Hospital CEO says Idaho Legislature not doing enough to support medical workforce
IDAHO FALLS – Two health care professionals told members of the Idaho Legislature's budget committee Monday that they are not doing enough to produce the medical workforce the state needs and that doctors are leaving the state due to its strict abortion ban.
The comments came during the Idaho Legislature's Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee's first day of spring meetings Monday in Idaho Falls.
The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, or JFAC for short, is a powerful legislative committee that sets the budgets for every state agency and department.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The medical workforce debate started during a workforce panel discussion at the College of Eastern Idaho after Rep. James Petzke, R-Meridian, asked the panelists if the Idaho Legislature was doing enough to develop the kind of modern workforce Idaho employers and industries need.
Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center CEO Betsy Hunsicker didn't sugar-coat her answer. She immediately told Petzke the short answer is 'no.'
'It's very challenging, and we don't have OB-GYN coming in here,' Hunsicker said. 'We're not training general surgeons. We're not. Physicians generally practice where they train. So I think the training piece for residency for physicians is really probably something that needs to continue to grow.'
Hunsicker and other panelists asked legislators to support two programs to help develop the state's workforce – medical residency programs and the Idaho Launch workforce training initiative championed by Gov. Brad Little.
The discussion and the tension ratcheted up during a presentation later Monday given by Dr. Jennifer Cook, the OB fellowship director and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Full Circle Health in Boise.
Cook was giving an overview of health education programs and talking about ways to bring more doctors to Idaho. Cook said huge swaths of Idaho are considered maternal care deserts, and the state ranks near the bottom nationally when it comes to physicians-per-capita.
In addition to supporting incentives like loan repayment programs and investing in medical residencies and fellowships, Cook told legislators they could attract more doctors if they clarified the state's near total abortion ban to include the health of the pregnant mother – not just the life of the pregnant mother.
'Because right now, physicians are kind of scared to practice here, I'm not going to lie,' Cook told JFAC members. 'Because there's so much ambiguity – and I don't think that was intentional in any way, shape or form. I think people are trying to support their constituents – but it has led us to this gray area where we don't know what management is actually allowable, and that's really hard.'
Cook said that ambiguity has real consequences.
'I had fellows who sat and watched a woman who was 19 weeks pregnant bleed and couldn't do anything about it, and just waited until she was so sick she was about to die,' Cook said. 'If that was your family, it would be really scary.'
While she was talking, Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, turned to his neighbor, Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, and said, 'that's not true.'
Moments later, Cook briefly paused her presentation to JFAC members.
'I can see some eyes rolling,' Cook said. 'I can see you all rolling your eyes.'
Cook then continued her presentation.
When she fielded questions after her presentation, Rep. Steven Miller, R-Fairfield, and Tanner told Cook that they feel Idaho's abortion law is clear.
Tanner told Cook he thinks the discussion is political. He said his conservative doctor friends tell him the law is clear, while people who lean left are 'going nuts' over the abortion law.
In an interview with the Idaho Capital Sun after Cook's presentation, Tanner said the life of the unborn baby gets lost in the debate.
'The problem that I see that they run into is they're only looking at the aspect of the mom, keeping that person alive, and not the actual baby,' Tanner told the Sun.
Tanner also referenced the University of Washington's Washington, Wyoming Alaska, Montana and Idaho, or WWAMI, medical program.
'Part of the problem, in my opinion, I think overall is where you look at the training aspect that they actually go through,' Tanner told the Sum. 'So when they're going through the WWAMI they're going through up in Washington, and some of the actual classes and how most of the doctors that I talked to have come out like they're fully like, 'Abortion is no different than needing stitches. It's no different than anything.' And I think they dehumanized that child at that point in time.'
However, the University of Washington has said it does not use Idaho funds to teach courses related to abortion care, according to the Spokesman-Review.
At a legislative hearing during the 2025 session, UW School of Medicine Vice Dean Suzanne Allen said the school would agree to Idaho's abortion laws and stipulations, according to the Spokesman-Review.
'The University of Washington does not spend any Idaho funds on abortion care or abortion training,' she said.
In a statement regarding House Bill 176, which sought to defund Idaho WWAMI, UW said it was disheartened to see the Legislature discuss dissolving a more than 50-year partnership.
