New York's abortion fund to run out of money
The New York Abortion Access Fund is struggling to keep up with demands as more people from out of state request financial assistance and as the cost of the procedure rises, POLITICO Pro's Maya Kaufman reports.
The organization — which pays clinics on behalf of patients who cannot afford an abortion — continues to see rising demand driven by Florida and other southern states since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to an abortion.
About 34 percent of people who reached out to the fund in 2024 were calling from outside New York, executive director Chelsea Williams-Diggs told POLITICO. That has risen to 38 percent so far this year.
At the same time, abortions are getting more expensive.
More of the fund's clients are seeking abortions later in pregnancy, which tend to be more medically complex, and therefore costlier, procedures. And only a few clinics in New York City perform abortions after 19 weeks, so even the fund's local clients may face travel costs, Williams-Diggs said.
Meanwhile, philanthropic donations have declined since a 'post-Dobbs bump' after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Williams-Diggs said. Both the city and the state provide funding, she added, but it comes with strings that make the money difficult and slow to access — so much so that her organization recently took out a $1 million loan to bridge the gap.
'It's catching up to us,' she said.
The state Senate directed $1 million to the organization last year through the Reproductive Freedom and Equity Grant Fund, which Gov. Kathy Hochul created in 2022. The fund was not previously accessible to organizations that offer direct patient assistance for abortions.
But Williams-Diggs said the money has yet to come in the door, because her organization still has to submit required documentation.
Meanwhile, reproductive health advocates are pressing Hochul's administration to make those dollars available for practical support, such as transportation, for people seeking abortions.
IN OTHER NEWS:
— New York, the home of one of the costliest Medicaid programs in the country, is expected to see virtually every facet of spending face the brunt of deep federal aid cuts,POLITICO's Nick Reisman and Maya Kaufman report.
Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's budget chief warned the state will suffer a $750 million hit this fiscal year due to cuts to the state's Essential Plan that take effect Jan. 1. That amounts to a $3 billion annual cut when the state's new fiscal year starts April 1.
'Nobody is prepared to backfill $3 billion in cuts from Congress,' said Blake Washington, the director of the governor's budget office. 'There's no state in the union that can do that, particularly on a recurring basis.'
The state's Essential Plan, which covers roughly 1.6 million low-income New Yorkers who are ineligible for Medicaid, relies on billions of dollars in federal funding that will start drying up in January under the megabill.
On top of that, the state will have to spend upwards of $500 million over several years to stand up a system for administering the megabill's new Medicaid work requirements, Washington said.
'We've never seen health care cuts like these,' Democratic Assemblymember Amy Paulin said. 'We've never seen a systemic cut to health care in this country like we're seeing in this federal bill. We can't just tax people in New York and make it up. I don't see how we do that. It's too much money.'
ON THE AGENDA:
— Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. The NYC Health + Hospitals board of directors' capital committee meets, followed by a meeting of the finance committee.
GOT TIPS? Send story ideas and feedback to Maya Kaufman at mkaufman@politico.com and Katelyn Cordero at kcordero@politico.com.
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
What you may have missed
— Fatal overdoses in New York City continued trending downward during the third quarter of 2024, hitting their lowest level since early 2020, according to provisional data released last week. The new data shows 498 people died from an overdose during that three-month period, down from 564 deaths in the prior quarter and 647 in the quarter before that.
It is the fewest overdose deaths in any quarter since the first three months of 2020, when the city tallied 456 fatal overdoses.
'For too long, opioid overdoses have ripped families and communities apart, but there is light on the horizon with opioid overdose deaths citywide seeing their lowest numbers in five years,' Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement. 'We are committed to maintaining this downward trend by continuing to invest in the programs and treatments that support those who are struggling.'
ODDS AND ENDS
NOW WE KNOW — Twenty New York hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, per a new analysis.
TODAY'S TIP — Feeling burnt out? Ashwagandha could help.
STUDY THIS — Via NBC: A large new study found a link between premenstrual disorders and cardiovascular disease.
WHAT WE'RE READING
— Why are mothers in New York having so many c-sections? (Times Union)
— State legislators across the U.S. are weighing laws around menopause care and training for doctors. (CNN)
— FDA offers to trade faster drug reviews for lower U.S. prices. (Bloomberg)
Around POLITICO
— Big Pharma and labor make for strange bedfellows in fight against California drug pricing bill, Rachel Bluth reports.
