By Charlene Muhammad, California Black Media

Photo 

Kris Benz, a disabled Black veteran, is no stranger to cancer. In 2012, he was diagnosed with salivary duct carcinoma, a cancer so rare it strikes only about 1 in a million people each year.” But he beat it after six weeks of radiation and removal of his right salivary gland.

“I was cancer-free after six months,” he said.

Now, a new concerning mass has appeared in his neck despite months of scans. His doctor suspects it is cancerous, but Benz, who lives near Palm Springs, will not know for certain until a biopsy.

Compounding that uncertainty is a gap in his coverage. Benz is two work credits short of qualifying for Medicare, but returning to work could jeopardize his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability status and funding. Buying Medicare Part A would cost $568 a month, leaving him “winging it.”

Benz is also frustrated that the VA will not schedule his scan and biopsy before his consultation, which will require another round of appointments afterward.

Trending

Prominent Nashville Pastor Appointed to Memphis Church

“It’s about money,” he said. “Doctor’s appointments, they get the money. There’s no preventive medicine here anymore.”

Although he calls the VA “a great organization,” he believes it is hampered by bureaucracy. For now, he remains “in limbo” waiting to complete his appointments. 

His experience reflects one of the most persistent health equity challenges facing Black communities: access to care.

According to a UC Davis study, “The Burden of Cancer Among Black/African Americans in California,” Black cancer patients were more likely than White patients to be diagnosed at a later stage and to have multiple health conditions, making treatment more difficult. They were also far more likely to live in low-income communities and rely on public insurance—evidence that economic inequality and barriers to care are helping drive disparities in the state’s cancer crisis.

That same study reports that between 2014 and 2018, the ten cancers most frequently diagnosed among Black/African American women in California were, from one to ten, breast, lung, colorectal, uterine, pancreatic, kidney, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid, myeloma, and ovarian cancers. During the same period, the ten most commonly occurring cancers among Black/African American men in California were, from one to ten, prostate, lung, colorectal, kidney, bladder, liver, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, pancreatic, myeloma, and oropharyngeal cancers. 

Researchers attribute the gaps not to biology but to social and economic inequality connected to structural racism. An American Cancer Society analysis found educational attainment was a stronger predictor of the mortality gap than race alone.

“These disparities are not because Black people are inherently less healthy,” said Rhonda Smith, executive director of the California Black Health Network. “They are the result of decades of inequitable policies, structural racism, unequal access to quality care, and chronic underinvestment in our communities.”

Dr. Flojaune Cofer, an epidemiologist and public health policy expert, said health outcomes are shaped as much by circumstances as by biology. She traced her understanding of disparities to her father’s death from heart disease at age 47. He began smoking as a child when tobacco companies marketed cigarettes aggressively and disproportionately to Black communities.

“My father’s story is not about individual choices,” Cofer said. “My father’s story speaks to institutional and systemic harm.”

“Health is not just what happens in the doctor’s office,” she added. Social determinants include neighborhood conditions, housing stability, nutritious food, transportation, and the ability to take time off work for care.

At federally qualified health centers, tight appointment schedules can make it difficult for medical providers to detect cancer early and earn the trust patients need to discuss troubling symptoms.

“We have only 15 minutes when you are working in a federally qualified health center — you have 15 minutes to assess, diagnose, treat, and write your note per patient,” said Jamie Garcia, a registered nurse who has been certified in oncology nursing for more than a decade and works at AdventHealth White Memorial in East Los Angeles.

Garcia said the rushed pace, driven partly by billing requirements tied to federal funding, leaves little time for providers to build relationships with patients. It can also allow health care professionals’ implicit biases to go unrecognized and unchallenged.

For Garcia’s patients, who are predominantly Black and Latino residents of surrounding communities, the consequences can be immediate and alarming. Many arrive with visibly advanced tumors after going without insurance, adequate coverage, a primary care physician or routine screenings.

Garcia recalled treating one patient whose tumor had grown large enough to be visible through the skin.

“The fact that I even got to see that is a failure and an atrocity,” she said.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) sought to reduce another barrier through Assembly Bill 1570, which would have eliminated out-of-pocket costs for medically necessary diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging. It passed the Assembly Health Committee 16-0 but died in the Appropriations Committee. Wilson plans to reintroduce it during the next legislative session without biopsy coverage.

Wilson announced her breast cancer diagnosis in April 2023. She received timely, quality care but “saw others with similar diagnoses face different outcomes.”

“Some people who got diagnosed at the same time as me — their timing of their surgeries and treatment was delayed in comparison to my own,” she said. “Watching people go through and suffering unnecessarily was heartbreaking to me.”

Her follow-up imaging required only a $10 copay. “I’ve had friends have to pay $1,000 to get that secondary screening,” Wilson said.

Smith warned that policy changes could further erode access. California’s Every Woman Counts screening program is losing funding and being scaled back, she said. About one in three Black Californians relies on Medi-Cal, according to the state.

Smith also cited federal Medi-Cal work requirements projected to cause 1.1 million Californians to lose coverage by 2029-30. “Health equity is no longer simply about improving outcomes,” she said. “It’s about protecting access.” 

Californians seeking low-cost cancer screening can contact a local federally qualified health center or the California Department of Public Health’s Every Woman Counts program. The California Black Health Network also offers referrals and advocacy resources.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.

Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.

The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.

According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.

California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.

Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice. 

“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.

On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote. 

Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.

Trending

Biden’s ‘Hydrogen Hub’ Plan Set to Generate Thousands of Clean Energy Jobs in California

Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.

“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”

AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.

Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.

In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.

“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.  

“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC). 

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication