NJ bill looks to address maternal health barriers
TRENTON, N.J. (PIX11) – For Assemblywoman Shanique Speight, maternal health is personal.
'When we talk about maternal mortality, and maternal health, and we talk about morbidity, and we're in the year 2025, we still have a lot of work to do,' said Speight (D-NJ 29th District).
More Local News
A bill she's authoring hopes to make a difference by bringing remote maternal services to some expecting moms on Medicaid. Maternal health is an issue that hits home.
'My husband's mother passed. She was 18 years old. She passed 3 days after she gave birth to him,' said Speight. 'He never knew his mom. I look at we're in 2025, 51 years ago, you would think that things would have changed. And we have made some progress here in the State of New Jersey, but it's actually not enough.'
If passed into law, the bill would create a three-year pilot program to provide remote maternal monitoring services to those on Medicaid who are pregnant.
The legislation says it will include remote patient monitoring, non-stress tests, and tele-ultrasounds.
'Transportation sometimes is a barrier,' said Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson (D-NJ 15th District), one of the bill's sponsors, 'so this bill helps alleviate that. It still connects people to their doctor, even between those physical appointments.'
'It laid on my heart, and I know there's a lot of people, especially in the Black and Brown communities, that struggle with this as well,' said Assemblyman Antwan McClellan (R-NJ 1st District), another sponsor of the bill. 'You can check out the birth rates and see people are struggling with giving birth to babies in our Black and Brown communities.'
The bill ties into the discussion of improving outcomes in Black maternal health. According to data from the CDC, maternal mortality rates for Black women are more than three times higher than for white women.
Crystal Charley attended Thursday's Assembly Health Committee meeting to advocate for the bill. A doula herself, she plans to open a birthing center in Trenton soon.
'We need to get this bill passed as soon as possible because for every day it is not passed, we are losing mothers,' said Charley.
The committee voted unanimously to advance the bill.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Black Canadians have highest avoidable hospitalization rates: StatCan data
TORONTO - New data from Statistics Canada shows Black Canadians have had the highest rates of avoidable hospitalizations in the country — something experts say underscores the need for more equitable health services for the Black community. A report released June 18 shows that over an eight-year period, Black Canadians were admitted to hospital for treatable health conditions such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension at higher rates than other racial groups and non-racialized people. In the most recent data collected in 2023/2024, Black men and boys were admitted at a rate of 272 hospitalizations per 100,000 people while Black women and girls saw a rate of 253 per 100,000 people. Other racialized people including South Asian, Chinese and Filipino Canadians had significantly lower rates. The lowest was among the Chinese population, in which men and boys had 65 hospitalizations per 100,000 people, and women and girls recorded 52 per 100,000 people. Non-racialized people had the second-highest rate of avoidable hospital admissions in 2023, reaching 257 per 100,000 among men and 226 per 100,000 among women, the report states. Notisha Massaquoi, an assistant professor of health education and promotion at the University of Toronto, says the data shines a light on the health equity crisis for Black Canadians who face significant barriers to primary care. '(This is) a population that has experienced an enormous amount of racism in the health-care system,' said Massaquoi, who studies access to health-care services for Black Canadians in the Greater Toronto Area. 'There's a lack of trust in terms of going to a primary health-care setting or going to see a primary health-care provider, and when a community has experienced a lot of marginalization in the health-care system, what they do is avoid going until it's too late.' Black Canadians might avoid seeking routine care because there is also a lack of Black health-care providers, said Massaquoi, noting better survival rates and health outcomes when a Black patient has a Black primary caregiver. StatCan data shows that in 2023, the most updated information available, 72 per cent of Black Canadians had access to a primary health care provider. That's compared to 84 per cent of non-racialized Canadians. The Canadian Medical Association says it doesn't keep track of the number of Black physicians in the country, but data published in 2020 by the Academic Medicine Journal — the peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges — estimated that 2.3 per cent of practising physicians in Ontario were Black in 2018. StatCan's report doesn't provide the specific reasons for hospitalizations, but a member of the senior leadership team at Women's College Hospital in Toronto says Black populations are disproportionately affected by chronic illnesses. The reasons for that are complicated, said Dr. Cynthia Maxwell, a past-president of the Black Physicians Association of Ontario. Maxwell said chronic illnesses can sometimes be traced to hurdles navigating the health-care system. Some Black communities also have fewer grocery store options, making access to nutritious food difficult, or are in areas more exposed to environmental toxins, which can lead to higher rates of respiratory problems. Massaquoi and Maxwell both stressed the need for more Black health-care providers and Black-oriented clinics, saying many patients feel more comfortable visiting environments where there's less risk of racism. Such an increase could also help train other doctors on the specific needs of Black patients. 'We will likely never have enough Black health-care providers to provide access to all Black community members, so it is important for all allies in the health system to engage in and learn about cultural safety and competencies that will help drive better health-care outcomes,' Maxwell said. Maxwell linked less access to primary care to higher mortality rates of serious diseases, such as among Black women with breast and cervical cancer. 