Health

Coverage Worries Persist Amid Relief Over Health Care Ruling

Published

11 years ago

June 26, 2015

Affordable Care Act participant Kim Jones poses for a photo in her home in Wake Forest, N.C., Thursday, June 25, 2015. Jones said the Affordable Care Act has been a blessing to her who could not have otherwise afforded the medical care she has received during treatment for a tumor on her brain. The Supreme Court decided Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act subsidies. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) — Throughout the country, relief was the dominant emotion among consumers who get help from the government to lower their health insurance costs following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Many consumers expressed somewhat conflicting views: They were happy their monthly premiums would continue to be affordable but exasperated by the coverage the policies purchased on the new health care exchanges provide.

“I don’t particularly care for Obama. I didn’t vote for him,” said Salt Lake City resident Paige Preece, whose subsidy allows her to buy insurance for $137 a month. “But, honestly, if it weren’t for this, I would be absolutely lost.”

The court’s 6-3 ruling upheld the federal financial assistance to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to help pay for insurance premiums regardless of where they live. An estimated 6.4 million people in the 34 states that used the federal health care exchange were at risk of losing the subsidies because their home states did not set up their own insurance exchanges.

The case turned on just a few words in the mammoth Affordable Care Act that suggested the federal subsidies could go only to consumers in states that operated their own health insurance marketplaces. Consumers in those states or in ones that fell back on the federal exchange when their own exchanges faltered were not affected by the case.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared in the majority opinion.

Polls taken before Thursday’s ruling suggested that most Americans wanted the court to uphold the subsidies. In an April Associated Press-GfK poll, 56 percent preferred that the court rule in favor of the Obama administration, while 39 percent wanted the court to rule for the other side.

Lydia DeJesus, who helps people sign up for coverage in Dickinson, North Dakota, said she has noted that division among consumers concerning the health care law, even among those receiving significant subsidies that make their policies more affordable.

“There are people who have services who never had services,” she said. “But there are people who were forced to have insurance and really don’t consider it affordable. Some people have told us they’d rather pay the fine as opposed to having health insurance.”

In Gresham, Oregon, Anna Mar, 28, said she is still no fan of what she calls “Obamacare.” She is a stay-at-home mom with two young boys. Her husband works in construction.

“The plan hardly covers anything, so I avoid going to the doctor,” Mar said. “I love the idea of everyone having health care, but it’s not affordable for us.”

For herself, Mar bought the cheapest plan on the exchange she could find: $134 a month, with a high deductible and high co-pays. Her government subsidy is $40. The couple’s children qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for those with lower incomes.

Other consumers said they were grateful for the health care reforms and for Thursday’s ruling allowing the subsidies to continue.

Kim Jones, a substitute teacher in Wake Forest, North Carolina, said she once used the emergency room for her care. With the health insurance plan she purchased on the federal exchange, she now can afford follow-up treatment after surgery last summer to remove a brain tumor.

Jones, 60, said she was without health insurance for about a decade because of the part-time jobs she took to allow her to care for an elderly parent. Her current coverage costs her about $27 a month, after the government subsidy of more than $500. She continues to take medication and had worried about losing coverage.

“I know it helped so many people, and a lot of folks like myself who had fallen through the cracks were finally getting some kind of help with health issues,” Jones said after the ruling.

In Norman, Oklahoma, Kelli Nicole Smith, a 26-year-old baker who earns $11 an hour at a candy shop, said she was relieved to learn she would still receive the $99 monthly subsidy that she used to purchase a health plan. Without it, Smith said she probably would have considered buying less healthy food or downgrading her mobile phone plan.

“I would have choices, but they wouldn’t be comfortable,” said Smith, who ends up paying about $60 a month for a plan with relatively high co-pays, including $500 for an emergency room visit. “Or I would have to consider finding a job that maybe pays more that I don’t really want to do.”

