Family Planning

Arizona Family Health Partnership Snags Title X Family Planning Grant

The Arizona Family Health Partnership is once again the sole Title X Family Planning grantee for Arizona. They received their Notice of Award last week for up to 3 years. The grant is for the $5.2M per year.

Title X is a super important public health program that provides folks with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. It's designed to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people. Its overall purpose is to promote positive birth outcomes and healthy families by allowing individuals to decide the number and spacing of children.

The services provided by Title X grantees include family planning and contraception, education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and HIV.  It also focuses on counseling, referrals to other health care resources, pregnancy diagnosis, and pregnancy counseling. Title X funding does not pay for abortions.

The AFHP has been the awardee for these services in AZ for many years. When I was at the ADHS, we didn't apply for the Title X grant because our team believed that the AFHP did a really good job providing these services.  A couple of years ago one of the state budget bills required the ADHS to apply for the Title X grant.

Many people believe the line item was included in the budget in hopes that ADHS rather than AFHP would get the grant.  The motivation for that is that the ADHS is prohibited from contracting with Planned Parenthood for Title X services (which do not include abortion services), while AFHP (as an independent nonprofit) could continue to contract with Planned Parenthood.

Fed’s Making Big Changes to Title X Family Planning Funding

The US Department of Health & Human Services published in the Federal Register a final rule making changes to the federal regulations governing the Title X national family planning program. The final rules will dramatically change the existing Title X family planning program nationally and in AZ.  The changes will include:

Diminishing Title X’s ability to offer confidential, affordable, high-quality family planning care to people struggling financially or who are otherwise vulnerable and in need of care;

Eliminating Title X’s long-standing legal and ethical requirement for non-directive pregnancy options counseling; and

Requires a “bright line” of physical and financial separation between the provision of family planning and abortion services.

Numerous provider groups, state attorneys general and non-profit organizations are suing HHS seeking an injunction to stop the rule from taking effect while the courts decide the legality of the rule.

The American Medical Association along with Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed a lawsuit in Oregon.  Essential Access Health (the California Title X grantee) filed a lawsuit and the California AG filed a separate lawsuit to challenge the rule yesterday. 

There are now 23 State Attorney Generals that have announced plans to fight the final Title X rule, along with several nonprofits (AZ is not on the list). Others opposing the rule include health care providers of all stripes, public health associations including APHA, legal and ethical experts, reproductive justice advocates, policymakers and many others. A great reference to this activity is the story from the Washington Post, published before the last two states joined.

The Judicial branch of government will likely be the place that determines whether the new proposed final rules making these changes to Title X will actually go into effect.

Check Out AzPHA's Position on Multiple Bills

State Legislature Bill Update

More than 700 bills have so far been proposed by members of the Arizona State Legislature so far.  Our Public Health Policy Committee is busy sifting through them and looking for those that will have a public health impact.  We’ve taken public positions on the www.azleg.gov website on more than 20 bills with links to public health.  Below is a quick summary of those bills and the positions that AzPHA has taken.

Tobacco Bills

SB 1009 Electronic Cigarettes, Tobacco Sales (Carter) – AzPHA Position: YES

Expands the definition of tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. Among other things, it'll make it clear that it's illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors. The penalty for selling to minors remains at $5K. Passed the Senate Health & Human Services Committee last Wednesday.

HB 2024 Electronic Cigarettes. Smoke Free Arizona Act (Kavanaugh) – AzPHA Position: YES

Includes e-cigarettes in the definition of tobacco products and smoking for the purposes of the Smoke Free Arizona Act.  Because the Act was voter approved- this modification to the law will require a 3/4 majority of both houses.

HB 2073 Vapor Products; Regulation (Shope) – AzPHA Position: Opposed

This bill would basically set up a regulatory program at the ADHS to inspect and license electronic cigarette manufacturers in Arizona and specify that only licensed electronic cigarette manufacturers can sell products in Arizona.  It gives no regulatory authority to the ADHS to enforce that vape shops get licensed and they only must do it every 5 years. There are no penalties for noncompliance and penalties are against the purchaser instead of the retailer.

SB 1363 Tobacco Product Sales (Tobacco 21) (Carter) - AzPHA Position: YES

Tis bill would move the tobacco product (and e-cigarette) buy age to 21.  Bill includes definitions and criteria as well as penalties for vendors that sell to people under 21.

 

Maternal & Child Health

SB 1088 Dental Care During Pregnancy (Carter) – AzPHA Position: YES

This bill would expand AHCCCS covered services to include comprehensive dental coverage during pregnancy and appropriate the required state match funding. This bill passed the Senate Health Committee 8-0 this week!

SB 1040 Maternal Mortality Report (Brophy-McGee) – AzPHA Position: YES

This bill would require the Child Fatality Review Team subcommittee on maternal mortality to compile an annual statistical report on the incidence and causes of "severe maternal morbidity" with recommendations for action.  The current law requires a review of the data but no report. This bill passed the Senate Health Committee 8-0 this week!

HB 2125 Child Care Subsidies (Udall) – AzPHA Position: YES

Makes a supplemental appropriation of $56 million from the Federal Child Care and Development Fund block grant in FY2018-19 to the Department of Economic Security for child care assistance. Another bill, HB 2124 would allocate the money as follows: $26.7 million for provider rate increases, $14 million to serve children on the waiting list, and $13.1 million to increase tiered reimbursement for infants, toddlers and children in the care of DCS. HB 2436 is a similar bill.

 

Vaccines

HB 2162 Vaccine Personal Exemptions (Hernandez) -  AzPHA Position: Yes

This bill would remove the personal exemption option for parents to enroll in school when the child hasn’t had all the required school attendance immunizations.

HB 2352 School Nurse and Immunization Postings (Butler) – AzPHA Position: Yes

School districts and charter schools would be required to post on their websites whether a registered nurse is assigned to each school as well as required reports on immunization rates.

SB 1115 and HB 2471 Informed Consent (Boyer, Barto) - AzPHA Position: Opposed

These bills would add a requirement that physicians provide to parents and guardians the full vaccine package insert and excipient summary for each vaccine that will be administered.  Physicians already provide a Vaccine Information Summary to parents and guardians for each vaccine administered, which is noted in the medical record.  This new requirement would mandate provision of the 12-15 page insert, which is not presented in a format that incorporates health literacy principles.