'We know Black women have less access to screening for conditions such as breast cancer and cervical cancer, which are major issues and have high morbidity and mortality in Black communities,' she said. 'A condition is identified typically in the primary care setting,' she said, noting that's where a patient is referred to a specialist for serious conditions. Maxwell said it was important to collect better race-based patient data in order to identify issues unique to each community. 'Without the … race-specific data, you can't really get to the nuances of what the particular issues are within a community and what it means for a community to be disproportionately affected, either by a health condition or by the outcome of treatment for a health condition,' Maxwell said. Massaquoi said Black health-care advocates have 'constantly' begged for better race-based data collection. 'What we want to see as members of the Black community are the interventions that are going to be developed and designed so we're no longer just getting this trauma type of data that keeps telling us over and over in every manner how badly we're doing.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 29, 2025.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The CDC won't fund local organizations' HIV prevention, ignoring KY health needs
In a recent decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abruptly eliminated $200,000 in annual HIV prevention funding to AVOL Kentucky, a trusted, community-based nonprofit that has served Kentuckians for more than 30 years. This decision wasn't based on poor performance. Quite the opposite, AVOL Kentucky exceeded every benchmark and was preparing to expand outreach in the region. But in a sweeping national overhaul of HIV prevention funding, the CDC chose to bypass local and statewide community organizations like ours. For context, AVOL's persistence over the past three-plus decades melted the willful ignorance of the problem on the part of federal actors. AVOL Kentucky began to receive funding to provide direct HIV prevention outreach, and ever since we have been a critical part of the federal and state government's approach to stopping the spread of HIV. What began as a smattering of Lexingtonians trying to help their neighbors grew to an organization that serves all 120 Kentucky counties. Today we are at the most difficult last mile of prevention and health care delivery, without which the current successes in HIV management would not be possible. To be clear, this wasn't a budget cut. The funding is still there, just no longer supporting AVOL or similar service providers. As a result, Kentuckians will pay the price. More Kentuckians WILL get HIV, and our state will become less healthy. The CDC's decision to bypass trusted, grassroots organizations in favor of institutions that often lack presence in the communities most in need is a step backward. It creates a cascade of consequences: delayed testing, fewer prevention tools, disrupted care and the dismantling of years of trust built by local educators and advocates. At AVOL Kentucky, where I serve as board president, we assist all 120 counties across the commonwealth, many of which are rural and underserved parts of our state. Our staff and volunteers conduct more than 1,500 HIV tests annually and distribute thousands of condoms, educational materials and prevention resources. We connect individuals to affirming providers, help navigate testing and treatment and often serve as the first point of contact for those who are uninsured or unsure where else to turn. In many communities, we're not just a resource, we're the only resource. Opinion: As a family court judge, I know chronic absenteeism is a public health crisis These services matter. Kentucky has some of the highest rates of HIV and Hepatitis C in the country. Without consistent prevention efforts, and without trusted local providers offering these services without judgment, infection rates will rise, public health systems will become strained and individuals who are already vulnerable will become even more isolated. Often those who walk into our doors do not have health insurance, so our free services are the only way they can readily get sexual health testing and information. Our specialists work with those clients to explore their options to get covered. The CDC's decision ignores the unique realities of rural states like ours. Transportation, broadband access and stigma already create significant barriers to care. Replacing a responsive, community-rooted organization with a research institution, however well-intentioned, doesn't address those barriers. In many cases, it makes them worse. The secondary effect of regular, judgment-free access to sexual health care through AVOL Kentucky is increased, overall good health. Studies show that gaining access to HIV testing leads to increased testing for other sexually transmitted infections and more immediate treatment. It leads to increased condom use, and it reduces psychological strain from HIV-related anxiety. These improvements translate into fewer emergency room visits, lower long-term health care costs and longer, healthier lives. It's the kind of preventive care we should all be championing. Instead, AVOL Kentucky is being asked to do more with less, or in this case, to do the same life-saving work without the federal funding that has long sustained it. I've served on the board of AVOL Kentucky for many years, and I've watched firsthand how our team meets people where they are, literally and figuratively. Whether at pride festivals, churches, recovery centers or food pantries, AVOL shows up with compassion, integrity and information. There's no substitute for that kind of consistent, local presence. It can't be replicated by a new grant or an outside institution. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Roy Harrison is the board president of AVOL Kentucky. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky needs CDC funds for local HIV prevention | Opinion
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
As new variant spreads, what's the latest COVID-19 vaccine guidance? It's complicated.