Advocates such as Walter Davis of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign, used the Supreme Court decision to urge lawmakers in Tennessee to increase Medicaid access, an expansion that was made optional by an earlier Supreme Court ruling.

“Tennessee has failed to expand Medicaid and is falling further behind, leaving thousands of people unnecessarily uninsured and without access to affordable health coverage,” he said in a written statement. “Now Tennessee policymakers should recognize health reform is working, abandon efforts to undermine it, and instead take advantage of the opportunities that health reform offers to improve lives.”

Those with medical issues took the most comfort in the Supreme Court’s ruling and Obama’s assertion afterward that “the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

“I’m starting to cry just talking about it,” said Susan Halpern, a 55-year-old breast cancer survivor from Columbus, Ohio, who immediately posted the news to Facebook.

With an irregular income as a freelance contractor, she said the subsidy makes a huge difference. Without it, she said the only way she could continue to pay the premium would be to drain her retirement savings.

“This has saved my ability to retire someday,” Halpern said. “I know tens of thousands of Americans were looking at it the same way.”

___

Associated Press writers Emery P. Dalesio in Raleigh, North Carolina; Travis Loller in Nashville, Tennessee; James MacPherson in Bismarck, North Dakota; Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City; Michelle L. Price in Salt Lake City; and John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, contributed to this report.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

6 Ways to Get More Love in Your Life

Don't Miss

Coverage Worries Persist Amid Relief Over Health Care Ruling

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Commentary

Doctors Seeing More Cases of Preventable Childhood Illnesses

OAKLAND POST — Physicians have said vaccine skepticism has expanded beyond childhood immunizations. Doctors also reported growing resistance to other preventive treatments.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 17, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Stacy M. Brown

Doctors across the United States say they are treating children for illnesses that routine vaccinations once made increasingly uncommon, raising concerns that years of declining immunization rates are beginning to reverse decades of public health progress.

Pediatricians have described seeing more cases of whooping cough, rotavirus infections, bacterial pneumonia and other potentially life-threatening illnesses that vaccines have long helped suppress. Some physicians reported treating conditions they had rarely encountered during their careers, while others said that growing vaccine hesitancy is changing how emergency rooms and hospitals care for children.

The reports come as measles outbreaks continue to spread across multiple states and vaccination coverage remains below federal public health targets.

Johns Hopkins University’s International Vaccine Access Center reported 2,077 confirmed measles cases nationwide as of May 29. Researchers warned that outbreaks reported across the country have raised concerns about continued transmission, additional hospitalizations and deaths, and the possible loss of the nation’s measles elimination status.

Public health experts have long viewed measles as a warning sign because of its ability to spread rapidly through communities with lower vaccination coverage. The New York Times reported that physicians increasingly fear the resurgence of measles may be followed by the return of other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Doctors say that is already happening.

Dr. Meghan Hofto, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said she has already treated roughly as many children with rotavirus this year as she saw during the previous decade. Rotavirus once caused tens of thousands of hospitalizations annually before vaccines sharply reduced its spread. None of the children she treated this year had been vaccinated.

Hofto also described caring for infants with pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough.

“It’s hard to know when they’re safe to go home,” Hofto told The Times.

The rise in whooping cough cases has been particularly striking. More than 28,000 cases were reported nationwide last year, compared with approximately 7,000 in 2023, according to figures cited by The Times. Many of the affected infants were too young to receive vaccinations themselves and relied on broader community protection to reduce their exposure.

Other doctors described similarly troubling cases.

Dr. Jessica Kirk, a pediatric hospitalist in Alabama, recently treated an unvaccinated toddler hospitalized with pneumonia caused by simultaneous infections of Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Vaccines exist to protect against both illnesses. The child required oxygen and antibiotics to recover.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins have been tracking vaccination trends nationwide and found continuing signs of vulnerability.

At the same time, vaccine policy has become increasingly contentious in state legislatures.

Johns Hopkins researchers reported that lawmakers across the country continue to introduce bills affecting childhood vaccination requirements, vaccine access and non-medical exemptions. Researchers also noted that state policies governing exemptions remain a significant factor in vaccination coverage and disease transmission risks.