'The Idaho WWAMI partnership is required to teach the same content to our students that other medical schools are required to teach across the country to pass the national licensing exam,' the university stated. 'This includes women's health content such as normal labor and delivery as well as complications including miscarriages that require abortion procedures.'
Although the Idaho Legislature adjourned April 4 and is not in session, JFAC often conducts interim meetings during the fall and spring to continue monitoring the state budget and take a closer look at agencies and programs that receive state funding.
This is not the first time JFAC members have been told that the Idaho Legislature's abortion ban has made it harder to attract and retain physicians.
During a different JFAC interim tour on Nov. 21, 2024, Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine President Tracy Farnsworth told legislators the abortion ban has run off existing physicians and may be scaring away new ones.
'Many of you probably know this, with our current Idaho state abortion laws that provide very little, if any, opportunity to terminate a pregnancy for health because we don't have a health of the mother exception, we've lost roughly 25% of our OB-GYN,' Farnsworth said in November.
'We've gone from 200 to 150 OB-GYN, and we are hearing anecdotal evidence of a number of graduating OB-GYN residency students choosing not to come to Idaho because of fear of losing their license and (being) criminalized,' Farnsworth added.
JFAC members did not vote on any budgets or any bills on Monday.
JFAC's spring meetings continue Tuesday with a tour of community resource centers and the Idaho Department of Water Resources' Eastern Regional Office.
JFAC's meetings are scheduled to conclude Wednesday with a tour of Idaho National Laboratory facilities.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Senate Committee Endorses NIH Budget Increase, Goes Against Trump's 40% Cut
You know that whole checks and balances thing laid out by the U.S. Constitution? It's where Congress is not supposed to automatically agree with what the Executive Branch of the U.S. government wants to do. Well, on Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee essentially checked what U.S. President Donald Trump has been trying to do to the National Institutes of Health and showed that it doesn't quite agree. In its budget for the U.S. government's 2026 fiscal year, the Trump Administration had proposed a rather massive $18 billion cut to he NIH, which would amount to a 40% chop in funding from fiscal year 2025 levels. But the Senate Committee ended up voting for kind of the opposite: a bill and budget that would give the NIH a $400 million budget increase. The Senate Budget Would Include Modest Increases For The NIH This budget increase would include a $30 million bump in funding to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a $50 million bump to the National Cancer Institute, bringing the total funding to these two institutes up to $6.59 billion, and $7.37 billion, respectively. There's also an $12 million increase in funding for the longstanding BRAIN Initiative, which has supported different researchers across the country to study and better understand, you guessed, the brain. That's after this heady initiative had suffered cuts for the past two years. All in all, the currently proposed Senate budget would leave the NIH's total budget for FY 2026 at $48.7 billion. The Senate Budget Includes All 27 NIH Institutes And Centers Not only that. The preliminary budget that emerged from the Senate committee kept all current 27 NIH institutes and centers essentially intact. That's notable because it goes against the Trump Administration's plan to go bye-bye-bye to many of these centers and institutes and effectively shrink the NIH. For example, soon after he took office, Trump issued an Executive Order that has led to the termination of numerous federal grants that mention diversity, equity or inclusion in some way. Many of these grants were originally issued by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. But the Senate Committee kept the NIMHD budget for FY 2026 essentially the same as it was this past year. The Senate Budget Does Not Include The AHA Plan From RFK, Jr. And there weren't any AHA moments in the Senate budget, so to speak. AHA is the acronym for the Administration for a Healthy America, the name of the agency that U.S. Department of Health and Human Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been wanting to create. Kennedy has sought to eliminate many existing health programs across different government agencies and then roll them into the new AHA. But the Senate bill made no mention of this plan and basically ignored it. I am reaching out to contacts at HHS and NIH for their reactions. The Senate Budget Maintain NIH Funding Rates For Indirect Costs Finally, the Senate committee essentially said, 'Oh, no you don't' to the Trump Administration's plans to cap funding for indirect cost payments at a 15% rate. Such a rate would be well below what they've been for most universities, academic medical centers and other research organizations, as I've detailed previously in Forbes. That's prompted lawsuits against the Trump Administration that led to a federal judge blocking the proposed indirect cost funding change and the Trump Administration appealing the ruling. The Senate Committee Vote For The NIH Bill Was A Bipartisan 26-3 And the vote wasn't a party all the time situation either. The committee voted 26-3 for all of the above, which meant that the vote wasn't simply split across party lines as so many Congressional votes seem to go these days. No, this looked like bipartisan