Cancer survivors, advocates push Ohio Senate for preventative screening access
Pamer and 100 other survivors took part in the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network's Ohio Advocacy Day and urged Ohio lawmakers to require all private insurers cover biomarker testing and prostate cancer screenings.
The event comes as the Ohio Senate considers the changes it wants to make to the state's operating budget, a sprawling bill filled with new bills and appropriations to direct state spending over the next two years.
Pamer's primary concern was with the bipartisan House Bill 33, which would require insurers to cover preventative prostate cancer screenings for men over 40 with a higher risk of prostate cancer.
Pamer himself was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2017 after taking a preliminary blood test that measured the level of prostate-specific antigens, or PSA, in his system.
"That is one of our asks today, that everyone is able to have their PSA test covered whether under-insured or uninsured," Pamer said. "Hopefully, then, everyone would have the same results I did: finding it early, (undergoing) early treatment, and now (there's) no evidence of disease."
Prostate cancer, according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, is the most common cancer among American men.
Advocates were also pushing House Bill 8, which would require private insurers to cover certain biomarker tests — which help identify cancer and the best forms of treatment — if prescribed by a doctor.
That bill was passed last year before it stalled out in the Ohio Senate. It was reintroduced this year by state Rep. Andrea White, R-Kettering, who told this outlet Tuesday that she'd be "thrilled" if it wound up in the Senate's budget.
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans back Graham, Cornyn call for Obama special counsel
A handful of Senate Republicans on Thursday offered support for a move by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) to get a special counsel appointed to investigate former President Obama and the 2016 election. The Graham-Cornyn call for a special counsel comes as Republicans and the Trump administration have been upended by the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, and Trump has attempted to pivot away from the issue. GOP senators didn't draw any connection between the two concerns on Thursday while offering support for the idea of a special counsel. 'It's like a drip, drip, drip,' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said. 'This kind of thing has been coming out for years now, and what's frustrating … is there's been no accountability for it.' Hawley's support for a special counsel to investigate Obama is not a huge surprise. The conservative is seen as a future potential GOP presidential candidate and calls for an investigation of Obama will likely be popular with the Republican grassroots. Special counsels in the past have caused problems for both political parties, however, and GOP Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) offered a cautious note. 'I'm not a big believer in special counsels, really, for the most part,' Paul said. The libertarian from Kentucky said the Obama administration's handling of the 2016 election, in which intelligence agencies found Russia was seeking to influence the election in Trump's favor, did deserve scrutiny. But he questioned whether the special counsel was the right approach. 'We'll send hundreds of millions of dollars, it'll take four years and, really, it deserves to be discussed, it deserves to be reported.' The call for a special counsel came after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released two sets of documents purportedly accusing Obama and his top officials of assisting a push to undermine Trump's 2016 bid and to tether him to Moscow. The document Gabbard released on Thursday specifically cast doubts on Russian President Vladimir Putin's desire to aid Trump in the race against Hillary Clinton. It did back up the argument that Russia wanted to interfere in the election, which numerous intelligence reports have stated. The document was part of a House intelligence report dating back to when Republicans controlled the chamber and was previously classified. Although it does not dispute that Moscow interfered in the election, it sheds light on the Obama administration's handling of Russia's activity at the time. A number of intelligence reviews determined that the Russians sought to influence the 2016 contest and that Putin wanted Trump to emerge victorious. Still, GOP senators say they want more information. 'For the good of the country, we urge Attorney General [Pam] Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate the extent to which former President Obama, his staff and administration officials manipulated the U.S. national security apparatus for a political outcome,' Graham said in a statement. 'As we have supported in the past, appointing an independent special counsel would do the country a tremendous service in this case,' Graham continued. 'With every piece of information that gets released, it becomes more evident that the entire Russia collusion hoax was created by the Obama Administration to subvert the will of the American people. Democrats and the liberal media have been out to get President Trump since 2016.' Coloring much of the push into Obama and his top officials, however, is a wider attempt by the current administration to shift as much attention as possible away from the uproar surrounding the administration's handling of the Epstein situation, which has divided the GOP. The Gabbard documents served as catnip to some members who remain angry about the ongoing dialogue surrounding the 2016 election and Russian influence. But the chatter around the Gabbard documents hasn't fully distracted Republicans from the Epstein controversy. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Thursday objected to a Democratic resolution to force the Justice Department to release information on Epstein — but unveiled his own resolution calling for courts at both the federal and state level to unseal all materials 'that were part of any criminal investigation or prosecution' of Epstein or Maxwell. Whether it hits the floor is a question that remains unclear. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that is up to his conference. 'Obviously there's some interest in taking action on it,' he said on Thursday. 'And we'll see how intense that feeling is.' The renewed focus on Obama began on Tuesday when Trump told reporters that the 44th president was guilty of 'treason' without providing evidence. This prompted a rare response from the former president as a spokesperson labeled the claim 'a weak attempt at distraction.' The spokesperson also noted that the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 backed that the Russians attempted to sway votes but were not successful. The committee at the time also backed up the work of the intelligence community during that time. That panel was chaired by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), now the secretary of State. 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,' said Patrick Rodenbush, an Obama spokesperson. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.'
