Homeless Advocates Lend Support in Suit Over City’s Refusal to Expand Housing Vouchers

posted in: Society | 0

Seven local organizations sought permission to file an amicus brief in support of the City Council and Legal Aid Society’s lawsuit, which is looking to compel the Adams administration to implement a package of laws to expand eligibility for CityFHEPS, a rental subsidy program.

Gerardo Romo / NYC Council Media Unit

Councilmember Pierina Sanchez, who sponsored two of the bills the mayor has so far refused to implement, speaks at a rally in support of CityFHEPS expansion last summer.

A group of homeless advocacy organizations are weighing in on a lawsuit against the Adams administration over its refusal to implement a package of laws that would expand the city’s rental subsidy program to more New Yorkers.

The seven local groups—Win, Coalition for the Homeless, Help USA, Homeless Services United, Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing, New York Coalition for Homeless Youth, and Community Service Society of New York (a City Limits funder)—are seeking the court’s permission to file an amicus brief in the case.

They’re backing Legal Aid Society and the City Council’s efforts to compel City Hall to enforce the legislation, which lawmakers passed last summer—overriding the mayor’s veto—and which would expand eligibility for City Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (CityFHEPS) rental vouchers.

Under the program, voucher holders pay up to 30 of their income on rent, up to a set maximum, while the city covers the difference. The Council’s legislation would extend eligibility to include those earning 50 percent of the area median income (currently $69,900 for a family of three in New York City), eliminate work requirements and allow households at risk of eviction to apply without requiring they spend time in the shelter system first, among other reforms.

“As experts who are in the trenches working with and advocating for individuals experiencing homelessness, [we] urge this Court to order Respondents to implement these common-sense laws before more New Yorkers are needlessly forced into homelessness,” reads the document the advocacy groups filed with the court Tuesday.

In a statement, Christine Quinn, a former Council speaker who is now president of the shelter provider Win, called CityFHEPS “a tried-and-true program that reduces homelessness,” and that the administration’s inaction on the bills, “not only makes it harder for families to exit shelter but undermines New York’s ability to combat the homelessness crisis.”

Mayor Eric Adams has maintained that expanding the program would be too costly and would make it harder for existing voucher holders to find apartments, citing a historically low availability of affordable rental housing.

City Hall pointed to its other efforts to improve CityFHEPS: eliminating a rule that required applicants spend at least 90 days in shelter before they could be eligible, letting people use vouchers to rent homes in New York outside the city, and offering more flexibility on using vouchers cover utility costs. In February, the city launched an initiative to “fast-track” the creation of hundreds of affordable units specifically for voucher holders in shelter.

“Let’s be clear: Since day one, Mayor Adams and this administration have been dedicated to connecting as many New Yorkers to permanent, affordable homes as possible and we’ve made historic progress in doing just that,” a spokesperson for City Hall said in a statement.

The administration also argues that the Council doesn’t have the legal authority to legislate public assistance reforms, citing New York State’s Social Services Law, claiming it only extends that power to certain state agencies as well as to the city’s Department of Social Services, which can do so as a “local arm of” the state.

Legal Aid Society, which filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of a proposed class of New Yorkers who say they’re unable to access vouchers due to the mayor’s refusal to enact the expansion, has disputed that reasoning.

“The Council has long legislated in the field of social services, and its role in these matters is clearly found in the relevant statutory and case law,” Legal Aid attorneys wrote in court papers filed last week. It cited several past examples, including in 2021 when lawmakers passed a bill to raise the value of CityFHEPS vouchers, which the city implemented.

“We’re still in the midst of a five decade old homelessness crisis in New York City, and we need to help people move into permanent housing. That is really the only solution,” said Dave Giffen of Coalition for the Homeless, one of the seven organizations that filed the amicus brief. “Vouchers are not the only solution to mass homelessness, but they’re a very effective solution.”

The legal fight is playing out on the heels of another battle between homeless advocates and City Hall over New York’s right to shelter rules. A settlement was recently reached in that case that temporarily narrows re-sheltering rights for newly arrived immigrants. (Currently, undocumented people are not eligible for CityFHEPs).