HB  2472 and SB 1116 Vaccinations- Antibody Titer (Boyer, Barto) - AzPHA Position: Opposed

These bills would mandate that doctors inform parents and guardians that antibody titer tests (which involve a venous draw) are an option in lieu of receiving a vaccination and that there are exemptions available for the state requirements for attending school. 

 

Injury Prevention

SB 1165 Texting and Driving Prohibition (Brophy McGee) – AzPHA Position: YES

This bill prohibits using a hand-held cell phone while driving.  There are some common-sense exemptions for example if the person is using it hands free etc.  Penalties are a civil penalty (no driving points) with the first offense being between $75- $150 and the 2nd offense between $150 and $250.  We are signed up in support of this bill.

HB 2069 Texting and Driving (Kavanaugh) - AzPHA Position: Supporting SB 1165

Makes texting while driving on a highway a nonmoving civil traffic violation.  The penalty for the 1qst violation would be $100 and the second offense would be $300.  If a crash is involved the penalty would be $500 but if someone died it would be $10K.   subject to a civil penalty of $500, except that if the accident results in the death of another person, the civil penalty is $10,000.

HB 2165  Distracted Driving (Townsend) - AzPHA Position: Supporting SB 1165

A person who drives a vehicle while participating in an activity that willfully distracts the person from safely operating the vehicle is guilty of reckless driving, a class 2 (mid-level) misdemeanor.  I’m not sure if texting and driving would qualify or not- it probably does.

HB 2172  Rear Facing Car Seats (Bolding) - AzPHA Position: YES

Kids under two years of age need to be in a rear-facing restraint system unless the child weights at least 40 pounds or is at least 40 inches tall.

HB 2246  Motorcycle Helmets (Friese) – AzPHA Position YES

Motorcycle riders over 18 would be required to wear a helmet unless they pay a fee that would be set by ADOT. Violations would be a $500 civil penalty, but no points or other sanctions. 

HB 2075  Electronic Prescribing (Cobb) – AzPHA Position: Yes

Pushes the electronic prescribing requirement in last year’s Opioid Epidemic Act back to January 2, 2020 in all counties.  Being heard in House Health & Human Services Committee Thursday Feb 24 at 9 am.

Firearm Safety

SB 1219 Domestic Violence Offenses & Firearm Transfer AzPHA Position: Yes

Persons that have been adjudicated and the court rules that they may not possess a firearm must surrender their firearms to a law enforcement agency.  The law enforcement agency may then dispose of the firearm(s) in accordance with law.  People that have an Order of Protection against them must also surrender their firearms, although the law enforcement agency must return the firearm when the Order expires (after a background check).

HB 2247 Bump Stocks (Friese) – AzPHA Position: Yes

This bill would outlaw the sale of bump stocks on firearms.

HB 2248 Firearm Sales (Friese) – AzPHA Position: Yes

This bill would require a background check for all sales at gun shows.

HB 2161 Order of Protection (Hernandez) AzPHA Position: Undetermined

A person who is at least 18 years of age and who is either a law enforcement officer, a “family or household member” (defined), a school administrator or teacher or a licensed behavioral health professional who has personal knowledge that the respondent is a danger to self or others is permitted to file a verified petition in the superior court for a one-year Severe Threat Order of Protection (STOP order), which prohibits the respondent from owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or having in the respondent’s custody or control a firearm or ammunition for up to one year.

HB 2249  Mental Health and Firearm Possession (Friese) AzPHA Position: Undetermined

An immediate family member or a peace officer is authorized to file a verified petition with a magistrate, justice of the peace or superior court judge for an injunction that prohibits a person from possessing, controlling, owning or receiving a firearm. Any court may issue or enforce a mental health injunction against firearm possession, regardless of the location of the person. Information that must be included in the petition is specified. If the court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence to issue a mental health injunction against firearm possession, the court must issue the injunction. Information that must be included in the injunction is specified.

 

Harm Reduction

HB 2148 Syringe Services Programs (Rivero) AzPHA Position: Yes

Decriminalizes syringe access programs, currently a class 6 felony. To qualify, programs need to list their services including disposal of used needles and hypodermic syringes, injection supplies at no cost, and access to kits that contain an opioid antagonist or referrals to programs that provide access to an opioid antagonist.

SB 1119 Tanning Studios (Mendez) – AzPHA Position YES

Would require people under 18 that want to use a commercial tanning bed service to have permission from their parent or guardian.

Agency Administration

SB 1247 Residential Care Institutions (Brophy McGee) – AzPHA Position: Yes

This good bill will require more robust staffing background checks for facilities that provide services for children and will remove the “deemed status” designation for child residential behavioral health facilities.  Under current law, facilities in this category (e.g. Southwest Key) can be accredited by a third party (e.g. Council on Accreditation) and avoid annual surprise inspections by the ADHS. This intervention will provide more oversight to ensure background checks are done and that the facilities are compliant with state regulations.

HB 2004 Nuclear Management Fund (Kavanaugh) – AzPHA Position: Undetermined

Assesses the Palo Verde nuclear plant $2.55M and gives it to ADEM, ADHS and other jurisdictions to compensate them for off-site nuclear emergency response plan response activities.  Being heard in House Appropriations Committee Wednesday Feb 23 at 2 pm.

HB 2280  Interfacility Ambulance Transports (Weninger) - AzPHA Position: Undetermined

A person may operate an "interfacility transfer ambulance service" by applying to the Department of Health Services for a certificate of operation with defined requirements.   The requirement to transport a patient under medical direction to the nearest, most appropriate facility as defined by federal Medicare guidelines does not apply to an interfacility transfer ambulance service with a certificate of operation.

SB 1011 Information and Referral Service (Carter) – AzPHA Position: YES

Appropriates $1.5 million from the general fund in FY2019-20 to the ADES for a statewide information and referral service for health care services, community services, human services and governmental services.  

 

AHCCCS Coverage & Private Insurance Coverage

HB 2347 Medicaid Buy-in (Butler) AzPHA Position: Undetermined

Would require AHCCCS to set up a program in which eligible people could pay a premium and receive Medicaid health insurance.

HB 2350 HB2513 SB1134 Kids Care (Butler, Brophy-McGee, Cobb) – AzPHA Position: YES

These bills Would appropriate funding so that Kids Care could continue after the federal match rate goes below 100% on October 1, 2019.

