President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Earlier today, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Here are the statements by President Obama, The First Lady, Michelle Obama, and Lilly Ledbetter from the signing ceremony, along with a copy of the law. The Act, as many know, overturns the U. S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Act is the first bill that President Obama signed into law. Craig Estlinbaum Adjunct Law Prof Blog

A Victory for Women Workers

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill on Its Way to President Obama Mike Hall January 27, 2009 It’s been a long and bumpy road, but women and other workers who suffer pay discrimination are about to find a smoother path to justice now that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is on its way to President Barack Obama’s desk. The House, this afternoon, passed the bill for the final time 250-177. The bill is named after the Alabama woman who, after working nearly 20 years at a Goodyear tire plant, discovered she had been paid significantly less than men doing the same job. A federal jury ruled in her favor but Goodyear appealed, and in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Ledbetter—and other workers—has no right to sue for a remedy in cases of pay discrimination after more than 180 days after the first paycheck, even if she—or other workers—didn’t discover the pay discrimination until years later. Since the ruling, hundreds of pay discrimination cases have been thrown out of court based on the decision. Says AFL-CIO President John Sweeney: The new Congress has made a real difference in America’s working women and men’s lives today by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This critical law will help ensure fairness and equality at the workplace. Shortly after the ruling in 2007, the House passed the first Ledbetter Fair Pay bill, but Senate Republicans blocked a vote and former President Bush vowed to veto it if it ever got to his desk. This year, the House passed the Ledbetter bill Jan. 9 and the Senate approved a slightly different version Jan. 22, requiring the House to vote again. Obama could sign the bill as early as tomorrow. from AFL-CIO NOW Blog As I was driving to work this morning I heard on NPR Radio that this bill will be signed today! Yes this is a victory for Women Workers, equal pay for equal work. NPR interviewed Ms. Ledbetter and she was very honored and pleased that the bill bears her name. She said that she was a supervisor. When she found out that her male counterparts, doing the same supervisory work were being paid more, she filed a lawsuit against Goodyear. Kudos to Lilly Ledbetter for not giving up the fight!

Here's a Great Editorial from the New York Times

Caring for the Caregivers published January 27, 2009 in print January 28, 2009, page A30 of New York edition With more jobs being lost all the time across the board — more than 71,000 layoffs in the United States were announced on Monday and Tuesday alone — there should be comfort in the fact that one sector, health care, continues to add jobs. In December, employers added 32,000 health-related positions. Unfortunately, one of the fastest-growing areas within the health care field — home care for the elderly — also is one of the lowest paid and most exploitable. Outdated labor rules from 1975 allow home care aides to be defined as companions, which exempts their employers, usually private agencies, from federal standards governing overtime and minimum wages. As the population has aged, however, demand for home care has grown and the work has evolved far beyond companionship. It is not uncommon for home care workers to perform significant housekeeping chores and to help their elderly clients move, dress and eat, make sure they take their medicines and go to doctors’ appointments. In its last days in office in 2001, the Clinton administration proposed a revision to the labor rules to allow federal protections to apply to personal home care aides, but the Bush administration promptly threw that out and reasserted the status quo. A 2007 Supreme Court ruling upheld the rules, and a push that year by House and Senate Democrats to pass a bill to update the law went nowhere. According to the Labor Department, personal and home care aides are expected to be the second fastest-growing occupation in the United States from 2006-2016, increasing by 51 percent, slightly behind the expected growth in systems and data communications analysts. Most home care aides are women, low income and minority, and many of them are immigrants. Some states have taken steps to provide them with basic labor protections. Efforts to unionize home care workers in some states also has led to wage gains and better conditions. But the progress is incomplete without a federal law to recognize and protect the home care work force. It is unconscionable that workers who are entrusted with the care of some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens are themselves unprotected by basic labor standards. It is also unwise, because poor pay for long hours leads to high turnover, which undermines the quality of care. Turnover also drives up the cost of providing home care — a needless drain on Medicaid, which pays for many home care services. And that is not the only way that poor quality home care jobs end up costing taxpayers. Nearly half of home care workers rely on food stamps or other public assistance, so taxpayers ultimately compensate for their low pay and inadequate benefits. Of necessity, job creation and job quality will be the focus of the Obama administration in 2009, and, most likely, for many years. The Department of Labor could rewrite the rules to extend federal protections to home care workers. Or Congress and the White House could work together to pass a law granting those protections. Either way, the point is to ensure that home care, a 21st-century growth industry, creates good jobs. Be sure to read the comments generated by this editorial. They are very interesting! Thanks to Leonila Vega, director of the Direct Care Alliance, for her contribution.

Relief Seen for Jobless and States in Health Care Plan

by Robert Pear The New York Times published January 27, 2009 in print January 28, 2009 on page A1 of the New York edition WASHINGTON — The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts intended to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do. With little notice and no public hearings, House Democrats would create a temporary new entitlement allowing workers getting unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the health program for low-income people. Spouses and children could also receive benefits, no matter how much money the family had. In addition, the stimulus package would offer a hefty subsidy to help laid-off workers retain the same health plans they had from their former employers. Altogether, the economic recovery bill would speed $127 billion over the next two and a half years to individuals and states for health care alone, a fact that has Republicans fuming that the stimulus package is a back door to universal health coverage. “It’s raining money,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas. The House plans to vote Wednesday on the $825 billion bill, and the Senate is expected to vote on a similar measure next week. As Congress rushes to inject cash into a listless economy, it is setting aside many of the restraints that have checked new domestic spending for more than a decade. The White House said the changes contemplated by Congress would provide coverage for nearly 8.5 million newly uninsured people who had lost their jobs and would protect Medicaid for many more whose eligibility would otherwise be at risk. Of the $127 billion cost, the Congressional Budget Office said, $87 billion would be used to increase the federal share of Medicaid, $29 billion would subsidize private insurance and $11 billion would finance Medicaid for unemployed workers who could not otherwise qualify. Most of the aid is billed as temporary. But Republicans fear that states would get hooked on it, just as they might grow accustomed to a big increase in federal aid to education, also included in the bill. Democrats said the current economic crisis did not allow time for public hearings on the legislation. “This is as urgent as it gets,” said Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California. After the House Ways and Means Committee approved its piece of the economic recovery legislation last Thursday, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, said, “We accomplished more today than in the last eight years.” Congressional Democrats developed the package in close consultation with President Obama. Health care provisions of the bill taking shape in the Senate are broadly similar to those in the House bill, though they may prove less expensive. Obama aides and advisers said the president would insist on health insurance assistance for the unemployed as part of a final bill, which he wants to sign by mid-February. The legislation would allow states to provide Medicaid to an entirely new group: those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, their spouses and children under 19. Medicaid is normally for low-income people, and for decades it has been financed jointly by the federal government and the states, with the federal share averaging 57 percent of costs. The economic stimulus bill prevents states from enforcing a means test, saying, “No income or resources test shall be applied with respect to any category of individuals” who become eligible for Medicaid because they are receiving unemployment benefits. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the costs for people enrolled under this option through December 2010. Republicans said this proposal would take a big step toward federalizing Medicaid. For their part, Democrats said the changes took a major step toward their goal of coverage for all Americans. At the same time, the legislation would provide a huge measure of fiscal relief to state Medicaid programs, at a time when state revenues are declining and the number of Medicaid recipients is rising because of the recession. The federal share of Medicaid spending now ranges from 50 percent in higher-income states like New York and Connecticut to more than 73 percent in poor states like Mississippi and West Virginia. Under the House bill, the federal share would be increased by at least 4.9 percentage points in every state, and by much more in states with large increases in unemployment. The bill would also offer a lifeline to workers who have lost health insurance along with their jobs. In theory, such workers and their families can keep their group health benefits for 18 months under a federal law, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, known as Cobra. But laid-off workers are often required to pay 102 percent of the full premium, including the employer’s share, so the cost now can be prohibitive. Under the bill, the federal government would pay 65 percent of the premiums for a year. That subsidy would almost surely increase the number of laid-off workers choosing to continue coverage. Republicans wanted to deny the premium subsidies to people who had annual incomes of more than $100,000 or assets of more than $1 million. They also wanted to prevent people with more than $1 million of family income from taking advantage of the Medicaid option for the unemployed. Democrats voted down those proposals in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, said “the poorest of the poor” had long been subject to income and asset tests when applying for Medicaid. But, Mr. Deal argued, under the new option, a millionaire could get Medicaid benefits, financed entirely by the federal government, without being asked about such matters. The committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said, “It’s highly unlikely that you are going to find millionaires who would like to go on Medicaid.” Moreover, Mr. Waxman said, the purpose of the new options is to “streamline the enrollment process” and speed assistance to people who are unemployed. “It’s going to set up an unnecessary barrier if we have any income test,” Mr. Waxman said, adding that the enforcement of a means test could require “a whole new bureaucracy.” The bill would also create a new option for people 55 or older and for those who have worked for the same employer for 10 years or more. They could retain health benefits under Cobra, at their own expense, until they became eligible for Medicare at 65 or obtained coverage through another job. Under this option, employers said, younger workers could conceivably hold onto their coverage for decades. In a joint letter to Congress, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation opposed this proposal, saying it would drive up costs for workers already covered by employer health plans. “The people who sign up for unsubsidized coverage under the new option are more likely to have serious medical conditions and therefore to increase the cost of employee health care disproportionately,” said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation. If states wanted the federal government to pay a larger share of Medicaid, they would have to maintain current eligibility levels and could not adopt more restrictive criteria. But states could reduce benefits or payments to health care providers. Representative Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said he feared that such cuts would make it more difficult for Medicaid recipients to find doctors in some parts of the country.

Will Small Business Owners Support Health Care Reform this Time?

by Mike Hall, Jan 27, 2009 As part of our series looking at health care reform proposals and initiatives from a range of groups and experts, today we take a look at the small business community. In the early 1990s, when President Clinton launched his ambitious campaign for comprehensive health care reform, it was the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that struck the sharpest knife into the reform initiative. But a group of small business owners and employers and self-employed entrepreneurs has found startling similarities between what small business owners see as key issues in health care reform and some of the central principles unions say any plan must be built around. Main Street Alliance, a network of state-based small business health care coalitions, recently surveyed 1,200 small business owners. The coalition also conducted in-depth interviews and found that small business owners and employers:

• Are concerned deeply about the adequacy of insurance, including the breadth and affordability of services covered by their plans.
• Believe government should provide a public alternative to private coverage.
• Want increased oversight of private insurers.
• Are willing to contribute their fair share toward a system that makes health care work for small businesses, their employees and the communities they serve.

One of the key issues for unions today is defending the public insurance plan that President Obama is proposing as an alternative to private insurance and that insurance companies and right-wingers have teamed up to try kill.

The Main Street Alliance asked small business owners to choose between a reform plan with a public insurance option and one with expanded private market options. Fifty-nine percent preferred the public plan option, while just 26 percent picked the private insurance option.

Here’s what Jim Houser, who runs an auto repair business in Portland, Ore., has to say about insurance companies:

Most health insurance companies have so much power. They decide who is covered and who isn’t, they determine what qualifies as a pre-existing condition and what doesn’t, and they can deny coverage for a procedure and you often have to go through a long appeals process. Health insurance companies are making huge profits off of people’s ill health: that means money that could be taking care of people is going into the pockets of CEOs and investors.

The Obama administration is developing a comprehensive plan to address a broad range of health care concerns. The AFL-CIO has not endorsed a specific plan but has established certain principles that any plan should be built around.

Reform must secure high-quality health care for all; lower the costs that are now crushing working families and businesses; and share responsibility among employers, government and individuals among other principles. Click here for more information.

Of course, the Main Street Alliance’s report, Taking the Pulse of Main Street: Small Businesses, Health Insurance, and Priorities for Reform, is just one of many studies and surveys that needed to be carefully examined. But it does show that while the NFIB may claim to be “the voice of small business,” small business owners and employers speak with many voices. Small business owners in our communities just might be an ally for health care reform.

Click here to read the full survey. Click here to take a look at proposals by California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC) calling for a single payer system and recommendations from Health CEOs for Health Reform.

Click here to read about University of California professor Jacob Hacker’s call for a creation of a public health care insurance plan as an option for workers and families who either have private insurance coverage or no coverage at all.

1 comment

Jimmy1920 on 28.01.2009 at 13:33

Mike

Important Point. Small businesses and their employees probably have the most to gain from meaningful health care reform. They will be able to draw on a larger talent pool because employees won’t need to make job decisons based on the health benefit package.It will level the competitve playing field. Individuals with creative ideas will have one less barrier to overcome in bringing new ideas to the marketplace.The problem is that the NFIB and Chambers of Commerce and many business associations are in the business of marketing their own health insurance programs. They are not speaking for the interests of their members, but for their own business interests. In addition, many of the smallest businesses aren’t don’t even belong to an association.Fortunately a group like this is willing to come forward and be a genunie advocate for small businesses and put common sense ahead of ideology and self interest.See my own blog posts on the topic. http://thehealthcaremaze.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/health-insurance-for-small-business/http://thehealthcaremaze.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/ask-jesse-the-artist/

from AFL-CIO Now Blog

Legislation Introduced to Gain Health Insurance for Maine's Direct Care Workers

On January 15th, the Maine Direct Care Worker Coalition was successful in getting a bill introduced for a pilot program for health care coverage for direct care workers. The bill is sponsored by Senator Nancy Sullivan, former co-chair of the Insurance and Financial Services Committee. Senator Sullivan became a champion for direct care worker issues after a strong hearing on a bill (pdf) addressing health care for DCWs heard by the committee last year. The bill echoed the recent recommendation of the Bureau of Insurance. The report does mention Dirigo and Dirigo's design as a possible way of providing DCWs with health insurance. What that means is that because we workers are low paid, we could get help with subsidies to help with the cost of the insurance. But, LD1687 failed because it was Dirigo specific. Dirigo was in trouble last year. Now with the loss of potential revenue from the "beer tax", that the beverage lobby spent millions to defeat (just think if those millions were spent on health care instead!), Dirigo is surely struggling. There are no more subsidies for individuals or sole proprietors or small businesses. Enrollment is closed for those who need subsidies. With the Maine State Chamber of Commerce (please see post about small businesses and health care reform) filing litigation against the way the savings offset payment is figured, that also slows the process of Dirigo getting those payments. I think litigation on this has been filed almost every year since Dirigo went into operation. And, the Maine State Chamber had representatives at the table during the Direct Care Worker work group sessions with the Bureau of Insurance last summer. Go figure. With Dirigo in trouble, that leaves DCWs again with little or no health insurance options. The bill as introduced reads: An Act to Enhance Health Care for Direct Care Workers This bill would establish a pilot project with a $500,000 limit (up to discussion) that will be available to providers of MaineCare Services to enhance or add health insurance for their health care workers. The funding will come from MaineCare. There will be a simple process by which providers may apply for this limited project. The DCWC (Direct Care Worker Coalition) is working on steering this legislation away from Dirigo. That's what foundered our last attempts with LD1687. This is a pilot project. We are working out the details as to how agencies will be chosen to participate. One thing I'm pushing for is that the money does get turned into health insurance for the workers, not what I call fluff. Fluff like "health care fairs" where we learn how to eat right, get enough exercise, live healthy. I think we all know how to do that, no matter what we do for work. Fairs like that are nice and I do enjoy them and enjoy talking with fellow workers, but I want this to come down as health insurance for direct care workers. Talking with other advocates who have been working on this issue for years, I get the feeling from them that this is the closest we've ever come to actually gaining health insurance for DCWs. Don't kid yourself, although this is excellent, we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us. We need to be at any legislative hearings pertaining to this bill, showing our support and our need for health insurance. Yes, advocates have been there for us in the past, but it is also very effective for our senators and representatives to hear it from us workers. I'm very excited about this bill and am working with the DCWC to push this forward. We are at the beginning of the process. As we move it along, I'll post as the information becomes available. It is very exciting!

