutes talking about something that we don’t often see in Washington these days, a bill that passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. It’s called the MISSION Act. And starting this week, it will bring big changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs, particularly when it comes to health care. The law expands the number of veterans who qualify for private care that is reimbursed by the VA.

Today I spoke with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie, and he told me the number of veterans seeking health care outside the VA has actually gone down recently. So I asked the secretary – if that’s the case, how many people does he expect to take advantage of this expansion?

ROBERT WILKIE: I don’t see that large a rise. The way the system is set up is that the veteran will come to us, we will tell him that we cannot provide a service. And because he lives outside a certain number of minutes from a VA facility and we’re telling him that the wait time is greater than 20 days, then he has the option of going into the private sector.

SHAPIRO: As you know, critics are afraid that this is a move towards privatizing…

WILKIE: Right.

SHAPIRO: …VA health care. Explain why you disagree with that view.

WILKIE: Well, I just presented a $220 billion budget, a budget that also calls for an employee base of 390,000. Ten years ago, the budget was 98 billion, and we had 280,000 employees. So if we’re going about privatizing this, we’re going about it in a very strange way.

SHAPIRO: But on its surface, doesn’t expanding eligibility for private care constitute a shift away from government-provided health care, whether or not this is part of, as critics would accuse, some kind of Trojan horse larger project of privatization?

WILKIE: Well, no, not if you read the MISSION Act. My goal is to provide the best possible health care because it’s not only the right thing to do, but the Congress said it right there in the legislation. And because of the nature of our patient base – people like my father, who suffered terrible combat wounds in Cambodia – there’s nothing in the private sector that is going to understand or take care of someone who has suffered that kind of trauma in battle. There’s just no other place like it.

SHAPIRO: I’d like to talk about another important topic, which is expanding efforts to prevent veteran suicide.

WILKIE: Yes.

SHAPIRO: The VA has said this is the highest clinical priority.

WILKIE: Right.

SHAPIRO: Something like 20 veterans die each day by suicide. And this number has, for the most part, been pretty consistent.

WILKIE: Yes.

SHAPIRO: Why, after years of making this a priority, hasn’t the VA been able to make a real improvement in this area?

WILKIE: Well, I don’t think the country has made it a priority. I’ve said that we need a national conversation on mental health, homelessness and addiction.

SHAPIRO: But you’re in charge of the VA…

WILKIE: Yeah.

SHAPIRO: …So let’s talk about what the VA is doing.

WILKIE: Yeah. Well, the VA has got very specific programs. Every veteran who comes to us gets a mental health screening. Every veteran who comes to us has same-day mental health services.

SHAPIRO: So why haven’t the numbers improved?

WILKIE: Here’s just the problem. All of these cases are not related. Give you an example – 14 of the 20 who take their lives are veterans that we have no contact with; a couple are on active duty; several are on guard and reserve duty and never deployed. And the bulk are from the Vietnam era. Lyndon Johnson left Washington, D.C., 50 years ago in January, and many of these problems have been brewing ever since that time.

So we’re not going to be able to get these numbers erased. But we have to change the culture that we start training troops, from the time they get into boot camp to the time they leave, not only on their own mental health but to see signs in their buddies. And I will also say, you know, our Veterans Crisis Line gets 1,700 calls a day. Of those 1,700, we act on 200 to 300 calls, where we send people out and we get those veterans help.

SHAPIRO: Does the VA have enough mental health providers right now?

WILKIE: Well, we are in the same position the United States is in. We were able to hire 3,900 mental health professionals last year. I think NPR has covered the fact that most of our medical schools are sending their students into the most expensive specialties out there, and VA suffers just as the rest of America suffers.

SHAPIRO: Secretary Wilkie, the last thing I would like to ask you about is a surprising moment that happened on the campaign trail recently…

WILKIE: Yeah.

SHAPIRO: …Where Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts…

WILKIE: Yes.

SHAPIRO: …He’s a veteran running for the Democratic…

WILKIE: Right.

SHAPIRO: …Nomination. He did four combat tours in Iraq.

WILKIE: Yeah.

SHAPIRO: And at a campaign event last week, he spoke very frankly and openly about his experience with…

WILKIE: Yes.

SHAPIRO: …PTSD. This is what he told NPR about that moment.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)

SETH MOULTON: Now I’m applying to lead the country, and I think it would be disingenuous not to lead by example and share my own story about my own struggles with these issues.

SHAPIRO: What’s your reaction to seeing this kind of an honest conversation happening in a forum as prominent as a presidential campaign?

WILKIE: Well, it is about time. It is about time. We are seeing a generational shift in the armed forces of the United States, where we finally talk about these things; we don’t hide them. The military is a conservative institutions for many reasons, and one of them is it takes it a long time to change. But the more we hear voices like this – the more we talk about it, I think, we’ll be in a much better place.

SHAPIRO: Robert Wilkie is secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Thank you for joining us today.

WILKIE: Ari, thank you for having me.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

What’s At Stake For Georgia If Hollywood Boycotts Over A New Abortion Law

A boycott of Georgia’s booming film industry could cause major damage to the state’s economy. NPR’s Audie Cornish speaks with Bryn Sandberg of The Hollywood Reporter about how this could happen.



AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

The state of Georgia has become one of the movie capitals of the world. These days it produces more feature films per year than Hollywood. But some of the biggest media companies like Netflix, Disney and Warner Media said this week that they might consider leaving Georgia because of its new restrictions on abortion. Bryn Sandberg of The Hollywood Reporter has been covering this situation, and she joins us now. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

BRYN SANDBERG: Thank you for having me.

CORNISH: First of all, to start, how did Georgia become competitive in this industry, right? How did we reach a point where Georgia could be competing with the New York’s and LA’s of the world to lure production companies?

SANDBERG: It’s definitely been a massive industry for Georgia in the last 10 years because about a decade ago is when they instituted these new, very generous, lucrative tax incentives which gives productions up to 30% back depending on how much they spend and whether they’re willing to put a Georgia peach logo in their credits and that sort of thing. But it’s really significant money back for these major studios in Hollywood.

CORNISH: And what has it gotten back?

SANDBERG: There was a record 455 films and television productions that were shot in Georgia in the last fiscal year. And they represented a $2.7, you know, billion in direct spending, which they estimate brings in $9.5 billion in total economic impact. So these numbers are really huge. And they have been a huge destination for feature films, and not just any sort of feature films, expensive blockbusters, the biggest of those being Marvel’s “Avengers” movies, which shot at Pinewood Studios in Atlanta, which is a big production facility.

CORNISH: As we mentioned, studios and media companies have sent some warning signals. How likely, though, is an actual boycott?

SANDBERG: These laws have sort of been spreading. And production people here in Hollywood are sort of taking a wait-and-see approach. And this abortion ban isn’t supposed to take effect until January of 2020. So we have this sort of in-between time where a lot of studios and producers and executives are trying to figure out what the best course of action is, and do they keep projects there in the meantime? Should it be overturned before it’s enacted, then Hollywood doesn’t really have to worry about pulling out their productions.

CORNISH: That’s the business side of it, but people make a lot of the politics of Hollywood. Is there a sense that people actually support the idea of a boycott?

SANDBERG: I think that there is a bit of a political divide. Depending on who you talk to, you’ll get different perspectives and different strategies on this issue. You look at what J.J. Abrams and Jordan Peele did with their upcoming HBO show “Lovecraft County (ph)” that they’re about to shoot in Georgia. They said they were going to continue on with production in the state and that they were going to donate 100% of their episodic fees to the ACLU of Georgia and Fair Fight Georgia, which are two organizations working to oppose the law and overturn it in court.

So their perspective was that, you know, they talked to a lot of people on the ground in Georgia and felt that it would only be hurting the local crew and the actors and local production companies and all these people who really need these jobs if they were to just relocate at the 11th hour.

So if you look at an Amazon show called “The Power” that Reed Morano is making and ended up deciding to look elsewhere after this legislation was passed. So you’re seeing a lot of different strategies, and there is definitely discussion in town here about whether a boycott is the most effective one.