Physicians have said vaccine skepticism has expanded beyond childhood immunizations. Doctors also reported growing resistance to other preventive treatments.

For doctors confronting the return of illnesses that vaccines once pushed to the margins of American medicine, the challenge is becoming increasingly personal.

“It just feels like you’re a tiny little boat with a giant tidal wave coming at you,” Dr. Erin Charles, a regional pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told reporters. “And you might convince one family here and there.”

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Community

Asm. Isaac Bryan’s Environmental Reparations Bill Passes on Assembly Floor

“All this bill does is allocate resources from that repair fund and direct cash assistance to families that have had negative health impacts as a result of living next to that oil field,” said Bryan during remarks on the Assembly floor.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 17, 2026

bpusa-syndication

Asm. Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

On May 26, the California State Assembly passed legislation to provide direct financial assistance to families harmed by pollution from a major urban oil field in South Los Angeles.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1661, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights), cleared the Assembly floor with a 44-10 vote after lawmakers concluded debate on the measure.

The bill would direct money from a community repair fund toward families who suffered negative health effects from living near what Bryan described as the state’s largest toxic urban oil field. The repair fund was created under legislation approved two years ago that shut down the oil field and required polluters to contribute financially to community recovery efforts.

Bryan called the proposal “the largest environmental reparations opportunity for South LA” and told lawmakers the bill had not received opposition during the legislative process.

The legislation is part of California’s broader push to address environmental justice concerns in communities historically exposed to industrial pollution. South Los Angeles residents and environmental advocates have long raised concerns about health risks associated with oil drilling operations near homes, schools and parks.

Supporters say the measure represents a new approach to environmental accountability by ensuring that communities affected by pollution directly benefit from funds collected from responsible companies.

After debate concluded, Assembly leadership opened the roll call vote, and the measure passed with majority support from lawmakers.

AB 1661 now moves to the Senate for further review.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Activism

Rep. Kamlager-Dove Introduces Bill to Protect Women in Custody After Reports Detailing Miscarriages and Neglect

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

Published

2 months ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

iStock

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37) on May 7, reintroduced updated legislation aimed at strengthening protections and healthcare standards for pregnant and postpartum women held in federal custody, including in immigration detention facilities.

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

The legislation builds on a bipartisan version previously passed by the House during the 117th Congress. The updated bill includes new standards for healthcare access, mental health and substance use treatment, high-risk pregnancy care, family unity protections and increased federal oversight.

“Proper pregnancy care is a human right, regardless of your immigration or incarceration status,” Kamlager-Dove said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that there are virtually no legal safeguards for pregnant women in federal custody.”

The bill would also limit the use of restraints and restrictive housing for pregnant women, improve data collection on maternal health in custody and require additional staff training and enforcement measures.

Supporters of the measure said the legislation is intended to address long-standing concerns about maternal healthcare and safety in detention settings, particularly for Black women and low-income women who are disproportionately impacted by incarceration and health disparities.

“Pregnant women in custody should never be subjected to dangerous and inhumane treatment that threatens their health, dignity, or the well-being of their babies,” said Patrice Willoughby, chief of policy and legislative affairs for the NAACP and a longtime public policy and government affairs strategist, in a statement.

A 2021 report estimated there are about 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into U.S. jails and prisons each year. Kamlager’s statement also cited a recent investigation by NBC News and Bloomberg Law that identified allegations of severe mistreatment or medical neglect involving at least 54 pregnant women or families in county jails between 2017 and 2024.

Federal policy under the Department of Homeland Security restricts the detention of pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants except in extreme cases. However, the agency reported that ICE deported 363 pregnant, postpartum or nursing women between January 2025 and February 2026, including 16 recorded miscarriages during that period.

The bill is cosponsored by several House Democrats and backed by organizations including the NAACP and the Vera Institute of Justice.