Pilot Health Plan for Iowa Direct-Care Workers Moving Forward

A report (pdf) by the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services and the Division of Insurance outlines a demonstration project that would provide health insurance for up to 250 direct care workers through a voluntary employer-sponsored plan. The report was a directive of HF 2539, a health insurance reform bill passed during the 2008 legislative session.

Report recommendations include:

• eligibility requirements for both workers and employers
• coverage and cost parameters, and
• criteria for measuring success

Employee contributions would be limited to 2.5% of gross family income and employers would be required to contribute at least 50% of the cost of an employee’s single plan. The remainder would be subsidized by the state.

The goal of the project, as stated in the report, is to determine whether the availability of affordable health care coverage helps to stabilize the direct care workforce and improve quality of care. However, there was acknowledgment that the size of the project which is limited to 250 workers may not be large enough to adequately evaluate whether the goal of the project is met.

The recommendations of the report must now be introduced in legislation and passed in both the House and the Senate.

Allison Lee

National Campaign Manager

Health Care for Health Care Workers

alee@phinational.org

2 Responses to “Pilot Health Plan for Iowa Direct-Care Workers Moving Forward” Becky Johnson, January 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

"This is a start in the right direction,although, I don’t think 250 is a big enough number to evaluate. I know, from experience, that if a person has some kind of benefits they will do a better job and stay at the job longer. I live in a small town in Iowa, and one of our nursing homes have increased starting wage, CNA’s left other nursing homes to work there. This particular nursing home is doing quite well with an adequate staff and residents getting better care.

I am going to Des Moines next week for “A Day At The Capitol” and talk to my legislators about health insurance for the direct care worker."

Helen Hanson, January 23, 2009 at 9:40 am "I too think this is a step in the right direction, and 250 is not a large enough number, but at least it is a start.

Here in Maine, we successfully got a bill into the Legislature for this session. Our bill will also set up a pilot to insure direct care workers.

We do not yet have the specifics, this will be hammered out in the upcoming weeks, but like in Iowa, it is a step in the right direction.

It takes small steps, and sometimes steps backwards, to achieve your goals. I keep saying, 'Let’s keep this moving forward!'

Thanks to PHI, we in Maine will be watching what happens in Iowa.

I think not having health insurance through our work is a grave injustice to direct care workers. I hear from co-workers that having health insurance will greatly help them."