HB 2351 Medical Services Study Committee (Butler) – AzPHA Position: Yes

Establishes a 14-member Medical Services Purchase Program Study Committee to research and make recommendations for establishing and implementing a medical services purchase program. The Committee is required to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Governor

HB 2120  Chiropractic Coverage (Barto) - AzPHA Position: Undetermined

Would add chiropractic services to the list of reimbursable services under AHCCCS.  Being heard in House Health & Human Services Committee Thursday Feb 24 at 9 am.

SB 1088 Dental Care During Pregnancy (Carter) - AzPHA Position: Yes

This bill would expand AHCCCS covered services to include comprehensive dental coverage during pregnancy and appropriate the required state match funding.

SB 1089 Telemedicine Insurance Coverage (Carter) – AzPHA Position: Yes

This Bill would put into law specific standards requiring non-Medicaid insurance companies to cover telemedicine.  There are criteria and standards in the law regarding contracting standards. Note: this is all Title 20 language and does not apply to Medicaid (AHCCCS).

Food Safety & Insecurity

HB 2178  Milk Manufacturing License Exemption - AzPHA Position: Undetermined

A restaurant wouldn’t be required to get a license to manufacture or distribute frozen desserts or frozen milk products if the product is manufactured or distributed and sold at the same facility for on-site consumption.

HB 2186  School Meals (Udall) AzPHA Position: Yes

Schools are required to provide a school meal to a student who requests it regardless of whether the student pays for a school meal or owes money for previous meals. Local education agencies are prohibited from taking a list of specified actions relating to unpaid school meal fees, including announcing or publicizing the names of students with unpaid school meal fees, requiring a student who cannot pay for a meal or who owes unpaid meal fees to work for a meal, and attempting to collect unpaid school meal fees from a student. Local education agencies are prohibited from using a debt collector to attempt to collect unpaid school meal fees.

 

Access to Care

HB 2218 State Loan Repayment (Blanc) – AzPHA Position: YES

Makes a supplemental appropriation of $500,000 from the general fund in FY2019-20 to the Department of Health Services to pay off portions of education loans taken out by physicians, dentists, pharmacists, advance practice providers and behavioral health providers participating in the primary care provider loan repayment program.  An additional $500K would be appropriated to pay off education loans taken out by physicians, dentists, pharmacists, advance practice providers and behavioral health providers participating in the rural private primary care provider loan repayment program.

HB 2376  Associated Health Plans (Barto) AzPHA Position: Undetermined

An association health plan is authorized to operate in Arizona if the plan is following federal laws and regulations, and if the plan's governing documents require the plan to be actuarially sound and the plan is actuarially sound.

Medical Marijuana

HB 2149  Cannabis Definition (Rivero) AzPHA Position: YES

Synchronizes the definitions of marijuana and cannabis in the state criminal code and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.  There has been some confusion in certain counties- as medical marijuana patients have been prosecuted for possessing extracts and preparations of marijuana that they bought at dispensaries. The appeal of this prosecutions will be heard by the state supreme court. This would make it clearer in state law that extracts and preparations are included in the Act.

State Legislature Bill Update

More than 700 bills have so far been proposed by members of the Arizona State Legislature so far.  Our Public Health Policy Committee is busy sifting through them and looking for those that will have a public health impact.  We’re not done looking through them yet- but below is a summary of what we know so far.

Tobacco Bills:

SB 1009 Electronic Cigarettes, Tobacco Sales (Carter)

Expands the definition of tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. Among other things, it'll make it clear that it's illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors. The penalty for selling to minors remains at $5K. Being heard in Senate Health & Human Services Committee Wednesday Feb 23 at 9 am.

HB 2024 Electronic Cigarettes. Smoke Free Arizona Act (Kavanaugh)

Includes e-cigarettes in the definition of tobacco products and smoking for the purposes of the Smoke Free Arizona Act.  Because the Act was voter approved- this modification to the law will require a 3/4 majority of both houses.

HB 2073 Vapor Products; Regulation (Shope)

This bill would basically set up a regulatory program at the ADHS to inspect and license electronic cigarette manufacturers in Arizona and specify that only licensed electronic cigarette manufacturers can sell products in Arizona.  It’s unclear what the objective of this bill is and we have not yet taken a position on it yet.


Maternal & Child Health:

SB 1088 Dental Care During Pregnancy (Carter)

This bill would expand AHCCCS covered services to include comprehensive dental coverage during pregnancy and appropriate the required state match funding.

SB 1040 Maternal Mortality Report (Brophy-McGee)

This bill would require the Child Fatality Review Team subcommittee on maternal mortality to compile an annual statistical report on the incidence and causes of "severe maternal morbidity" with recommendations for action.  The current law requires a review of the data but no report.

 

HB 2125 Child Care Subsidies (Udall)

Makes a supplemental appropriation of $56 million from the Federal Child Care and Development Fund block grant in FY2018-19 to the Department of Economic Security for child care assistance. Another bill, HB 2124 would allocate the money as follows: $26.7 million for provider rate increases, $14 million to serve children on the waiting list, and $13.1 million to increase tiered reimbursement for infants, toddlers and children in the care of DCS. HB 2436 is a similar bill.

HB 2337 Family Planning (Salman)

Would repeal the statute requiring the Department of Health Services to apply for the federal Title X family planning grant.

Injury Prevention:

HB 2069 Texting and Driving (Kavanaugh)

Makes texting while driving on a highway a nonmoving civil traffic violation.  The penalty for the 1qst violation would be $100 and the second offense would be $300.  If a crash is involved the penalty would be $500 but if someone died it would be $10K.   subject to a civil penalty of $500, except that if the accident results in the death of another person, the civil penalty is $10,000.

HB 2165  Distracted Driving (Townsend)

A person who drives a vehicle while participating in an activity that willfully distracts the person from safely operating the vehicle is guilty of reckless driving, a class 2 (mid-level) misdemeanor.  I’m not sure if texting and driving would qualify or not- it probably does.

HB 2172  Rear Facing Car Seats (Bolding)

Kids under two years of age need to be in a rear-facing restraint system unless the child weights at least 40 pounds or is at least 40 inches tall.

HB 2246  Motorcycle Helmets (Friese)

Motorcycle riders over 18 would be required to wear a helmet unless they pay a fee that would be set by ADOT. Violations would be a $500 civil penalty, but no points or other sanctions. 