Axios
2 minutes ago
- Axios
On crypto market structure, the Senate keeps it simple
The Senate has circulated a draft of its version of market structure legislation, and it is markedly different than what the House offered — largely because there is so much less there. Why it matters: These two versions need to become one, setting up a clash of regulatory philosophies and strategic priorities — the House's broad framework that goes heavy on the details, or the Senate's that seems more designed to get passed. The big picture: Since the initial coin offering frenzy of 2017, the lingering question has been: Which blockchain assets count as securities, and which don't? This is important, because securities that haven't been approved for trading on public markets have hefty limitations on who can hold them and how they can change hands. For a long time, the nation's securities regulator felt they were all securities. The crypto industry disagreed, and the courts turned out to be divided on the point. Now Congress is stepping in. Zoom in: The House and Senate bills both start by declaring that certain digital assets will always be treated as securities. But both provide a path for other coins to shed those restrictions. They use different terminology, but they both seek to make clear that if a coin mainly exists to use and keep running some blockchain protocol, then it's not, on its own, something for the SEC to deal with. Case in point: Ether and bitcoin are what keep the Ethereum and Bitcoin protocols running. They offer financial rewards that motivate a distributed array of unrelated people to keep the systems operational. Both bills require certification for a new token with the SEC, making clear — with evidence — that the projects have made something that doesn't fit under a securities rubric. Regulators can object, and then a back and forth can begin. If they don't, the asset graduates out of the agency's purview. Reality check: The House bill gets in the weeds on some things, though. For example, it has definitions for "decentralized finance messaging systems," "decentralized finance trading protocol" and "associated person of a digital commodity broker." The Senate's bill cedes many of those details to regulators, leaving them to work out needed details later when it writes specific rules. My thought bubble: It might change a lot, but it would make sense for CLARITY, the House bill, to remain the vehicle for final passage — that way the House can say it did a bill and the Senate can say it did one.
USA Today
2 minutes ago
- USA Today
TikTok will go dark in US if China doesn't agree to deal, Lutnick says
The future of TikTok in the United States remains in the hands of Chinese officials, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. During a CNBC interview on July 24, Lutnick said if China does not approve a U.S.-drafted deal to sell the American assets of TikTok, then the app will go dark in America again, as it briefly did in January. "If that deal gets approved by the Chinese, then that deal will happen. If they don't approve it, then TikTok is going to go dark," Lutnick said. "And those decisions are coming very soon, so let's see what the Chinese do. They've got to approve it. The deal is over to them right now." When asked if the potential agreement is a part of current trade talks with China, Lutnick said it was being discussed, but "not officially." "You can't really go meet somebody and not bring up the topics that are open," Lutnick said during the interview. "It's not officially a part of it, but unofficially, of course, it's going to be discussed. Neither TikTok nor the White House immediately responded for comment when contacted by USA TODAY on July 24. TikTok: Trump signs executive order delaying ban on TikTok - again When could TikTok go dark in the US? The next deadline for TikTok to be sold from ByteDance is Sept. 17. Trump signed an executive order, the third of its kind, to extend the deadline in June. Why could TikTok get banned? TikTok's future in the United States has been up in the air for months. In January, the platform went dark for less than 24 hours under federal legislation signed into law by former President Joe Biden. For years, some government officials have been concerned that TikTok is a national security threat, believing that ByteDance, which is based in Beijing, is sharing U.S. user data with China. TikTok has repeatedly denied these claims. Three times now, Trump has signed executive orders that push back the deadline for when TikTok must be sold, promising that deals with China are on the horizon. The latest was in early July, when Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was hopeful Chinese President Xi would agree to a deal to see the platform to the U.S. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