Press Conference launches Legislation around Health Care Transparency

The press conference with our coalition partners at Maine Voices for Coverage was a big success last Thursday! MSEA-SEIU is part of this coalition through its membership with Consumers for Affordable Health Care. Check out some of the press coverage generated by the event, which included KVO Health Care chair and 771's president Helen Hanson delivering a powerfully affecting personal testimony: Bangor Daily News Article WCSH News 6 Coverage Maine Public Radio story Kennebec Journal Article Overall, a great start to our campaign to give patients and consumers the power of information in our health care system! This legislation that was unveiled Thursday is all about transparency when it comes to health insurance policies as well as to knowing what your doctors and hospitals will charge you for services up front. It is about knowing what exactly is covered by your insurance and what is not. It is about knowing exactly what your deductibles are. It is about knowing all this information before you buy the policy so you know exactly what you are spending your hard earned money on. This happened to me. I thought the policy I and my family had came with a $10,000 deductible. What it does come with is a deductible of $30,000 before it kicks in at 50/50! Each of us, in my family, have to meet the $10,000 deductible before the insurance begins to pay on certain services. That means that we all have to get sick, or rack up medicals bills over $30,000 before this so-called "insurance" would start to pay. This is absolutely outrageous, and there's no law from preventing this sort of thing from happening. Transparency would change that. Things like mammograms are covered, they are processed as going toward that deductible. Things like x-rays, lab tests, they are not covered. I would need to buy an outpatient rider. Then I find out that the rider is not available in Maine. If I had known all this before we signed on the dotted line, we never would have signed in the first place. I have no legal recourse, because there is a law that lets insurance companies get away with this sort of thing. I asked for help with this issue from the Bureau of Insurance and that is what I was told. Filing a complaint about fraud with the Attorney General's Office would do me no good. The transparency legislation put forth by Representative Sharon Treat and Consumers for Affordable Health Care will change that. It will make the insurance companies spell out what is covered and not, how deductibles work, all that before a consumer makes up his or her mind on whether to purchase the insurance. So now, me and my family are three of the 125,000 Mainers without health insurance. There is not much out there for options either. Thanks to the huge beverage lobby this fall, Dirigo lost upcoming revenue from the beer and soda tax. This means that Dirigo can no longer offer subsidies to help Mainers buy affordable, good quality health care insurance. There are no subsidies for sole proprietors, small businesses or individuals. My husband is a sole proprietor. It is not like we're not working to support ourselves. We are a few of the many who have fallen between the cracks when it comes to health insurance. Either you are filthy rich and health care is not a problem, or your extremely poor and get help through Medicaid. We fall in the middle. This is why I am very involved with groups like the Kennebec Valley Organization, Consumers for Affordable Health Care, MSEA-SEIU Local 1989, Health Care for America Now, the Direct Care Worker Coalition in an effort to bring about the necessary reforms this country needs when it comes to health care.

771's Delegates for 2009 & Bargaining Updates

771’s delegates for 2009 are: Janet Lewis, Lesley Hickey, Sherrie Rippy, Ted Rippy, Joe Berry, Pat Crowell, Sharon Perkins, George Holyoake and alternate Dale Levasseur 771 has a great team. 771’s two bargaining units are gearing up for negotiations this year. Alpha One’s bargaining team is Pat Crowell and Ted Rippy. Home Care for Maine’s bargaining team is Janet Lewis, Mark Steele and Helen Hanson. 771’s new field rep is CJ Betit. He’ll be right there along side us, working towards gaining strong contracts for Alpha One and Home Care for Maine workers. Right now, both teams are looking for proposals, things that workers would like to see improvements on and/or things they’d like to see changed. Please pass along any ideas, suggestions, concerns that you have or you’d like to see in our next contracts. You can email Helen at helenhnsn@gmail.com. Email CJ Betit at cj.betit@mseaseiu.org or give him a call at MSEA Headquarters at 1-800-452-8794.

Maine to Begin Expanded Federal Weatherization Program

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), Maine will be the first state to begin using $6.4 million in federal 2009-2010 DOE funds to weatherize homes in January. The early start to getting additional funding out will complement the State's comprehensive efforts to help Mainers deal with heating costs and conserve energy during difficult economic times. Maine's increased funding level for weatherization is more than double the amount received during the previous funding cycle. The Weatherization Program finances basic improvements to the homes of low-income households to make them more energy efficient. The typical weatherization project will reduce the home's energy needs by 20 to 30 percent, according to officials from MaineHousing, the agency running the DOE program. According to the DOE, the Weatherization Program creates 52 direct jobs and 23 indirect jobs for each $1 million invested in weatherization work. Since 2008 the Maine State Housing Authority has trained 320 new energy auditors and 95 weatherization technicians. In addition to DOE weatherization, MaineHousing has allocated $7 million of the federal Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds for weatherization. That funding will make about 1,900 homes more energy efficient. LIHEAP is funded by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. For more information on the Weatherization Program and other Maine State Housing Authority programs, click here. For a comprehensive list of energy information and assistance, click here. email from Representative David Cotta

Home Care for Maine and the Homemaking Services Contract

As many of you know by now, Home Care for Maine lost its appeal for the Homemaking Services Contract. That contract now will be served by Catholic Charities. The last day for Home Care for Maine providing these services is January 31, 2009. If your homemaking consumers are having trouble getting answers, encourage them to call Catholic Charities. After all, that's the agency that's going to be providing the service, they should be able to guide consumers through this tough transition. If you're a Home Care for Maine direct care worker who will be laid off because of this, please contact MSEA-SEIU at 1-800-452-8794 and ask to talk with Jay Economy, Aymie Walsh or Mike Sylvester. MSEA is there to help you with filing for unemployment and other aspects of being laid off. I learned Friday that office staff is also being laid off. I called to talk with my scheduler and discovered that she was gone.