HB 2075  Electronic Prescribing (Cobb)

Pushes the electronic prescribing requirement in last year’s Opioid Epidemic Act back to January 2, 2020 in all counties.  Being heard in House Health & Human Services Committee Thursday Feb 24 at 9 am.

Firearm Safety

HB 2247 Bump Stocks (Friese)

This bill would outlaw the sale of bump stocks on firearms.

HB 2248 Firearm Sales (Friese)

This bill would require a background check for all sales at gun shows.

HB 2161 Order of Protection (Hernandez)

A person who is at least 18 years of age and who is either a law enforcement officer, a “family or household member” (defined), a school administrator or teacher or a licensed behavioral health professional who has personal knowledge that the respondent is a danger to self or others is permitted to file a verified petition in the superior court for a one-year Severe Threat Order of Protection (STOP order), which prohibits the respondent from owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or having in the respondent’s custody or control a firearm or ammunition for up to one year.

HB 2249  Mental Health and Firearm Possession (Friese)

An immediate family member or a peace officer is authorized to file a verified petition with a magistrate, justice of the peace or superior court judge for an injunction that prohibits a person from possessing, controlling, owning or receiving a firearm. Any court may issue or enforce a mental health injunction against firearm possession, regardless of the location of the person. Information that must be included in the petition is specified. If the court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence to issue a mental health injunction against firearm possession, the court must issue the injunction. Information that must be included in the injunction is specified.

Harm Reduction:

HB 2148 Syringe Access Programs (Rivero)

Decriminalizes syringe access programs, currently a class 6 felony. To qualify, programs need to list their services including disposal of used needles and hypodermic syringes, injection supplies at no cost, and access to kits that contain an opioid antagonist or referrals to programs that provide access to an opioid antagonist.

SB 1119 Tanning Studios (Mendez)

Would require people under 18 that want to use a commercial tanning bed service to have permission from their parent or guardian.

Vaccines

HB 2162 Vaccine Personal Exemptions (Hernandez)

This bill would remove the personal exemption option for parents to enroll in school even though they haven’t had all the required immunizations.

HB 2352 School Nurse and Immunization Postings (Butler)

School districts and charter schools would be required to post on their websites whether a registered nurse is assigned to each school as well as required reports on immunization rates.

Agency Administration

HB 2004 Nuclear Management Fund (Kavanaugh)

Assesses the Palo Verde nuclear plant $2.55M and gives it to ADEM, ADHS and other jurisdictions to compensate them for off-site nuclear emergency response plan response activities.  Being heard in House Appropriations Committee Wednesday Feb 23 at 2 pm.

 

HB 2280  Interfacility Ambulance Transports (Weninger)

A person may operate an "interfacility transfer ambulance service" by applying to the Department of Health Services for a certificate of operation with defined requirements.   The requirement to transport a patient under medical direction to the nearest, most appropriate facility as defined by federal medicare guidelines does not apply to an interfacility transfer ambulance service with a certificate of operation.

SB 1011 Information and Referral Service (Carter)

Appropriates $1.5 million from the general fund in FY2019-20 to the ADES for a statewide information and referral service for health care services, community services, human services and governmental services.  


AHCCCS Coverage & Services

HB 2347 Medicaid Buy-in (Butler)

Would require AHCCCS to set up a program in which eligible people could pay a premium and receive Medicaid health insurance.

HB 2350 HB2513 SB1134 Kids Care (Butler, Brophy-McGee, Cobb)

These bills Would appropriate funding so that Kids Care could continue after the federal match rate goes below 100% on October 1, 2019.

HB 2351 Medical Services Study Committee (Butler)

Establishes a 14-member Medical Services Purchase Program Study Committee to research and make recommendations for establishing and implementing a medical services purchase program. The Committee is required to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Governor

HB 2120  Chiropractic Coverage (Barto)

Would add chiropractic services to the list of reimbursable services under AHCCCS.  Being heard in House Health & Human Services Committee Thursday Feb 24 at 9 am.

SB 1088 Dental Care During Pregnancy (Carter)

This bill would expand AHCCCS covered services to include comprehensive dental coverage during pregnancy and appropriate the required state match funding.


Food Safety & Insecurity

HB 2178  Milk Manufacturing License Exemption

A restaurant wouldn’t be required to get a license to manufacture or distribute frozen desserts or frozen milk products if the product is manufactured or distributed and sold at the same facility for on-site consumption

HB 2186  School Meals (Udall)

Schools are required to provide a school meal to a student who requests it regardless of whether the student pays for a school meal or owes money for previous meals. Local education agencies are prohibited from taking a list of specified actions relating to unpaid school meal fees, including announcing or publicizing the names of students with unpaid school meal fees, requiring a student who cannot pay for a meal or who owes unpaid meal fees to work for a meal, and attempting to collect unpaid school meal fees from a student. Local education agencies are prohibited from using a debt collector to attempt to collect unpaid school meal fees.


Access to Care

HB 2218 State Loan Repayment (Blanc)

Makes a supplemental appropriation of $250,000 from the general fund in FY2019-20 to the Department of Health Services to pay off portions of education loans taken out by physicians, dentists, pharmacists, advance practice providers and behavioral health providers participating in the primary care provider loan repayment program. 

HB 2376  Associated Health Plans (Barto)

An association health plan is authorized to operate in Arizona if the plan is in compliance with federal laws and regulations, and if the plan's governing documents require the plan to be actuarially sound and the plan is actuarially sound.

Medical Marijuana

HB 2149  Cannabis Definition (Rivero)

Syncronizes the definitions of marijuana and cannabis in the state criminal code and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.  There has been some confusion in certain counties- as medical marijuana patients have been prosecuted for possessing extracts and preparations of marijuana that they bought at dispensaries. The appeal of this prosecutions will be heard by the state supreme court. This would make it more clear in state law that extracts and preparations are included in the Act.

HB 2412  Medical Marijuana Cards (Powers Hannley)

This bill would make medical marijuana cards valid for 2 years instead of the current 1 year.

New Funding Opportunity Available for Arizona to Explore Strategies to Reduce Maternal Mortality

A couple of months ago (before the government shutdown happened) landmark federal legislation was passed and signed that will provide millions of dollars to help states determine why women are dying from pregnancy and childbirth at troubling rates.  

The new funding is great news because studies have found that at least half of childbirth-related deaths could have been prevented if health care providers had followed best medical practices to ensure complications were diagnosed and treated quickly and effectively.