CORNISH: That’s Bryn Sandberg of The Hollywood Reporter. Thank you for speaking with us.

SANDBERG: Thank you so much for having me.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Louisiana Governor Says He Plans To Sign Bill Restricting Most Abortions Into Law

Louisiana is the latest state where lawmakers have voted to ban most abortions with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. The state’s Democratic governor says he will sign the bill into law.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Today Louisiana’s governor became the latest to sign a strict abortion ban into law with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. This is part of a long-term strategy by abortion opponents to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its landmark Roe versus Wade decision legalizing abortion.

NPR’s Debbie Elliott is following this debate and joins us now. Hi. Debbie.

DEBBIE ELLIOTT, BYLINE: Hi, Ari.

SHAPIRO: OK, so the Louisiana Legislature passed this bill yesterday. The governor signed it into law today. What does it do?

ELLIOTT: Well, it outlaws abortion once a heartbeat can be detected by ultrasound. Typically that can be as early as six weeks, in some cases before a woman would even know that she was pregnant. There are exceptions if a woman’s life is threatened or if there’s a serious and irreversible health risk, also if the pregnancy is diagnosed as medically futile. There are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Here’s the bill’s House sponsor, Republican State Representative Valarie Hodges.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

VALARIE HODGES: While we have tremendous empathy – tremendous empathy – for women of whatever age, especially for children that have been the victims of rape or incest – and it is a heinous crime – but if anyone should be put to death, it should be the perpetrator of the crime, not the child, not the baby.

ELLIOTT: Republicans lead the Louisiana Legislature, but this bill picked up Democratic support as well. In fact, the Senate sponsor of the bill is a Democrat.

SHAPIRO: And so is the governor who signed the bill this afternoon. What has he said about his decision to sign the bill into law?

ELLIOTT: Well, his position is certainly a break with national Democrats. Edwards was not available for an interview, but in a statement, he described himself as pro-life. He also acknowledged that there are many people who feel just as strongly as he does on the abortion issue and disagree with me, he said. But I respect their opinions. One of the people that disagree with him is the chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson. I spoke with her from Baton Rouge today, and she was very disappointed with the governor.

KAREN CARTER PETERSON: I respect his religious beliefs. I, in fact, share a lot of his religious beliefs. But while I’m in this capitol as I sit right now, a woman’s health is sacred. A woman should have the right to decide with her husband, with her family what she does with her body.

ELLIOTT: The political reality in Louisiana is that Edwards, the lone Democratic governor in the Deep South, is up for re-election this year in a conservative, Republican-leaning state where the abortion issue resonates with voters.

SHAPIRO: OK, well this ban comes as a lot of states are passing new restrictions on abortion. And most of these laws are tied up in court challenges. Take a step back, and tell us about the broader strategy here.

ELLIOTT: Well, the broader strategy is to be in federal court on a path that anti-abortion activists hope will lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are emboldened by a conservative majority court now with two appointees from President Trump. And these laws are aimed at challenging Roe v. Wade. Louisiana’s law uses the language unborn human being and defines that as from fertilization. The goal is to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and establish human rights for a developing embryo or fetus.

Now, similar abortion bans by other states both in the South and in the Midwest have been challenged as unconstitutional. In fact, Louisiana’s law is directly tied to a similar one in Mississippi that has already been blocked by a federal judge. The Louisiana law is written so that it would not take effect unless the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Mississippi’s law.

SHAPIRO: There have been calls for boycotts of some of these states. Are we already seeing fallout even before the courts weigh in on these laws?

ELLIOTT: Yes. After Alabama passed what was the most restrictive abortion ban in the country, the University of Alabama’s biggest donor, Hugh Culverhouse Jr., called for a boycott of both the state of Alabama and the school. Now, the university attracts a majority of out-of-state students. It says it had nothing to do with the law and was already in a dispute with Culverhouse and may give him back a $21 million donation. That is a big investment to lose.