— How hospitals could still escape the megabill's Medicaid cuts, via Robert King, Amanda Chu and David Lim.
MISSED A ROUNDUP? Get caught up on the New York Health Care Newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump fire hundreds of Education Department workers and dismantle the agency
WASHINGTON − An ideologically divided Supreme Court on July 14 allowed the Trump administration to fire hundreds of workers from the Education Department and continue other efforts to dismantle the agency. The court's three liberal justices opposed the order, the latest win for President Donald Trump at the high court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority handed Trump the power to repeal laws passed by Congress 'by firing all those necessary to carry them out.' 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naïve,' Sotomayor wrote in her 19-page dissent, 'but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is great.' The majority did not explain its decision in the brief, unsigned order. The decision came a week after the court allowed the administration to move forward with large-scale staffing cuts at multiple agencies. Trump is trying to fulfill his campaign promise to end the Education Department and move school policy to the states. 'Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. She said the administration will continue to perform education-related functions required by law while "empowering families and teachers by reducing education bureaucracy." The Education Department workers were placed on administrative leave in March and were to stop receiving salaries on June 9 before a judge intervened at the request of Democratic-led states, school districts and teachers' unions. The government has been spending more than $7 million a month to continue paying the employees who remain unable to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts said the White House's decision to fire more than 1,300 workers has prevented the federal government from effectively implementing legally required programs and services. Such changes can't be made without the approval of Congress, which created the department in 1979, Joun ruled in May. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision. The court said the administration provided no evidence to counter Joun's "record-based findings about the disabling impact" of the mass firings and the transfer of some functions to other agencies. The Justice Department said the Constitution gives the executive branch, not the courts, the authority to decide how many employees are needed. "The Department of Education has determined that it can carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared-down staff and that many discretionary functions are better left to the States," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court. An executive order Trump signed in March directed McMahon to "facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." Republicans have long accused the federal government of holding too much power over local and state education policy, even though the federal government has no control over school curriculum. McMahon announced roughly half the agency's workforce would be eliminated through a combination of mass layoffs and voluntary buyouts. That would have reduced the staff from 4,133 workers when Trump began his second term in January to 2,183 workers. The administration also wants the Small Business Administration to take over student loans and move special education services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Joun's May 22 order blocked the administration from transferring those functions and required the department to reinstate fired workers. The appeals court said Trump doesn't have to employ as many Education Department workers as the previous administration but can't cut so many that the agency can't function as Congress intended. States challenging the moves said the administration removed nearly all the workers who certify whether colleges and universities qualify for federal student aid programs. And it gutted the department in charge of the data used to allocate billions of dollars to states, lawyers for New York and other states told the Supreme Court. Unless the firings are reversed while the courts are deciding if the administration is acting legally, "it will be effectively impossible to undo much of the damage caused," lawyers for the Democracy Forward Foundation had told the Supreme Court. After the court's decision, Skye Peryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the group will "aggressively pursue every legal option as this case proceeds to ensure that all children in this country have access to the public education they deserve." The Justice Department had told the Supreme Court that the harms to the government from having to rehire the workers as the litigation continues are greater than any harms the challengers said they'll suffer from diminished department services. The department also opposed the challenge on procedural grounds. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court says Trump can fire Education Department workers
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The megabill's Medicaid cuts shocked hospitals, but they may never happen