The bill provides $12M in annual funding to the CDC to pass through to states with maternal mortality review committees and create committees in the 12 states that lack them.  Arizona has a committee in statute because of a law signed in 2011 - here's a link to the most recent report.

In order to qualify for funding, states need to demonstrate  that their “methods and processes for data collection and review use best practices to reliably determine and include all pregnancy-associated deaths and pregnancy-related deaths, regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy.” All indications are that the ADHS meets these CDC data standards and therefore would qualify for funding.

We and the Arizona Chapter of the March of Dimes will keep an eye out for the grant announcement and offer any assistance that the ADHS needs with their application for this important funding opportunity that can be used to save the lives of Arizona moms.

Maternal Mortality: A Tragic Trend Continues in the US and AZ

The US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.  Sadly, it’s getting worse each year.  About 800 American women die and 65,000 almost die during pregnancy or childbirth.

The number of deaths in AZ jumped from around 10 in 2015 to about 30 in 2016 (the last year for which ADHS has data posted). The numbers are rounded for statistical reasons (called cell suppression in the public health statistics trade.)

Nationally, back women die from pregnancy-related causes at three to four times the rate of white women, even after controlling for social determinants. Women in rural areas also have higher maternal mortality rates than urban women.  Here’s a story that highlights some of the issues in an easy to read way.

Fortunately, there are public health policy leverage points that can make a difference within state health departments and Medicaid agencies.  Medicaid is a leverage point because it pays for over half of all births each year in 25 states including Arizona.  

All states provide Medicaid coverage for women with incomes up to 133% of poverty during pregnancy and for 60 days after delivery.  But the scope of services covered before and after delivery vary between states.  As a result, some women lose coverage or Medicaid eligibility in certain states after that 60-day period (mostly in states without Medicaid expansion).

In Medicaid expansion states (like AZ) women have more opportunities to achieve better preconception health because they’re more likely to be able to access contraception and plan their pregnancies, receive primary care services to manage chronic conditions prior to and between pregnancies and access prenatal and perinatal care once pregnant.

Evidence-based policy making is a key.  Twenty-nine states (including Arizona) have committees that review maternal deaths and make public policy recommendations.  Back in 2011, Arizona passed, and the Governor signed a bill that amended our child fatality review statutes by adding reviews of maternal deaths.

The statute charges our existing Child Fatality State Teams to review maternal deaths (called the Maternal Mortality Review Subcommittee) and make policy recommendations. The primary goal is to identify preventive factors and make recommendations for systems change. The existing statute doesn't require an annual report- and the last report was published in 2017. Note: we've heard that there may be a Bill this session that will require an annual report of the committee's work.

Here are some of the recommendations from the most recent ADHS report (published in 2017):

  • All pregnant women should have access to prenatal care;

  • Encourage maternal care professionals, organizations, and health facilities to update their standards of practice and care to include all recommended guidelines for the prevention of medical complications;

  • Promote public awareness of the importance of healthy behaviors and women’s overall health prior to pregnancy;

  • Women should always wear proper restraints when riding in cars;

  • Maternal health-care systems require strengthened, prepared, and educated communities to improve deliveries in health facilities, particularly in rural areas;

  • Increase and streamline access to behavioral health services statewide, including training and education for advanced practice nurses in behavioral health services;

  • Support and implement community suicide prevention and awareness programs, such as Mental Health First Aid;

  • Health care providers should screen frequently for perinatal depression and domestic violence;

  • Institute and follow recommended California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative guidelines (www.cmqcc.org) for the timely transfer and transport to a higher-level care facility for any complications using regional transport services; and 

  • Educate providers on the availability of maternal postpartum resources such as home visiting programs.

Some states have gone further. For example, South Carolina’s Medicaid agency formed the South Carolina Birth Outcomes Initiative to advance reductions in early elective deliveries; incentivize Screening Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment; promote long-acting reversible contraception; and support vaginal births.  One outcome of the SC initiative was to reimburse for long-acting birth control (LARC) devices provided in a hospital setting. 

Fortunately, Arizona has also included LARC reimbursement in a hospital setting post-partum.  This is an important policy intervention because it provides women with a long-acting and reversible option, so they can better plan future pregnancies – improving opportunities for preconception health, which is a key to improving health outcomes.

US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal Regarding Reproductive Health

This week the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case that would have given them an opportunity to overturn a lower court ruling that found that Medicaid agencies can’t exclude providers offering preventive reproductive health services like annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening because they also offer abortion services.  Lower federal courts had ruled that while states have broad authority to ensure that Medicaid health care providers are qualified, that power has limits. 

The case isn’t about elective abortion services per se (the Hyde Amendment from 1977 makes it clear that federal funds can’t be used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment). The question is whether providers can be excluded from Medicaid contracts for preventive services like annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening because they also separately offer abortion services outside of their public dollar contracts. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to decline the case will have implications here in Arizona. In 2016, Governor Ducey signed a bill giving the director of the AHCCCS the power (at his or her discretion) to disqualify any provider that doesn’t fully segregate the public dollars they get and ensure that none of those funds went toward providing elective abortions- including overhead expenses like rent, lights and A/C.

While that law is still on the books (as ARS 36-2930.05), it hasn’t been implemented. After a lawsuit was filed back in '16, attorneys for AHCCCS agreed not to implement the law and stipulated that AHCCCS won’t try to cut family planning dollars from Planned Parenthood or any other organization because it hasn’t fully segregated out the costs of abortion services to the satisfaction of the director.  The implementation hold agreed to in the stipulation was until Rules (Administrative Code) could be adopted- which they estimated would take about 2 years.

In exchange, the attorneys for the providers agreed to drop their lawsuit challenging the legality of the measure until there are actual rules in place.  I checked on the AHCCCS and Secretary of State’s website and can’t find any Rules fleshing out the criteria- but I might have missed them.

In any event- the fact that the US Supreme Court this week declined to hear a case similar to Arizona’s suggests that- at least for now- the status quo remains...  and Arizona’s Managed Care Organizations that contract with AHCCCS are free to contract with Planned Parenthood or other providers even though they may not be segregating expenses as required in ARS 36-2930.05.Of course- that could change at any time if the Supreme Court changes their mind and agrees to hear a similar case in the future.