In Georgia, several media giants including Disney, Netflix and WarnerMedia have indicated that they’re reconsidering doing business in Georgia because of that state’s law that bans abortions once a heartbeat can be detected. So Louisiana – also a place where there is a significant amount of television and film production as well as the music industry there. So that state could face similar pressure.

SHAPIRO: That’s NPR’s Debbie Elliott. Thanks, Debbie.

ELLIOTT: You’re welcome.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

AIDS Activists Take On The High Price Of HIV Prevention Pill

In the 1980s, AIDS activists demanded action from the U.S. government in a dramatic way, and got results. Now, they have a new goal: more affordable access to an HIV prevention pill.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

In the 1980s and ’90s, a group of AIDS activists called ACT UP demanded action from the U.S. government in a dramatic way.

(SOUNDBITE OF PROTEST)

UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: Act up. Fight back. Fight AIDS.

SHAPIRO: This was 1988. AIDS was a national crisis. Activists swarmed the Food and Drug Administration in Rockville, Md. They laid down beside paper gravestones.

(SOUNDBITE OF PROTEST)

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: You’re killing us. You’re killing us.

SHAPIRO: And they got results, including price reductions on HIV drugs that save lives. Now AIDS activists have a new goal – more affordable access to an HIV prevention pill. The pill is called TRUVADA, or PrEP. It’s made by Gilead Sciences and can cost up to $1,800 a month. NPR’s Selena Simmons-Duffin has the story.

SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN, BYLINE: A few weeks back at the AIDSWatch conference, Dr. Robert Redfield, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spoke.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ROBERT REDFIELD: In this initiative…

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: He was selling the Trump administration’s plan to end HIV in America by 2030.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: People can’t afford it because you don’t enforce it.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Things got hectic.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: The medication we need…

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Then earlier this month at the Gilead shareholders meeting…

EMILY SANDERSON: Gilead, your price-gouging is killing people.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: A video shows a 20-something woman in the room facing men in suits who exchange looks.

SANDERSON: I’m disgusted by the fact that you would put profiteering ahead of the lives of people like me.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: The group behind these disruptions is called PrEP4All, an offshoot of ACT UP. They’re out in force now because of the activity around the government’s HIV 2030 plan. That goal can only be reached if more people get on PrEP, which stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis. Only a fraction of the 1 million people at risk for HIV are on it.

PrEP4All wants that $1,800 a month for PrEP way lower, more like the $5 a month it costs in other countries. They have two approaches – shame Gilead into voluntarily lowering the price and pressure the government into challenging Gilead’s patent so generic competition forces the price down. Let’s start with Gilead.

SANDERSON: Our goal is to get Gilead Sciences to release the patent on TRUVADA, or PrEP.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Emily Sanderson is a co-founder of PrEP4All. You heard her confronting Gilead shareholders.

SANDERSON: Gilead has the power to make PrEP available right now for everybody, and they’re not doing it.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: In a statement, the company told NPR it, quote, “respects the work of HIV advocates and has been engaged with the advocate community for decades.” But that price tag remains.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DANIEL O’DAY: The current list price is $1,780 in the United States.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: That’s CEO Daniel O’Day testifying about this issue on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago. Gilead is the only company making this drug in the U.S. right now. It’s under patent for a limited time, and shareholders want to see profits.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

O’DAY: The pricing as set in the United States takes into account the innovation it brings, the cost of the health care of treating an HIV patient, the ability to invest back in research and development and then also to make sure our access programs are effective.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Gilead argues the price isn’t the problem. Lack of awareness, stigma and homophobia are the problems. And they say few pay the full list price. Gilead provides the drug at a discount to government programs. They just donated drugs to the CDC to cover some uninsured patients. And people with high deductibles can use its copay assistance program. PrEP4All activists are dismissive of these efforts, in Jake Powell’s case, because of personal experience.

JAKE POWELL: Gilead’s copay assistance program for the first year paid out the full cost of those first few months to the point that my insurance then kicked in.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: And paid full price for TRUVADA. The next year, Powell’s insurer stopped counting Gilead’s payments towards the $5,000 deductible. Powell would have had to pay out of pocket.