“After what we’ve been through now with the challenge to the right to shelter, the mayor needs to stop trying to duck his responsibilities to the people in the city who are most in need,” Giffen added.

Quick Fix: Baked Pecan Crusted Halibut with Broccoli and Sweet Potatoes

posted in: News | 0

Linda Gassenheimer | Tribune News Service

Here’s a quick sheet pan dinner. I coated halibut fillet with a mayonnaise sauce and chopped pecans, which added a nice crunch and flavor to the fish. The halibut bakes on the sheet pan along with broccoli florets and sweet potato cubes to complete the meal.

Halibut is a tender fish that is tasty with a mild subtle sweetness. Other fish such as mahi mahi, swordfish or even tilapia will work with this dinner. It only takes 10 minutes to cook and there’s no pot to wash.

HELPFUL HINTS:

Sugar can be substituted for honey.

Chop pecans in food processor.

COUNTDOWN:

Preheat oven to 450 degrees.

Prepare all the ingredients.

Bake the halibut and vegetables.

SHOPPING LIST:

To buy: 3/4 pound halibut, 1 jar reduced-fat mayonnaise, 1 bottle honey, 1 jar Dijon mustard, 1 container chopped pecans, 1 container plain panko breadcrumbs, 1/2 pound broccoli florets, 1/2 pound sweet potatoes and 1 can olive oil spray.

Staples: salt and black peppercorns.

Baked Pecan Crusted Halibut with Broccoli and Sweet Potatoes

Recipe by Linda Gassenheimer

3/4 pound halibut fillet

Salt and freshly ground black pepper

1/4 cup reduced-fat mayonnaise

2 teaspoons honey

2 teaspoons Dijon mustard

1/4 cup finely chopped pecans

1/4 cup plain panko breadcrumbs

1/2 pound broccoli florets, about 3 cups

1/2 pound sweet potato cubes, about 2 cups

Olive oil spray

Line a baking sheet with foil. Place halibut on one side of the sheet and add salt and pepper to taste to the fish. Mix the mayonnaise, honey and mustard together in a small bowl. Mix the pecans and breadcrumbs together in another bowl. Spread the mayonnaise mixture over the halibut and spoon the pecan mixture evenly over the mayonnaise. Place the broccoli florets next to the halibut on the baking sheet. Wash and do not peel the sweet potato. Cut into 1/2 to 1-inch pieces and place on the sheet next to the broccoli. Sprinkle salt and pepper to taste over the vegetables and spray olive oil spray over the fish and vegetables. Place the sheet pan in the oven for 10 minutes. A meat thermometer should read 135 degrees. Bake a few minutes longer if needed. Divide between two dinner plates and server.

Yield 2 servings.

Per serving: 602 calories (40 percent from fat), 26.8 g fat (3.1 g saturated, 10.6 g monounsaturated), 54 mg cholesterol, 44.5 g protein, 48.1 g carbohydrates, 8.1 g fiber, 553 mg sodium.

(Linda Gassenheimer is the author of over 30 cookbooks, including her newest, “The 12-Week Diabetes Cookbook.” Listen to Linda on www.WDNA.org and all major podcast sites. Email her at Linda@DinnerInMinutes.com.)

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

US Supreme Court hears arguments on Idaho abortion law this week. How did we get here?

posted in: Society | 0

Nicole Blanchard | (TNS) Idaho Statesman

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments from the state and the U.S. Department of Justice that will determine their decision on the fate of emergency abortion access in Idaho.

Since Idaho’s strict abortion laws went into effect following the court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, they have faced numerous legal challenges. Several have been elevated to the Idaho Supreme Court, and others have risen to the U.S. District Court or 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here’s how this particular case made its way to the highest court.

DOJ intervenes before abortion law is triggered

The Legislature passed the law that made most abortions illegal in Idaho in 2020, before it could go into effect. It included a “trigger” that would criminalize the procedure as soon as the right to abortion was returned to the states.

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned landmark abortion protections, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, by concluding that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion and returning states’ ability to restrict the procedure. The ruling triggered the Idaho law, known as the Defense of Life Act. It was scheduled to go into effect 62 days later, on Aug. 25.