Some Great Advice from DCA Advocate Brenda Nachtway

Last month, I drove to Washington, D.C., to talk to legislators and their staff about what direct care workers want. It wasn’t the first time I’ve gotten up close and personal with politicians. In 2007, I organized a direct care worker forum for U.S. Senator Robert Casey. Senator Casey came to the hospital where I work (I’m a hospice aide). He spoke to the direct care workers who showed up to see him, but I think what he liked best was the chance he got to listen and learn. He really seemed interested what the workers had to say in the Q and A after his speech, and he asked me a lot of questions about my job and what could help me do it better. So it wasn’t exactly news to me to learn, last month, that legislators want to hear from direct care workers. But hearing it so many times – it must have been repeated at least five times during that two-day visit – really drove home the message. I went to the Capitol with Direct Care Alliance Executive Director Leonila Vega and DCA National Policy Advocate Roy Gedat. They set up the meetings and did most of the talking, since this was mostly a learning experience for me. The main thing I learned was: When you talk to a legislator, be yourself – but be prepared. We talked to legislative staff from several states, including Ann Montgomery of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, who was very interested in hearing about the DCA. We also met with a representative of a women’s group. We also visited Senator Casey. His aide, Morna Murray, told me: “I want you to know, Brenda, that the senator, when he hears your name, can’t stop talking about the day he spend walking in your shoes and how over 100 workers came to hear him from all over the commonwealth. It was really an eye-opening day.” That was pretty thrilling. Everyone we met with said: “We want to get to know direct care workers. We want to know what their issues are. The only way we’re going to hit this nail in the head when we try to address these issues in our legislation is if we hear from direct-care workers.” When I came home, I thought about that and called two of my local representatives. I’ll be meeting with U.S. Senator Arlen Specter this Tuesday at the capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The following week, I’ll be meeting with Congressman Chris Carney’s staff member. When they heard that I was a direct care worker, they said, “We’re so excited about meeting somebody who’s actually doing the job.” But I can’t do this alone – and I don’t want to. There are so many congressmen and local legislators throughout the Commonwealth alone, not to mention in the rest of the country. If you’re a direct care worker who wants to improve your job, you need to go out and talk to your local representatives, your congressmen and senators and their staff. Your local representatives probably don’t have much of a staff, but when you’re trying to reach a U.S. Senator it’s best to start with their staff. They’re the ones who do most of the research and work. They’re a lot easier to reach, too. Once you get your meeting, tell them a little about yourself. If you’re part of an association that advocates for direct care workers, tell them a little about your group. Then talk about what you see and experience on the job every day. Tell them what would help you deliver better care. If there’s a bill pending in your state that would help direct care workers, know the name of it and what it’s about so you can urge your representative to support it. And leave something behind that explains who direct care workers are and what we need. On our trip to DC last month, we left behind a handout about the DCA. I also brought evaluation forms from the Pennsylvania Direct Care Workers Association, since they had answers to a question we asked about what issues the association should address. The workers listed all the usual issues: better wages, staffing ratios, health insurance, training, respect for the job we do, being able to move up in position, teaching supervisors how to empower direct care workers. If you want some help in setting up a meeting with a legislator, or if you just want some moral support, get in touch. I’d love to talk to you about it. Brenda Nachtway Direct Care Worker Specialist Direct Care Alliance brendanachtway@gmail.com Brenda is a fellow graduate of the DCA's VOICES INSTITUTE inaugural class 2008. Watch Brenda's testimony for Pennsylvania Direct Care Workers Association in April 2008.

Direct Care Alliance Gets a Seat at President Obama’s Table

“This is not an end but a beginning,” said Kareem Dale, a member of President-elect Obama’s transition team, to DCA Executive Director Leonila Vega, DCA board member Vera Salter, and the other members of a small group he assembled yesterday in Washington, D.C. Dale invited the DCA and seven other advocacy organizations, most representing people with disabilities, to one of the final meetings of the transition team. Once Obama is in the White House, that relationship will be continued by a newly created Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs department. The new department will be headed up by Valerie Jarrett, a close friend and advisor of the President-elect. Each of the groups was asked to present a short list of policy concerns. In her presentation, Vega called on the new administration to include direct care workers in its health care and economic recovery initiatives and to create more direct care jobs. She discussed the need for more home and community based jobs; for family-sustaining, middle-class jobs that ensure quality direct care service; and for more career advancement opportunities for direct care workers. Salter called for better wages, including the Fair Labor Standards Act fix laid out in the DCA’s letter to President-elect Obama(pdf). Dale told the groups they now had “a seat at the table,” adding “we’ll be in touch.” However, he warned them not to rely on this relationship alone to make the changes they want, urging them to find champions for their causes in the Senate, the House, and relevant government agencies. Not that the DCA needed any urging. In fact, while Vega and Salter met with Dale, National Advocacy Director Roy Gedat was making one of his frequent visits to Capitol Hill, accompanied by direct care workers from Pennsylvania. DCA Direct Care Worker Specialist Brenda Nachtway has been talking to a lot of legislators too. But having the new administration’s ear will give the DCA’s advocacy efforts a boost. For one thing, Salter points out, the Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs department should be able to help the DCA connect with people from different parts of the government. “For instance, if we want someone from the Department of Labor to work with the Department of Health and Human Services, that would be a good thing to bring to them.” Vega invites other groups and individuals who care about direct care worker issues to help the DCA make its case by joining the National Direct Care Partnership. “We want to take the opportunity of having a seat at the table to ensure that the needs of direct care workers are finally addressed,” she says. “But we can’t do it alone, so we hope you’ll join us. “Together we can!” Elise Nakhnikian Communications Director Direct Care Alliance from Direct Care Alliance Blog