And 2028 is not only an election year, but a presidential one. 'Are they really going to want to cut rural hospitals in an election?' asked Chris Mitchell, head of the Iowa Hospital Association. 'We're going to talk to our delegation early and often about the impact of these cuts and how looming cuts down the road impact how hospitals run in the interim.' Heartening for hospital executives is a now-long history of Congress delaying or repealing the painful parts of major legislation. Congress, for example, never allowed a tax on high-end 'Cadillac' insurance plans in 2010's Affordable Care Act to take effect, and rescinded a tax on medical devices. 'We saw it with the Affordable Care Act, and we will certainly see it with this bill,' predicted Ben Klein, a former Democratic Senate aide and founding partner of Red+Blue Strategies, a lobbying firm that counts major hospital groups and systems among its clients. Congress' habit of revisiting painful cuts also guarantees a multiyear windfall for K Street, the Washington corridor where many lobbyists have their shops. Lobbyists with ties to Trump or Republicans in Congress have already seen a surge in revenue this year. Several state-based hospital associations say they will ramp up meetings with lawmakers to stress the need for an off-ramp before the 2028 elections. Even before the megabill's enactment, some Republicans in competitive districts were suggesting Congress may need to tweak a provision restricting states' ability to extract more money from the Treasury if it causes problems for hospitals. 'If it looks like we have issues and we're not comfortable, we can change it,' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said before the House voted to pass the bill last week. 'Things are subject to change. We're going to have different members of Congress. We're going to have a new president. Things are going to be different.' If the lobbyists are successful in undoing the cuts — which mostly target Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income people — it'll mean the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will be even more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office expects: $3.4 trillion in deficit spending over a decade. That will have ramifications across the U.S. economy, exposing Americans to higher interest rates and slower economic growth, budget experts warn. 'If they are successful in getting these reductions delayed, modified, scaled back, … it will be a tax on future generations,' said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and longtime GOP Senate budget aide. But that's a deal hospital executives — who have predicted the cuts could threaten some facilities' survival — are willing to take. Delays and cuts States use two tools to get higher Medicaid payments from the federal government. The first is a tax on hospitals and other providers. States use the tax revenue to pay their share of Medicaid, which offers insurance to more than 70 million low-income Americans. Hospitals don't mind because states cover the tax with bigger Medicaid payments. Conservative advocates of reining in the practice say it amounts to 'money laundering' because states with bigger Medicaid budgets qualify for larger federal contributions. That can also free up money in state budgets to pay for other things, like coverage for undocumented immigrants. But states and hospitals say the tax is vital because Medicaid reimbursements don't cover the true costs of care. The megabill incrementally lowers the rate states can levy from 6 percent of patient revenue to 3.5 percent. In 2028, the cuts start to phase in at 0.5 percent and continue for several years until reaching 3.5 percent. The new law permits the 10 red states that have chosen not to take advantage of a provision in Obamacare encouraging them to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people to keep their taxes but not increase them. Restricting the provider taxes will hit hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients hard, their advocates say. Second, the bill targets a wonky financial tool states use to boost hospitals' Medicaid revenue called state-directed payments. The tool enables states to boost the rates privately run managed care plans, which contract with states to cover Medicaid patients, reimburse providers. States have ordered higher rates for chronically underfunded hospitals and facilities. In some cases, states have required the plans to pay providers at commercial rates, which are much higher than those paid by Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Overall the bill will cut more than $1 trillion in health spending over the next decade, with the majority coming from Medicaid. This includes not just the state cuts but also the effects of other provisions, such as new rules requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or attend school. Hospitals are trying to figure out how to make up funding gaps that could reach billions of dollars — and warning their representatives and senators of what's ahead. States could raise income taxes or find ways to shed Medicaid enrollment to help contain costs, hospital executives said. In West Virginia, facilities may delay construction projects or cut services, said Jim Kaufman, president and CEO of the West Virginia Hospital Association. Some areas that could be targeted are obstetrics or pediatric care, which are already in short supply in rural areas. 'One out of every two births is covered by Medicaid,' he said. Getting grandfathered Lawmakers are likely to hear more in the coming months about the impacts on their local hospitals. The industry has always been a powerful one in Washington since hospitals care for lawmakers' constituents and also employ many of them. The Iowa Hospital Association's Mitchell said lawmakers may think twice once they see the consequences of the cuts. 'We won't be talking theoretically,' he said. 'Unless there's intervention, we know how things will shake out.' Republicans did include a $50 billion relief fund for rural hospitals to stretch out over five years. Details on how that money will be distributed remain scant as states await guidance from the Trump administration. But it is unlikely to fully offset the losses, several hospital groups said. That's because rural hospitals serve mostly Medicare and Medicaid patients and the rates the government pays are usually far less than what private insurers do. In Virginia, large hospital systems in urban areas might get a sixth of their revenue from state-directed payments. For rural facilities, it is closer to a third, said Julian Walker, vice president of communications for the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Advocates for rural hospitals, as well as urban ones that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients, are highlighting their vulnerability. Larry Bucshon, a Republican lobbyist and former heart and lung surgeon who served seven terms representing an Indiana House district, said he expects Congress will have to do more to help them. 