To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

Trending

Raptor in the Wild – 2024 Ford Ranger

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌ 

Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.

Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.

With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.

“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.

The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.

Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”

“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”

The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.

Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.

Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.

“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”

Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.

The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.

Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌ 

Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.

Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.

With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.

“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.

The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.

Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”

Trending

[ENCORE] Long COVID and its Mental Impact on the Black Community

“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”

The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.

Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.

Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.

“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”

Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.

The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.

Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post