Options for Addressing Our Nation’s Health Care Crisis

by Mike Hall, Jan 15, 2009 This is a series of occasional articles looking at health care reform proposals and initiatives from a wide range of groups and experts. We take a brief look today at two reports, one from a major health care union and the other by a group of CEOs from five large health plans or systems and a drug company president. The incoming Obama administration is developing a comprehensive plan to address a broad range of health care concerns. The AFL-CIO has not endorsed a specific plan but has established certain principles that any plan should be built around. Reform must secure high-quality health care for all; lower the costs that are now crushing working families and businesses and share responsibility among employers, government and individuals among other principles. Click here for more information. To apply those principles to the debate as it is shaping up in Washington these days, the AFL-CIO has developed a list of key issues based upon extensive discussions with national unions since the election. For example, a key issue for unions today is defending the public insurance plan that President-elect Obama is proposing as an alternative to private insurance and that insurance companies and right-wingers have teamed up to try to kill. Earlier this week, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), which backs a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care reform plan, released a study that says such a plan would not only guarantee health care for all, but would be a major boost to the nation’s staggering economy. The study, conducted by the Institute of Health and Socio-Economic Policy, says a single-payer plan would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy. CNA/NNOC co-President Geri Jenkins, RN, says: These dramatic new findings document for the first time that a single-payer system could not only solve our healthcare crisis, but also substantially contribute to putting America back to work and assisting the economic recovery. Click here to read the full study. Meanwhile, Health CEOs for Health Reform (HC4HR)—launched by the New American Foundation last month—is saying many of the right things about health care, including the need for major reforms. That’s quite a shift from the health industry’s long-held, “Just Say No,” stance. Says Lloyd Dean, president and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West: It’s time for hospitals and physicians to address the reality that health care costs too much and that our current ways of financing and delivering health care are outdated and not sustainable. As providers we must be accountable for the quality and affordability of the care we deliver. Here’s something you likely would not have heard from an insurance executive in the not-too-distant past. Bruce Bodaken, chairman and CEO of Blue Shield of California, says: It’s time for health industry CEO’s to step up and say what has to be said, that achieving coverage for all will require each of us to change the way we do business. With regard to health plans that means giving the right to pick and choose our customers based on how healthy they are. Sure sounds good, but the question is will their action follow their words, or are those words just a cover. Click here to read the HC4HR announcement, here for the AFL-CIO’s response and here for recent reports at the AFL-CIO health care site. from AFL-CIO NOW blog

ACTION Alert

Please Join us on Thursday, January 15th at 12:00pm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We hope you can join us and our partners on the Maine Voices for Coverage coalition next Thursday, Jan. 15th, at noon in the State House Hall of Flags, for a press conference announcing our proposed steps toward quality, affordable health care for all Maine people. Ultimately, by attending this press conference you will show legislators and the media that health care is an issue that must be addressed, and that consumers (patients) and caregivers must be at the table where reform decisions are made! While expanding access to health coverage by traditional means may seem out of reach in these tough economic times, we have some very simple solutions we are supporting that will cut the cost of care while still maintaining or improving quality of that care. By focusing on policies that call for transparency of health care costs and quality information from insurers and providers we will be armed with the information we need to make more informed decisions when it comes to our health care. When we have the right information from the start we can better decide how to make our health care dollars go further. Some of the money that is saved through out our health care system by the transparency policies we are supporting can then be reinvested into expanding access to coverage for people who need it. When we improve quality and contain costs, we will make expanded access a possibility even in these dire economic times. There is so much room for our health care system to work better and more cost effectively, but only if consumers, employers and providers have enough information to make informed decisions. Ever try comparing which insurance plan would be best for you, but can't get the information from the companies to do so? Ever been lead to believe by insurers that something was covered, and then received a bill after the fact because it wasn't actually covered in your plan? Ever have your insurance costs skyrocket, but can't get and explanation as to why? Ever want to find out which doctors give the best quality care for the best price, but can't find that information? With better transparency in our health care system, Mainers will finally be able to get the information they need and deserve to make better informed decision for ourselves and our families. If you have had problems in our health care system like we listed above--despite carrying private insurance--and are willing to tell your story publicly, please contact Communications Coordinator, Cherilee Budrick at cbudrick@mainecahc.org Hope you can make it to our press conference! And, please pass this message on to your members. The more people aware, the more people who attend, the stronger we stand and the closer we will get to quality, affordable health care for all Maine people. Thank you!

Chapter Meeting Reminder

Local 771 is holding a chapter meeting this Saturday, Jan. 10, from 1-3 at MSEA headquarters at 65 State Street in Augusta. The purpose of this meeting is to elect the chapter's 8 delegates. Without these delegates seated, 771 cannot collect its allotments. Another agenda item is the recent release of the Bureau of Insurance report on Direct Care Workers and the recommendation of a pilot program to insure workers. We are another step closer, a small step, but a step none the less, in gaining health care coverage for Maine's direct care workforce. We also need to discuss Home Care for Maine's loss of the Homemaking Contract. One aspect is that the contract between Home Care for Maine and us workers will be reopened. The Homemaking Contract with the Office of Elder Services was a huge part of Home Care for Maine's budget. Alpha One should also be at the beginning of bargaining as well. Lunch will be provided and there will be a $50 gas card given to one lucky 771 member.