opposition to what the Trump Administration wants to do to the NIH. Prominent Republican supporters of the bill included Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Could this be a 'Back to the Future' situation where the NIH has support from both major political parties? Perhaps. Historically, at least until recent years, the NIH has enjoyed bipartisan support, probably because most people are in favor of the whole find-and-fund-new-ways-to-prevent-and-treat-disease thing that the NIH has been doing. Of course, the budget wrangling is far from done. The Senate still has to go through the rest of the appropriations process, which undoubtedly will include more wheeling and dealing and maybe at least a few social media posts from who knows who. Then there's the other side of Congress, the House of Representatives, that has to go through the whole appropriations thing as well. Plus, the White House and its Office of Management and Budget have continued to take steps that appear to bypass Congress's authority to oversee the budget for the NIH. For example, last week, the NIH had implemented what would be a major shift in how it issues grant funding to external researchers. The longstanding policy was that if you were awarded say a five-year grant, the funding for each year would come from that year's NIH budget. Going forward, the NIH wants to change it so that the entire five years of funding would be issued from the NIH budget year corresponding to the first year of the grant. This would severely limit and drop the number of awards that the NIH could issue in a given year. And earlier this week, the OMB tried to put a pause on the NIH issuing any new grants, as I described in Forbes. But when blowback ensued, the White House put a pause on this pause, reversed course and allowed the NIH to issue funding to external researchers again. The concern is that such shifts in policies and pauses as well as grant terminations may be ways to slash the NIH budget without the approval of Congress. Nevertheless, after several months of the Trump Administration cutting and terminating NIH grants, contracts, personnel and influence seemingly with impunity, this marks the first big, concrete pushback from Congress. It is a reminder that it's Congress and not the White House or the rest Executive Branch that ultimately decides who gets what money. Congress was bestowed that power by that thing called the U.S. Constitution. This separation of powers was done to prevent any single branch or person from becoming too powerful and basically take over the country.
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Yahoo
Senate panel backs plans for $456 billion VA budget next year
Senate appropriators on Thursday advanced plans for a $456 billion budget for Veterans Affairs programs and benefits next fiscal year, putting it generally in line with House and White House goals for future department spending. Unlike the House draft adopted last month, however, the Senate VA appropriations plan advanced out of committee with broad bipartisan support and without a bevy of controversial social issue amendments. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, praised the bill's passage as an important step forward for the federal budget process and for supporting America's veterans. 'It helps to fund the VA Health Care System, makes investments to improve mental health care, includes programs to assist in the prevention of veteran suicide, homelessness prevention programs, supports our family caregivers and expands care for our rural veterans,' she said. 'It also funds important veterans benefits, including disabilities, pensions, the GI Bill and employment training programs.' House passes $435 billion spending plan for VA in fiscal 2026 House lawmakers' budget plan for the department totaled about $453 billion, but both the House and Senate drafts call for roughly $134 billion in discretionary funding, money for new program starts and initiatives. That total is slightly less than what White House officials asked for in their budget proposal, but only by about $1 billion. Most of the debate in Thursday's Senate Committee markup focused not on the VA spending plans but instead the controversial rescissions package adopted by the chamber the night before. That measure would pull back about $9 billion in congressionally authorized spending, including money for foreign aid and public media programs. But those objections were not enough to deter most Democrats from backing the Republican-led VA budget plan. The Senate proposal includes language ensuring that veterans 'are never denied care or timely access to care as a result of the damaging or arbitrary cuts to the VA workforce,' a reference to recent workforce reductions at the department. Last week, VA officials backtracked on earlier plans to trim up to 80,000 employees from the department's payroll, instead projecting a reduction of about 30,000 individuals by the end of September. Veterans Affairs leaders have seen regular budget increases annually for more than 20 years, even amid frequent congressional and White House efforts to reduce federal spending. In fiscal 2001, the VA budget — both mandatory and discretionary — totaled just $45 billion. In 2011, it was about $125 billion. In fiscal 2023, the total topped $300 billion for the first time. The House-passed plan for fiscal 2026 would now push that total over the $400 billion level, and cost more than the combined fiscal 2025 budgets of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps. Senate officials have not said when the budget plan could come before the full chamber for a vote, but Collins said Republican leaders have committed to acting on the issue in coming months.