As a new COVID-19 variant takes over in the U.S., guidance surrounding vaccines has become increasingly confusing. Changes in vaccination guidelines, ever-evolving variants and strains, along with threats to health insurance, have sent average Americans looking for the latest recommendations as members of the federal government often conflict with independent medical agencies and healthcare professionals. In the two weeks leading up to June 21, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported just shy of 14,500 positive COVID tests, and while hospitalizations and deaths are fortunately down significantly since the pandemic's peak, vulnerable people are still grappling with limiting their risk amid changing practices. Having trouble keeping track of variants and vaccines? Here's what we know. What is the new NB.1.8.1 COVID variant? NB.1.8.1 is one of the latest variants of COVID-19, a "slightly upgraded version" of the LP.8.1 variant that is prominent right now, Subhash Verma, microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, previously told USA TODAY in May. Verma previously stated that NB.1.8.1 may be transferred more easily than LP.8.1. Additionally, he noted that NB.1.8.1 can evade antibodies created by vaccines or past infections more easily than LP.8.1. In early April, NB.1.8.1 accounted for 0% of COVID cases in the U.S. In the two weeks ending June 21, it accounted for the majority of cases at 43%, according to the CDC. The variant has similar symptoms to other strains, including fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat, congestion or a runny nose, new loss of taste or smell, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, nausea or vomiting. One of its more unique features is "razor blade throat," reported by patients as an exceptionally sore throat. RFK and HHS change COVID vaccine guidance Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on May 27 that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. Under the changes, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. This could make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including health care workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), among other organizations, issued statements condemning the change, with the ACOG saying it was "...concerned about and extremely disappointed by the announcement that HHS will no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy." "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants after birth," President Steven J. Fleischman said in a statement. Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot, which runs about $200, if they can get it. It's not clear what insurance companies will do about the new recommendations. AMA, AAP other organizations break from RFK and HHS on vaccines The American Medical Association (AMA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in partnership with other professional medical organizations, broke from RFK and HHS after this announcement, sharing plans to develop their own guidelines independent of the government organization. In an open letter signed by 80 medical organizations across the country and published on June 25, the AMA called for physicians, healthcare networks and insurance companies to continue supporting "evidence-based immunizations to help prevent severe disease and protect public health." "Vaccines for influenza, RSV, and COVID-19 remain among the best tools to protect the public against these illnesses and their potentially serious complications—and physicians are among the most trusted voices to recommend them. We come together as physicians from every corner of medicine to reaffirm our commitment to these lifesaving vaccines," the letter said. "Recent changes to federal immunization review processes raised concerns across the medical and public health community. In this moment of uncertainty, physicians must align around clear, evidence-based guidance for patients." The AAP likewise said in a June 26 statement that it will "continue to publish its own evidence-based recommendations and schedules." AAP President Susan J. Kressly said the creation of federal immunization policy is 'no longer a credible process," adding, "...we're not stepping back, we're stepping up. The AAP will continue to publish our own immunization schedule just as we always have, developed by experts, guided by science, trusted by pediatricians and families across the country.' These latest independent guidelines have yet to be released. Vaccine committee adjourns without fresh recommendations Meanwhile, the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) gathered for the first time on June 25 in a meeting that drew criticism from some experts. RFK fired all 17 original members of the committee on June 9, replacing them with members that critics have called unqualified. Some of the members, like Kennedy, have a history of anti-vaccine advocacy, prompting backlash that had doctors and organizations calling for a delay in the meeting. Anti-vaccine sentiments were repeated by ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorf at the meeting, who said the panel will be "investigating" MMR and childhood vaccines. The CDC panel also reviewed data about COVID-19 vaccines, questioning their safety and effectiveness. They also raised questions about the study design, methodologies and surveillance monitoring systems behind the data, which Dr. Pamela Rockwell, clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, addressed as a standard of medical research. "Our efforts, through a very robust system of checks and balances, are to create vaccines and vaccination programs that result in the most benefit with the least harm," said Dr. Gretchen LaSalle, a family physician in Spokane, Washington, who represented the American Academy of Family Physicians. Despite this, the committee didn't vote on COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for the fall and isn't expected to reconvene until 'September/October,' according to the CDC website. ACIP commitee: Inside the unusual, RFK-appointed panel that's deciding on childhood vaccines FDA updates warning label for COVID vaccines The FDA likewise announced updated requirements for mRNA COVID-19 vaccine warning labels on June 25, which apply to Comirnaty by Pfizer Inc. and Spikevax by ModernaTX Inc. Prescribing information will now include warnings of the connection between the vaccines and a rare side effect that causes inflammation of the heart muscle and lining. The new warning label discloses the risk of myocarditis, which appeared in 8 cases per 1 million people who got the 2023-2024 COVID shots between the ages of 6 months and 64 years old, mostly commonly among males aged 12 to 24. The previous label, which also disclosed the risk, said the problem mostly occurred in minors aged 12-17. So, how do you protect yourself from NB.1.8.1 and other variants? Despite the back-and-forth in the U.S., the World Health Organization (WHO) has kept its recommendation consistent. Currently approved COVID-19 vaccines are expected to remain effective against the NB.1.8.1 variant, it said. In a webpage dated Jan. 7, the CDC advised that everyone over the age of six months get the 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine, specifically the 2024-2025 Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The page has since been updated with a banner, reading "COVID-19 vaccine recommendations have recently been updated for some populations. This page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule." The original recommendations align with the WHO's current guidelines. WHO, AMA, AAP and existing standards recommend that people who have never received a COVID-19 vaccine, are age 65 and older, are immunocompromised, live at a long-term care facility, are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant, and/or want to avoid getting long COVID, should get the vaccine, especially. Contributing: Greta Cross, Adrianna Rodriguez, USA TODAY