Report Released

Maine's Bureau of Insurance released its report on the state of Direct Care Workers and their lack of health care insurance last week. The full report is lengthy, but well worth the read. Superintendent Mila Kofman describes the crisis in long-term care as "the perfect storm." It is the perfect storm in that workers leave because they can make better money in retail or other entry-level jobs. Turnover is high and costly to the employers because it costs a lot to constantly train new workers. Consumers also do not adjust well to having new workers in their home every few months. It is hard on them. Ms. Kofman is recommending a pilot program, linked in with Dirigo, to look into the effect of insuring direct care workers. She is recommending Dirigo because it is designed to help low-wage workers. As we all know, here lies the challenge, Dirigo needs more funding to stay afloat. This pilot will study the effect on the workforce, will having insurance help with retention? The first step is getting legislation going to fund the pilot. The next step will be to figure out which agencies in the state will participate. I think getting the funding will be the biggest challange, then figuring which agencies to participate will be the second biggest challenge. I don't have a timeline for any of this yet. As soon as I know more, I will post it. In the meantime, read over the report. It is very well done and covers what the workgroup discussed during its sessions over the summer.

Appropriations Committee lists Schedule for Hearings

The Appropriations Committee is holding a series of hearings, starting Monday, Jan. 5, to review the proposed cuts to balance the state budget through June 30, 2009. These hearings are running through Wednesday, with the major departments all having their share of time. Of importance to direct care workers, DHHS's hearing is scheduled for 11 am, Monday, in Room 228 of the State House. For further information on the hearing schedule, please see the Kennebec Journal.

Recovery should target Eldercare/Disability Workforce

PHI President Steven Dawson comments on the importance of including direct care workers in the economic recovery plan. The Obama administration’s economic recovery team is under increasing pressure to create and improve jobs for those most in need: low-income workers, particularly women. To that end, PHI and others have proposed targeted increases in Medicaid to create and strengthen the eldercare/disability services workforce–the millions of jobs held by home health aides, certified nurse aides, and personal care workers. But so far, the response from the Obama team has been a flat “no.” That is unfortunate, because the stated purpose of the economic recovery is to get money quickly into the hands of those who will spend it fast. Since this recession will hit low-income communities faster, deeper, and longer than the rest of our nation, any economic recovery strategy must reach quickly into these communities. The eldercare/disability direct-care workforce–more than 3 million strong–is funded primarily with public dollars. Therefore, in a quick, yet lasting, boost to the economy, these primarily female low-wage workers would spend recovery dollars immediately on essential goods and services for their families. Instead, we’ve been told that the economic recovery will not reach direct-care workers, precisely because of that word “lasting.” The new administration wants the stimulus to be a one-time hit; it does not want any “lasting” increase in the base of federal spending. While that is logical, it is not–as President-elect Obama urged last week–very bold. The result of this logic will guarantee that nearly half of our nation’s personal care and home care workers–whose real wages have fallen over the past seven years–will continue to live in households dependent on some form of public assistance. They will be locked into poverty-wage jobs because, once the economic recovery has washed through, the administration will be desperate to find significant public savings. Usually, low-wage health care workers are told to wait–that their day for decent wages and benefits will come; this time, they are essentially being told to wait forever. Remember Kathy Lee Gifford’s embarrassment when it was revealed that the clothes carrying her label were manufactured off-shore by workers making poverty wages? At first she tried to claim those manufacturers were subcontractors, and that she had no moral obligation for those workers. Public opinion soon changed her mind. And you might also remember how presidential candidate Obama “walked a day” in the shoes of a home care worker in California last year. If he had also lived on the wage of that worker for a year, he could help his advisors understand that the federal government, as the primary funder of these jobs, has the same moral obligation to ensure that these publicly funded “subcontracted” workers do not go home at night to families living in poverty. Perhaps the administration has already concluded that our nation will always keep these publicly funded workers in poverty–and thus fail to serve adequately the growing number of elders and people with disabilities. If so, then not targeting a portion of the likely one trillion dollar recovery package is indeed logical. Yet if there remains a commitment to meet the administration’s obligation to create a stable eldercare/disability system, then beginning that investment now will prove a two-fold advantage: in one stroke, creating the fastest way to pump billions of dollars into low-income communities, while also making a down-payment on preparing our nation to care for its aging population. Steven L. Dawson President, PHI Quality Care through Quality Jobs I got this from PHI's blog. There are many responses and some are from direct care advocates right here in Maine. Check it out. I also urge anyone reading this to go to change.gov and voice your thoughts and concerns on this. If we bombard our leaders with our stories and let them know about the work we direct care workers do, maybe they'll take notice. It is worth a shot, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."