But in early August 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened. The federal government said Idaho’s abortion ban — which includes an emergency exception only when abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” — violates a 40-year-old federal law. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires hospitals that accept Medicare funds to provide stabilizing care to patients experiencing medical emergencies.

That care sometimes includes abortion, the Department of Justice said.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed. Days before the Defense of Life Act went into effect, Winmill issued a partial injunction to the law that would allow health care providers to perform emergency abortions as a stabilizing procedure in medical emergencies.

During the 2023 legislative session, state lawmakers carved out exceptions for ectopic and molar pregnancies — complications that guarantee a pregnancy will not be viable. But legislators never addressed physicians’ calls for a broader health exception to the law.

Just over a year after Winmill issued the partial injunction, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed course. Idaho physicians could no longer use EMTALA as a basis for performing abortions to protect the health of pregnant patients experiencing medical emergencies.

EMTALA injunction reversed again, raised to SCOTUS

That decision was short-lived. The following month, the 9th Circuit Court granted an appeal from the U.S. Department of Justice for an emergency reconsideration “en banc,” meaning 10 judges would weigh in. The partial injunction was back in place.

The en banc panel in November 2023 denied Idaho’s motion to get rid of the injunction. One week later, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly issued an order removing the partial injunction. For the second time since the Department of Justice sued Idaho in August 2022, the total abortion ban went into full effect without exceptions for pregnant patients’ health.

It was the Supreme Court’s first acknowledgment of Labrador’s request. The order indicated that the court would hear the case in April.

Since then, dozens of stakeholders have weighed in with amicus briefs. Physicians told the court that the conflict between Idaho law and EMTALA is devastating for patients. Businesses said the law harms them and the economy. Conservative groups championed the Idaho law and said abortion is unnecessary for stabilizing patients.

The Supreme Court justices Wednesday will hear one-hour oral arguments from Idaho and the U.S. Department of Justice. The court is expected to issue a decision in June or early July.

_____

©2024 Idaho Statesman. Visit at idahostatesman.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Biden administration sets higher staffing mandates. Most nursing homes don’t meet them

posted in: News | 0

Jordan Rau | (TNS) KFF Health News

The Biden administration finalized nursing home staffing rules Monday that will require thousands of them to hire more nurses and aides — while giving them years to do so.

The new rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are the most substantial changes to federal oversight of the nation’s roughly 15,000 nursing homes in more than three decades. But they are less stringent than what patient advocates said was needed to provide high-quality care.

Spurred by disproportionate deaths from covid-19 in long-term care facilities, the rules aim to address perennially sparse staffing that can be a root cause of missed diagnoses, severe bedsores, and frequent falls.

“For residents, this will mean more staff, which means fewer ER visits potentially, more independence,” Vice President Kamala Harris said while meeting with nursing home workers in La Crosse, Wisconsin. “For families, it’s going to mean peace of mind in terms of your loved one being taken care of.”

When the regulations are fully enacted, 4 in 5 homes will need to augment their payrolls, CMS estimated. But the new standards are likely to require slight if any improvements for many of the 1.2 million residents in facilities that are already quite close to or meet the minimum levels.

“Historically, this is a big deal, and we’re glad we have now established a floor,” Blanca Castro, California’s long-term care ombudsman, said in an interview. “From here we can go upward, recognizing there will be a lot of complaints about where we are going to get more people to fill these positions.”

The rules primarily address staffing levels for three types of nursing home workers. Registered nurses, or RNs, are the most skilled and responsible for guiding overall care and setting treatment plans. Licensed practical nurses, sometimes called licensed vocational nurses, work under the direction of RNs and perform routine medical care such as taking vital signs. Certified nursing assistants are supposed to be the most plentiful and help residents with daily activities like going to the bathroom, getting dressed, and eating.

While the industry has increased wages by 27% since February 2020, homes say they are still struggling to compete against better-paying work for nurses at hospitals and at retail shops and restaurants for aides. On average, nursing home RNs earn $40 an hour, licensed practical nurses make $31 an hour, and nursing assistants are paid $19 an hour, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CMS estimated the rules will ultimately cost $6 billion annually, but the plan omits any more payments from Medicare or Medicaid, the public insurers that cover most residents’ stays — meaning additional wages would have to come out of owners’ pockets or existing facility budgets.