POWELL: I was off it for about six months because I couldn’t afford it. It was really frustrating. I was definitely scared in a way that I was used to not having to be scared.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: PrEP4All says to Gilead, you’ve made billions already; just lower the cost of the drug. To the government, PrEP4All says…

SANDERSON: The CDC can come in and reduce the cost of PrEP and provide it at an affordable price.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: That’s Emily Sanderson again. Activists make two points – that the CDC has its own patents for PrEP the agency could be enforcing, something Gilead disputes, and that taxpayer money was used in the studies underlying Gilead’s TRUVADA patent. The government has the power under the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, they argue, to march in and break Gilead’s patent in the name of public health and let generic competition bring the price down.

SANDERSON: This PrEP pricing issue is a fixable problem. And we can get PrEP to everyone who needs it.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Neither the CDC nor Gilead have shown signs of being moved by these arguments. If the activists don’t convince them to act, the 1 million people at risk for HIV will have to wait until Gilead’s TRUVADA patent expires next fall and then wait again for generic competition to possibly lower the price closer to that $5 a month people get in the rest of the world. Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Missouri Could Soon Be The Only U.S. State Without A Clinic That Provides Abortions

Planned Parenthood says it might have to stop providing abortion services in Missouri. That would make Missouri the first state in the country without a clinic that performs abortions.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

To talk about how Missouri’s fight over abortion fits into the larger national picture, NPR’s Sarah McCammon joins us now. She has been covering the abortion debate across the country.

Hi, Sarah.

SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Hi there.

SHAPIRO: How unusual is what is happening in Missouri? How close are other states to being in the same situation?

MCCAMMON: Well, abortion is still legal in all 50 states, Ari, but that does not mean it’s accessible or even available. Right now Missouri is one of six states with only one clinic, so abortion rights advocates say any of those six states could find itself in a similar situation. And we should note a couple of hospitals in Missouri could still provide abortions in rare situations like medical emergencies. But this clinic is the only option in the state for most women seeking abortions.

SHAPIRO: These clinics have been closing in a number of states. Explain why.

MCCAMMON: Right. A lot of it does come down to laws and regulations like those in Missouri that make it hard for clinics to stay open. Activists say it’s a strategy – an intentional strategy by anti-abortion rights groups. And it’s happening along with efforts we’ve seen to ban abortion outright. Planned Parenthood says something like 300 abortion restrictions have been introduced in state legislatures this year. And more than half of those involved regulating clinics and doctors, things like hospital-admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions or transportation agreements with local hospitals in case of an emergency. Medical groups say many of these regulations are excessive and unnecessary.

SHAPIRO: What do groups that oppose abortion say about these new regulations? How are they reacting to them?

MCCAMMON: Right. Well, no surprise, they’re pleased to see that this facility in Missouri might have to stop performing abortions. I heard from Marjorie Dannenfelser with the anti-abortion rights group the Susan B. Anthony List. She said in a statement that this would be good news for health and safety, as she put it. And she says that there is growing momentum around the country to restrict abortion.

SHAPIRO: There’s been a lot of speculation about how the Supreme Court might weigh in on laws that ban specific abortion procedures or ban the procedure at certain stages. What does the Supreme Court said about these other kinds of restrictions on clinics and doctors who perform abortions?

MCCAMMON: So, yeah, the Supreme Court has weighed in on this. About three years ago, there was a case from Texas called the Whole Woman’s Health case. It was a Texas law that required hospital-admitting privileges for doctors and surgical facilities at clinics that provide abortions. In that decision, the court said, basically, that states cannot impose these kinds of health regulations without demonstrating that they’re medically necessary.

Groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say the regulations that could force Missouri’s last clinic to stop offering abortions are unnecessary and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. There’s another case before the Supreme Court from Louisiana that looks at similar issues, so I’d expect to hear more about this, Ari, along with those – the debate over banning abortion outright.

SHAPIRO: That’s NPR’s Sarah McCammon. Thanks, Sarah.

MCCAMMON: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)