Call to Action: Labor HHS Education Bill Cuts to Family Planning

Call to Action: Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill

For the first time in more than 20 years, Congress is on track to pass a Labor-HHS-Education spending bill before the end of the fiscal year. Last week, the House agreed to move to conference with the Senate to work out the differences between each chamber’s version of the  bill. The bills contains a number of bad funding cuts.

The House version eliminates funding for the Title X family planning program and the HHS Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. I can't tell whether the Senate version does the same or not.  The House bill also cuts all funding for the CDC's Climate and Health program and once again fails to fund CDC research into firearm morbidity and mortality prevention. The bill also weakens the Affordable Care Act by blocking funds for implementing the law. 

Congress only has a few legislative days left to finalize the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill before the end of the fiscal year. If they don't pass something they'll probably pass a continuing resolution to keep key public health agencies operating (actually- not a bad outcome honestly). 

Now is the time to Speak for Public Health! You can use this link to Contact your members of Congress and ask them to support robust funding for key public health agencies and programs, and urge them to reject any controversial policy riders that would threaten public health.

Leveraging Doulas to Improve Birth Outcomes

Doulas are professionals who provides physical, emotional, and informational support to a woman throughout pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum. Doula’s act as a facilitator between the laboring women and her physician by ensuring that mom and dad get the information they need in a way that they understand so they can make informed decisions. 

A growing body of evidence suggests that continuous support from doulas or other non-clinical labor support can improve birth outcomes for both mothers and infants, fewer preterm and low-birth weight infants, and reductions in cesarean sections. In fact, when doula services are included throughout the pregnancy and birth process, births cost less. A recent study found that when a doula is included in the process births cost an average of $986 less - including the doula service fee.

Currently, Minnesota and Oregon take advantage of the fact that doulas can reduce healthcare costs while improving outcomes in their state Medicaid programs. In the 2018 budget, Minnesota increased the reimbursement rates for doulas.  The new law also requires Oregon’s coordinated care organizations (which deliver Medicaid services) to provide information about how to access doula services online and through any printed explanations of benefits. The law tasked Oregon Medicaid with facilitating direct payments to doulas, which was addressed through rulemaking.  

Several organizations, such as DONA International, provide doula training and certification. Women can also choose to become certified as community-based doulas through HealthConnect One. This community-based doula program model, which has been replicated nationwide to serve unique populations, trains doulas to provide culturally sensitive pregnancy and childbirth education to underserved women in their own community. While all doula services can be beneficial, creating a standard for the training and certification of doulas may improve understanding and acceptance of doula care.

Looking for more info? Access this UA Issue Brief on Doula Coverage to Help Minimize Arizona’s Birth Woes

Major Changes Proposed for Family Planning Grants

A few weeks ago HHS issued new proposed regulations for Title X (family planning) grants in the Federal Register. The new regulations would make many changes to the requirements for Title X projects and could profoundly change how family planning services are provided by significantly limit the network of providers who can qualify for funds; restricting the ability of participating providers from discussing and referring for abortion; and making other programmatic changes that could dramatically reshape the program and provider network available to low-income women.

If fully implemented, the proposed changes to Title X would shrink the network of participating providers and have major repercussions for low-income women in AZ that rely on these services for their family planning care.

Here’s an informative Issue Brief about the planned changes. The new proposed regulations and the place to submit comments are up on the Federal Register website through July 31.

Policy Update: Family Planning, ACA Lawsuit, Work Requirements and Assault Weapons

Summer & Fall Public Health Activities in AZ

Interested in finding out about the various public health conferences, meetings and events this Summer and Fall?  

Bookmark our AzPHA Upcoming Events webpage.  It’s as simple as that.  If I’ve missed something- let me know at willhumble@azpha.org!

 

Proposed Title X Funding Changes Likely to be a PH Burden

The US Department of Health and Human Services has proposed changes to the rules for the federal family planning services program, known as Title X.  If the new rules are adopted as proposed, it’ll require Title X family planning services to be physically and financially separate from abortion services.

Many family planning clinics offer both family planning and abortion referral services, and if the changes are ultimately implemented many of the programs would likely decide not to take Title X funding, which would have a big impact on the network of available services and they’d have fewer resources available for STD screening, treatment and outreach.

BTW: Title X funds have never been allowed to be used for abortions. The proposed rule is available for public comment until the end of July.  You can read more about the proposed rule and comment by visiting the Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Just follow the instructions to submit.  Your comments might not influence the outcome, but at least you’ll have done your part. That and voting this Fall.

 

Federal Government Won’t Defend the Affordable Care Act in Court

So far, the Affordable Care Act has survived the 2 court challenges that made it to the US Supreme Court.  Back in 2012 the ACA was upheld by the Supreme Court for the first time (by a 5-4 margin) in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case.   It was upheld again in 2015 when (in a 6-3 decision) the Supreme Court upheld ACA’s federal tax credits for eligible Americans living in all 50 states (not just the 34 states with federal marketplaces).

But, there are additional challenges out there that haven’t made it to the Supreme Court yet. One that’s progressing through the courts is a challenge filed by 20 states (including Arizona) arguing that the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and key parts of the act — including the provisions protecting those with pre-existing conditions — are invalid. 

This week Attorney General Jeff Sessions acknowledged that while "the Executive Branch has a longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," the Attorney General will not defend the ACA from this challenge.  

The implications could be profound.  The ACA could potentially be completely overturned- or portions that require health plans to cover pre-existing conditions could be eliminated along with the mandate that persons have health insurance.

 

Medicaid Work/Community Engagement & Reporting Requirements

Any day now, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will be approving Arizona’s request to include work requirements and/or community engagement and reporting requirements as a condition of Medicaid enrollment.  The request filed by AHCCCS is required by Senate Bill 1092 (from 2015) which requires them to ask CMS’ permission to implement new eligibility requirements for “able-bodied adults”.

AHCCCS initially proposed implementing the following requirements for able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid services including: 1) a requirement for all able-bodied adults to become employed or actively seeking employment or attend school or a job training program; 2) requiring able-bodied adults to verify monthly compliance with the work requirements and any changes in family income; 3) banning an eligible person from enrollment for one year if the eligible person knowingly failed to report a change in family income or made a false statement regarding compliance with the work requirements; and 4) limiting lifetime coverage for all able-bodied adults to five years except for certain circumstances.

