Idaho doctor and patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to lifesaving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients.
The ACLU of Idaho and the National Immigration Law Center filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency. They want a judge to bar the state from requiring immigration status verification from people who receive the federal HIV treatment benefits while the lawsuit moves forward in court.
The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people.
'We are still reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in court after we have had a chance to fully review the complaint and other documents filed,' Damon Sidur, the communications director for Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, said Friday in an email to The Associated Press. The lawsuit names Labrador as well as several officials in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids.
'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.'
The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants.
The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding.
Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services.
Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.
The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020.
One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others.
'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote.
The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said.
Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint.
'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Obamacare preventive care mandate wins in Supreme Court ruling
The Big Story The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key Affordable Care Act requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventative measures recommended by an expert panel. © AP Justices upheld the constitutionality of the provision in a 6-3 decision and protected access to preventative care for about 150 million Americans. The justices found that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint and fire members of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). The cases started when a small business in Texas and some individuals filed a lawsuit against the panel's recommendation that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP) for HIV be included as a preventative care service. They argued that covering PreP went against their religious beliefs and would 'encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.' The plaintiffs further argued that the USPSTF mandates are unconstitutional because panel members are 'inferior officers' who are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. While the panel is independent, they said that since their decisions impact millions of people members should be confirmed. A U.S. district judge in 2023 ruled that all preventative-care coverage imposed since the ACA was signed into law are invalid and a federal appeals court judge ruled in agreement last year. The Biden administration appealed the rulings to the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration chose to defend the law despite its long history of disparaging Obamacare. Though public health groups celebrated the ruling Friday, some noted another potential outcome. 'While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,' Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement. 'We must be vigilant to ensure Secretary Kennedy does not undo coverage of preventive services by taking actions such as his recent firing of qualified health experts from the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee and replacing them with his personal allies.' Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: New Hampshire lawmakers give final approval to gender-affirming care ban New Hampshire lawmakers on Thursday gave final approval to bills that would ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors in the state, sending the measures to Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who has not yet said whether she will sign them. State lawmakers voted to pass House Bill 377, which would prohibit doctors from administering puberty blockers and hormones to transgender youth beginning next year. The measure includes … FDA expanding COVID vaccine warnings over rare heart side effect The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now requiring two common COVID-19 vaccines to update their warning labels to include information on two rare heart side effects. Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, or inflammation of the thin sac surrounding the heart — are two conditions that a small number of people have experienced after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 shot. The rare cases of myocarditis … What causes a stroke? Learn the triggers and risk factors Most Americans likely know at least a little about the signs of a stroke. While early intervention is vital for a positive outcome, medical experts also stress the need to prevent strokes, which the Stroke Foundation reports are the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. The key to prevention is knowing what causes these brain attacks. According to the American Heart Association, a stroke occurs when a blood vessel to the … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday evening and then to vote at noon Saturday to begin debate on President Trump's tax and spending bill. Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday … Read more 5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
2 hours ago
Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho -- An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients. The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency. The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people. Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids. 'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.' The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants. The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding. Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services. Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020. One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others. 'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote. The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said. Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint. 'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Health Line
2 hours ago
- Health Line
Does Medicare Cover Famotidine?
Famotidine is a generic drug that doctors prescribe to treat conditions related to excess stomach acid production, such as stomach ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It's available in over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription strengths, and companies may sell it under the brand names Pepcid AC or Zantac 360. Medicare Part D drug plans generally cover prescription famotidine, though there may be some variation based on the specific plan. Original Medicare doesn't cover OTC famotidine. However, some Medicare Advantage (Part C) plans may include OTC benefits that members can use toward this medication. Part D coverage for famotidine Medicare-approved private insurance companies sell Part D prescription drug plans. If you have Original Medicare, you can buy a stand-alone Part D plan, whereas people with Medicare Advantage plans often have Part D plans in their coverage. Each plan has a formulary. This is a list of medications that the plan covers. Part D plans generally include prescription famotidine in their formularies. However, since specifics vary by insurance carrier, plan, and location, there's no guarantee that all plans include coverage for famotidine. To learn whether your Medicare drug plan includes coverage for famotidine, consult your plan details or a representative. Over-the-counter famotidine and Medicare Many Medicare Advantage plans include coverage for OTC products as part of their additional benefits. If your Medicare Advantage plan includes OTC benefits, you can likely use them to buy famotidine. Generally, with OTC benefits, members can get a benefits card that works like a debit card. The plan adds funds to the card at regular intervals, and you can use it at participating retailers to buy eligible products. The specific retailer and product lists may depend on the plan, but Walgreens, for example, offers various famotidine products in different strengths and quantities through its OTC benefits program. Famotidine cost with Medicare The cost of famotidine may depend on its strength, quantity, form, and whether it's a generic or brand-name product. Formularies place covered drugs into tiers. These tiers typically correspond with a drug's cost, with lower tier drugs often carrying lower copayments or coinsurance. A plan's formulary may cover multiple versions of famotidine. If so, the oral tablet form is likely to be a tier 1 drug, whereas the oral suspension may be a tier 4 drug. However, this may not be the case for all plans that cover famotidine.