'There is going to have to be some work done to say, 'Well, we need to have more grandfathering,'' he said. Still, lobbyists for hospitals said they aren't taking that for granted. They point out that the Paragon Health Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank, made the case for changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments and that many Republicans believe strongly that Medicaid costs have grown too rapidly and that some states provide benefits to people who don't need them. That threatens the program's stability, Republicans said during the megabill debate. 'They may not be as from the Paragon Institute work inside the White House and have been pushing for these changes that have now become enshrined in law,' a lobbyist for multiple hospitals, granted anonymity to speak freely on the situation, said. At the same time, any changes going forward will likely need bipartisan support and Democrats might not be eager to help Republicans out of a jam if the GOP finds itself trying to stop unpopular provisions from taking effect in an election year. 'I don't want to hear Jeff Van Drew, or any Republican from New Jersey, or any Republican in this House telling me that they're going to correct bad things that they did today,' said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) after the final megabill House vote last week. Still, Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he wants to reverse the Medicaid cuts. 'I'm determined to ultimately reverse all the terrible things they've done to Medicaid, to the ACA, to make health care less affordable, more costly,' Pallone said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal
The Department of Justice on Monday urged the Supreme Court to turn away an appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring with and aiding Epstein in his sexual abuse of underage girls. Maxwell, 63, had urged the court earlier this year to review her case, arguing that an unusual co-conspirator's clause in Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida barred her subsequent prosecution in New York. A district court and a federal appeals court previously rejected that argument, and the DOJ today urged the high court to do the same. "That contention is incorrect, and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals," wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. At the core of Maxwell's petition for SCOTUS review is her contention that the language of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) specifically limited his protection to the Southern District of Florida, whereas the language of the co-conspirator clause should have been read to prohibit her prosecution in any federal district. The co-conspirator clause stated that if "Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to" four of Epstein's assistants. Maxwell was not among the four women named. MORE: Timeline: Jeffrey Epstein memo causes controversy among MAGA base "Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein," her attorneys wrote in their petition to SCOTUS in April. The DOJ, however, argues in their response that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida -- then led by R. Alexander Acosta -- did not intend to bind other federal districts and had no authority to do so without the approval of those districts or the Criminal Division of the DOJ. "And there is no indication here that anyone involved in negotiating Epstein's NPA obtained the necessary approval for binding other USAOs or thought it was necessary," the DOJ's brief states. The DOJ also contends that – even if the co-conspirators clause could be read to apply nationwide as Maxwell claims - there is no evidence that the parties who negotiated the NPA intended for the co-conspirators clause to benefit Maxwell, who the government describes as "at most, an incidental third-party beneficiary of the agreement." "The government was not even aware of [Maxwell's] role in Epstein's scheme at that time," Sauer wrote, and urged the justices to deny Maxwell's petition for certiorari. In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration's decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein. "I'd be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He's the ultimate dealmaker—and I'm sure he'd agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't, it's especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke," wrote David Oscar Markus. MORE: Trump supporters angry over Justice Department's Epstein memo Sigrid McCawley, an attorney who has represented hundreds of alleged Epstein victims, including one of the trial's key witnesses against Maxwell, told ABC News in a statement that Maxwell should stay behind bars. "After two-plus decades of recruiting and abusing young girls trapped in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking enterprise, Ghislaine Maxwell has again attempted to escape accountability by trying to hide behind the non-prosecution agreement. Maxwell does not deserve any protection, and she should remain in prison for the horrific crimes she committed," wrote McCawley, a managing partner at Boies Schiller Flexner. Maxwell -- who pleaded not guilty to all the criminal charges against her -- was convicted by a jury in 2021 on five of six counts, including conspiracy, sex trafficking of a minor, and transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. Prosecutors alleged that Maxwell played a "key role" in a multi-state sex trafficking scheme in which she allegedly "befriended" and later "enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein" and was also, at times, "present for and involved" in the abuse herself. "A unanimous jury has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable -- facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children," then-U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement following the verdict.