Hundreds of comments were submitted (including comments from AzPHA) urging the agency to consider modifications to the initial waiver request.  AHCCCS later issued a final waiver request which includes exemptions for:

  • Those who are at least 55 years old;
  • American Indians;
  • Women up to the end of the month in which the 90th day of post-pregnancy occurs;
  • Former Arizona foster youths up to age 26;
  • People determined to have a serious mental illness (SMI);
  • People receiving temporary or permanent long-term disability benefits from a private insurer or from the government;
  • People determined to be medically frail;
  • Full-time high school students older than 18 years old;
  • Full-time college or graduate students;
  • Victims of domestic violence;
  • Individuals who are homeless;
  • People recently been directly impacted by a catastrophic event such as a natural disaster or the death of a family member living in the same household;
  • Parents, caretaker relatives, and foster parents; or
  • Caregivers of a family member who is enrolled in the Arizona Long Term Care System

A subsequent letter from the AHCCCS Administrator suggested that they (AHCCCS) are suspending their request for a 5-year limitation on lifetime benefits (for some members) for now.  Here’s our letter from back in February of 2017. 

 

Kaiser Family Foundation Issue Brief on Work Medicaid Requirements

Last month the Kaiser Family Foundation published an Issue Brief regarding CMS’ recent decisions to grant states the ability to experiment with their Medicaid programs that condition Medicaid eligibility on work or community engagement. The Issue Brief examines evidence of the effects of the Medicaid expansion and some changes being implemented through waivers.

Many of the findings on the effects of expansion are drawn from the 202 studies included in our comprehensive literature review that includes additional citations on coverage, access, and economic effects of the Medicaid expansion.

Regarding work requirements, the Brief concludes that “state-specific studies in Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and most recently Montana and Louisiana have documented or predicted significant job growth resulting from expansion. No studies have found negative effects of expansion on employment or employee behavior. In an analysis of Medicaid expansion in Ohio, most expansion enrollees who were unemployed but looking for work reported that Medicaid enrollment made it easier to seek employment, and over half of expansion enrollees who were employed reported that Medicaid enrollment made it easier to continue working.  Another study found an association between Medicaid expansion and increased volunteer work in expansion states.

Furthermore, “work requirements have implications for all populations covered under these demonstrations. Those who are already working will need to successfully document and verify their compliance and those who qualify for an exemption also must successfully document and verify their exempt status, as often as monthly. States would incur costs to pay for the staff and systems to track work verification and exemptions.”

If you’re interested in the public health policy implications of our upcoming work/community engagement and reporting requirements, the KFF Issue Brief is a must-read.

 

Court Challenge to Kentucky’s Work Requirements being Heard this Week

Oral arguments are being heard this week in DC challenging Kentucky’s requirements that members work or participate in "community engagement" activities such as job training, school or volunteering. The case was filed in January by the National Health Law Program, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The outcome could have implications for AZ’s upcoming requirements.

Read National Health Law Program's guide on what to expect from oral argument.

American Medical Association Endorses Assault Weapon Ban

The American Medical Association – Nation’s largest physician group – endorsed a ban on assault weapons as part of a package of measures aimed at combating the epidemic of gun violence in the US. The member driven initiative was endorsed at their annual policy conference. They also endorsed a ban on bump stocks, which basically turn semi-automatic rifles into automatic weapons. 

In a statement AMA Immediate Past President David O. Barbe, MD, MHA said: “People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis, in emergency rooms across the country, the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience.”

 

Ebola, Family Planning, Public Charge, & Medicaid Network Standards

Ebola Outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo

WHO Policy Body Concludes it’s Not a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (yet)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC) Ministry of Health has confirmed 45 cases of Ebola Virus Disease in the last few weeks. Most of them have been in the remote Bikoro health zone, but 1 case is in Mbandaka, a city of 1.2 million, which is bad because of the city's size and because it's next to the Congo river- a major transportation corridor for people and trade. Large cities that are also transportation hubs can serve as a distribution channel for the virus.

The WHO’s Emergency Committee met last week and heard about the DRC’s surveillance & interventions. The Committee concluded that “… the interventions underway provide strong reason to believe that the outbreak can be brought under control, including: enhanced surveillance, establishment of case management facilities, deployment of mobile laboratories, expanded engagement of community leaders, establishment of an airbridge, and other planned interventions.  In addition, the advanced preparations for use of the investigational vaccine provide further cause for optimism.”

The Committee concluded that “… the conditions for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) have not currently been met.” They advised against travel or trade restrictions as interventions.  Despite not being classified as a PHEIC, resources are still available to the DRC from the WHO consistent with the WHO’s Emergency Response Framework

Activities include distribution of vaccine to Congo (4,000 doses so far and 3,000 more coming), cold chain resources, prepositioning of additional vaccine in Mali and support and treatment and surveillance staff from WHO & Medecins Sans Frontieres. They are using a ring vaccination strategy around cases and contacts.  Surprisingly I don't see anything on the CDC's website about the outbreak right now, but hopefully they're engaged.

Let’s hope that the WHO Emergency Committee is right and the Ministry has the resources, expertise and logistical support they need to quickly identify cases and conduct the needed interventions to stop the spread before this becomes a regional or international epidemic like it did in 2014.  

 

HHS to Restrict Title X Family Planning Program

Last week the President announced that the US Department of Health and Human Services will be changing federal family planning programs (Title X) to “ensure that taxpayers do not indirectly fund abortions”.  The statement suggested that HHS would be shortly proposing regulations that would ban Title X family planning providers from referring patients to abortion clinics.

Title X was enacted almost 50 years ago to provide quality family planning care to those who may not be able to afford it on their own.  Federal funds through Title X already can’t be used for abortion services. The funds are dedicated to access to medically accurate comprehensive healthcare for low-income individuals and families. The reproductive healthcare and family planning services include contraception, cancer and STD testing as well as counseling and education and more.  Title X funding has contributed to the recent and significant decline in unintended and teen pregnancies as well as unplanned births and has reduced abortions.

I searched all over the HHS website and I can’t find the proposed rule change anywhere, so the proposed changes haven’t been released yet. We don’t know if they’ll propose an emergency rule (hitting Title X networks immediately) or go through a normal rulemaking process.  The normal process (including posting the proposed rule in the Administrative Register and a comment period) would be slower because the public would have the chance to comment, and comments would need to be reviewed before the rule could be finalized.

This has already been a chaotic year for Title X applicants for family planning service providers. It’s normally a 3-year funding cycle for Title X providers, but the Administration has changed that to a 1-year cycle- and applications for the coming year are due this Thursday (5/24).