The American Health Care Association, which represents the nursing home industry, called the regulation “an unreasonable standard” that “creates an impossible task for providers” amid a persistent worker shortage nationwide.

“This unfunded mandate doesn’t magically solve the nursing crisis,” the association’s CEO, Mark Parkinson, said in a statement. Parkinson said the industry will keep pressing Congress to overturn the regulation.

Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a New York City-based advocacy nonprofit, said “it is hard to call this a win for nursing home residents and families” given that the minimum levels were below what studies have found to be ideal.

The plan was welcomed by labor unions that represent nurses — and whom President Joe Biden is counting on for support in his reelection campaign. Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry called it a “long-overdue sea change.” This political bond was underscored by the administration’s decision to have Harris announce the rule with SEIU members in Wisconsin, a swing state.

The new rules supplant the vague federal mandate that has been in place since the 1980s requiring nursing homes to have “sufficient” staffing to meet residents’ needs. In practice, inspectors rarely categorized inadequate staffing as a serious infraction resulting in possible penalties, federal records show.

Starting in two years, most homes must provide an average of at least 3.48 hours of daily care per resident. About 6 in 10 nursing homes are already operating at that level, a KFF analysis found.

The rules give homes breathing room before they must comply with more specific requirements. Within three years, most nursing homes will need to provide daily RN care of at least 0.55 hours per resident and 2.45 hours from aides.

CMS also mandated that within two years an RN must be on duty at all times in case of a patient crisis on weekends or overnight. Currently, CMS requires at least eight consecutive hours of RN presence each day and a licensed nurse of any level on duty around the clock. An inspector general report found that nearly a thousand nursing homes didn’t meet those basic requirements.

Nursing homes in rural areas will have longer to staff up. Within three years, they must meet the overall staffing numbers and the round-the-clock RN requirement. CMS’ rule said rural homes have four years to achieve the RN and nurse aide thresholds, although there was some confusion within CMS, as its press materials said rural homes would have five years.

Under the new rules, the average nursing home, which has around 100 residents, would need to have at least two RNs working each day, and at least 10 or 11 nurse aides, the administration said. Homes could meet the overall requirements through two more workers, who could be RNs, vocational nurses, or aides.

Homes can get a hardship exemption from the minimums if they are in regions with low populations of nurses or aides and demonstrate good-faith efforts to recruit.

Democrats praised the rules, though some said the administration did not go nearly far enough. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said the changes were “modest improvements” but that “much more is needed to ensure sufficient care and resident safety.” A Republican senator from Nebraska, Deb Fischer, said the rule would “devastate nursing homes across the country and worsen the staffing shortages we are already facing.”

Advocates for nursing home residents have been pressing CMS for years to adopt a higher standard than what it ultimately settled on. A CMS-commissioned study in 2001 found that the quality of care improved with increases of staff up to a level of 4.1 hours per resident per day — nearly a fifth higher than what CMS will require. The consultants CMS hired in preparing its new rules did not incorporate the earlier findings in their evaluation of options.

CMS said the levels it endorsed were more financially feasible for homes, but that assertion didn’t quiet the ongoing battle about how many people are willing to work in homes at current wages and how financially strained homes owners actually are.

“If states do not increase Medicaid payments to nursing homes, facilities are going to close,” said John Bowblis, an economics professor and research fellow with the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University. “There aren’t enough workers and there are shortages everywhere. When you have a 3% to 4% unemployment rate, where are you going to get people to work in nursing homes?”

Researchers, however, have been skeptical that all nursing homes are as broke as the industry claims or as their books show. A study published in March by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that 63% of profits were secretly siphoned to owners through inflated rents and other fees paid to other companies owned by the nursing homes’ investors.

Charlene Harrington, a professor emeritus at the nursing school of the University of California-San Francisco, said: “In their unchecked quest for profits, the nursing home industry has created its own problems by not paying adequate wages and benefits and setting heavy nursing workloads that cause neglect and harm to residents and create an unsatisfactory and stressful work environment.”

___

(KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.)

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.