Chicago Tribune
13-07-2025
- Chicago Tribune
Dr. Cory Franklin: I worked in Cook County Hospital during the 1995 heat wave. Here's how it changed Chicago.
The old Cook County Hospital has been gone for more than 20 years, but those of us who were staff members, patients or visitors there remember the vast, open 40-bed wards, with no privacy or central air conditioning. During the summer, those wards, with high cathedral ceilings and large windows that did not open, would become oppressively hot. Portable fans would be used to cool the large rooms but did little other than make it so loud you could not hear yourself talk. On those wards, the middle of July sometimes resembled an inferno scene out of a Hieronymus Bosch painting. This was why it was shocking, but not surprising on reflection, that 30 years ago on a July weekend a few patients from those wards were brought to the intensive care unit with life-threatening heatstroke and body temperatures exceeding 107 degrees. (The ICUs and operating rooms were air-conditioned.) Two more victims whose heatstroke went unrecognized were found dead in their beds on the stifling wards. No one could have imagined this. Heatstroke was something that occurred outdoors — patients did not develop heatstroke inside the assumed safety of a hospital environment. The patient heatstroke victims that July weekend were an indication of the enormity of the 1995 heat wave that killed 739 people, more deaths than any disaster in Chicago history outside the 1915 SS Eastland tragedy. Unlike tornadoes or hurricanes, that five-day heat wave was an unpredictable weather disaster in slow motion, the magnitude of which went unrecognized for several days for several reasons. Because the city had not suffered a severe, prolonged swelter for years, there was little institutional memory of a heat wave; weather forecasts that were less precise than today's hadn't predicted its intensity; and much of the suffering occurred over a summer weekend with junior staff in charge of hospital care citywide. For most of the 20th century, heat-related deaths of Americans went underreported. In the era before 1995, at least in Chicago, when temperatures would rise above 100 degrees, officials traditionally undercounted the number of deaths because they didn't make a firm connection between the weather and mortality. Deaths due to the effects of heat were rarely reported until a prolonged heat wave affected a highly populated area. Public officials and the medical community were slow to take note. Mortality tended to occur in groups in which unexpected death was not considered unusual — the aged, the sick and the obese. The greatest risk factor for death during hot weather was social isolation: the elderly shut-in or the person with mental disorders on psychiatric medication. Those people, as they succumbed, were less likely to attract attention. The 1995 Chicago heat wave caused a paradigm shift that changed the nation's approach to urban heat waves. It was not until funeral homes and morgues started reporting tremendous increases in corpses that weekend that a systematic approach to counting heat waves deaths was established. Many of those who died did not die directly from heatstroke; they were often victims of cardiovascular disease as hot weather-aggravated heart problems. Mayor Richard M. Daley, other politicians and health officials all learned a painful, belated lesson — a heat wave is as much a social emergency as it is medical, and the government must prepare the public. Today, the city works in concert with the National Weather Service, private meteorologists and community organizations. If temperatures in Chicago are projected to exceed 90 degrees for any prolonged period, a series of warnings are issued via television, radio, the newspapers and social media. A special hotline has been established, while private and public resources are mobilized so that air-conditioned cooling centers are available to the public, with transportation provided for those unable to travel on their own. The public and police are encouraged to check on the elderly and infirm. Public health officials and hospitals are alerted to look for early patterns of emergency room admissions and deaths. Compared with what it was before 1995, the thinking on heat emergencies has transformed. And Chicagoans have benefited. Since 1995, Chicago has had several less severe heat waves, notably in 1999 and 2012, with little or no measurable increase in excess deaths. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and lightning may get the headlines, but in most years, heat waves are more deadly than any of those calamities. That's especially true when the community is unprepared. The trend toward a warming planet makes things worse. The ubiquity of air conditioning and the emergence of mass communication in the U.S. have reduced deaths from hot weather significantly in the past century. In France, where adaptation has been slower, heat waves have caused thousands of deaths at least twice in this century. Because of the heat wave, 1995 will go down as an important year in Chicago history and to a certain extent in American medical history as well. It was then that we learned that in the summertime, the livin' is not always easy, but community cooperation can make it much safer.