If the proposed rule is the same one that was proposed by the Reagan Administration (and later rescinded by Clinton), it would prevent any provider from referring or providing information on abortion services.  We don’t know the fine points of the rule yet, and cannot speculate about its structure, but we will keep you updated as we learn more. 

 

AzPHA Comments on AHCCCS’ Network & Appointment Standards

AHCCCS is rolling out new integrated care contracts on October 1, and most members will be receiving services for both acute and behavioral care from these managed care organizations.  One of the keys to making sure that members have access to a health care provider when they need it is for AHCCCS to make sure each managed care organization has an adequate network of contracted providers. 

AHCCCS sets their network adequacy standards in what’s called their “AHCCCS Contractors Operations Manuals”, or ACOMs for short.  From now through May 28, 2018 AHCCCS is accepting public comment on their proposed manuals for network expectations for the integrated care contracts that start on October 1.

Our Public Health Policy Committee reviewed the proposals and submitted comments (available on my blog at http://www.azpha.org/). In short- we commented that we liked the fact that the new proposed network standards are more easily measured and therefore easier to ensure compliance.  We also encouraged them to ask the plans to contract with the county health departments for services like vaccinations, sexual transmitted disease testing and treatment, reproductive health, and tuberculosis prevention and control. 

We also asked that when Plans ask for and receive exemptions from the standards that the information be posted on enrollment websites so members have that info as they make enrollment decisions.  Anybody can comment on the proposed standards at this website before May 28.

 

Kaiser Family Foundation “Public Charge” Issue Brief

A few weeks ago I wrote about a change that the US Department of Homeland Security is mulling to allow the federal government to take into account the use of federal health, nutrition, and other non-cash public programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and WIC when making a determination about whether someone is likely to be a “public charge.”  Under these changes, use of these programs by an individual or a family member, including a citizen child, could result in a person being denied lawful permanent resident status or entry into the U.S.

Such changes would apply to coverage provided to legal immigrants and their citizen children, leading to decreased participation in Medicaid, CHIP, Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage and other programs, even though they would remain eligible for them.

The Kaiser Family Foundation published a new issue brief this week that provides an overview of the 10.4 million kids in the U.S. that have a non-citizen parent (the parent is the person that would be affected by the changes).  Then issue brief presents different scenarios of disenrollment from Medicaid and CHIP to illustrate the potential effects on their health coverage and discusses the implications for their health.

How do Lava & Seawater Make Acid Mist?

I heard on the radio that when lava coming from the Kilauea volcano hits the ocean it’s forming an acid mist that’s dangerous to the lungs.  I got curious how the acid forms.  It turns out that the acid comes from 2 different sources.  About 30% of the acid is trapped in the molten lava as a gas and escapes when the lava cools fast in the ocean water. 

The bigger source (70%) is a chemical reaction in which the salt dissolved in the ocean (NaCl and H2O) – in the presence of super-hot lava- forms NaOH (sodium hydroxide) and HCl (hydrochloric acid).  Of course- it’s more complicated than that (a lot more complicated).  If you’re interested in the particulars you can check out this journal article.

_________________________________

I’m doing my best to populate our “Upcoming Events” section of our AzPHA website.  If you have an upcoming public health related event- let me know and I’ll get it up on our website at: http://www.azpha.org/upcoming-events/

_________________________________

Grand Canyon University is developing a Bachelor of Science in Public Health and they would like to gather input from the public health professional community to help inform the curriculum. Please take a few minutes to provide them some feedback on this Grand Canyon University Bachelor of Public Health Policy Survey

 

ADHS EMS Regulatory Services Section Chief Post Open

The ADHS Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Trauma Systems is recruiting for a senior management position in the Bureau of EMS and Trauma System to lead a team of professionals in several functional areas including, statutory committee support, EMS and trauma data collection, system of care performance improvement analysis and reporting, EMS and trauma system initiatives, community paramedicine, and strategic planning and communication

Responsibilities include:

  • Supporting a diverse multi-cultural workforce that reflects the community, promotes equal opportunity at all levels of ADHS, and creates an inclusive work environment that enables all individuals to perform to their fullest potential free from discrimination

  • Assisting in policy and rule development with Bureau and Department leadership

  • Leading a highly motivated, professional team

  • Guiding, monitoring and ensuring success of numerous projects and deliverables

  • Creating and editing EMS and trauma-related reports and plan

  • Ensuring successful meetings of Governor and Director-appointed advisory meetings

  • Seeking out and sharing resources to enhance the Arizona EMS and trauma system

  • Traveling to a limited number of national, state or local meetings

Salary: up to $60,354   Apply Here

 

AzPHA Member Kelli Donley on Horizon Thursday RE Her Latest Book

AzPHA member Kelli Donley will be on Horizon this Thursday at 5:30pm (May 24) to talk about her newest book called COUNTING COUP. The book is about the Phoenix Indian School, and like her other novels, has a strong public health theme. Here’s a short description of her book, which you can order from Amazon:

Happily consumed with her academic career, Professor Avery Wainwright never planned on becoming sole guardian of her octogenarian Aunt Birdie. Forced to move Birdie—and her failing memory—into her tiny apartment, Avery’s precariously balanced life loses its footing. 

Unearthed in the chaos is a stack of sixty-year-old letters. Written in 1951, the letters tell of a year Avery’s grandmother, Alma Jean, spent teaching in the Indian school system, in the high desert town of Winslow, Arizona. The letters are addressed to Birdie, who was teaching at the Phoenix Indian School. The ghostly yet familiar voices in the letters tell of a dark time in her grandmother’s life, a time no one has ever spoken of. 

Torn between caring for the old woman who cannot remember, and her very different memories of a grandmother no longer alive to explain, Avery searches for answers. But the scandal and loss she finds, the revelations about abuses, atrocities, and cover-ups at the Indian schools, threaten far more than she’s bargained for. 

 

Most of you know Dr. Bob England, who's been on the AZ public health scene for the last 30 years including 12 years as the Director of the Maricopa County Public Health Department.  Bob's been living for the last couple of months just outside of London. 

He's writing some entertaining travelogues- with a splash of public health of course. Take a few minutes when you're on a comfortable couch and enjoy Travelogue 1 & 2: Getting Settled and Travelogue 3: Nutrition. Here’s the 5th installment: Interlude.  Back to the 4th Travelogue next week.