Progress & Compromise: A Look at Medicare’s Modest Prescription Drug Price Reforms

For decades, taxpayers and Medicare members have shouldered an unfair burden, paying exorbitant prices for prescription medications. The root of this issue lies in a significant flaw in Medicare’s design: the inability to negotiate drug prices. This restriction has led to inflated costs, forcing millions of Americans to overpay for essential medications.

Both President Biden’s proposal and the earlier H.R. 3 aimed to address this problem through more comprehensive drug price negotiation opportunities.

These proposals had the potential to transform the landscape of prescription drug pricing, offering meaningful relief to millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the powerful lobbying forces within the pharmaceutical industry succeeded in watering down these proposals, reducing their impact.

Despite these setbacks, the Inflation Reduction Act marked a modest turning point. While far from the sweeping reforms initially proposed in HR3 and President Biden’s plan, the IRA finally allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices on a handful of medicines.

‘Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’ Gets a C- for Cutting Prescription Drug Prices – AZ Public Health Association

Last week HHS announced new, lower prices for the first ten drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. While this achievement is a step forward, it’s only a modest and partial solution.

Biden Administration Announces New, Lower Prices for First Ten Drugs Selected for Medicare Price Negotiation to Lower Costs for Millions of Americans

The new negotiated prices on the first 10 drugs are better than what they were, they fall short of the more comprehensive reforms that were initially proposed and desperately needed.

View the List of Negotiated Drug Prices and Projected Savings

The Inflation Reduction Act will allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of up to 60 drugs over the next five years. HHS can negotiate the price of another 10 drugs in 2026, with the number gradually increasing each year, reaching a total of 60 negotiated drugs by 2030 (unless we can get a more robust law passed between now and then).

Updating Arizona’s Landlord-Tenant Act: A Crucial Step to Prevent Evictions and Save Lives

Arizona’s housing crisis is spiraling, with rapid evictions driving homelessness and contributing to the state’s staggering number of heat-related deaths.

At the heart of this issue is Arizona’s 1973 Landlord and Tenant Act, a law that has remained largely unchanged for decades and, crucially, favors landlords. With extreme heat becoming a more frequent and deadly threat, especially for those without shelter, it’s time Arizona updated this outdated legislation to better protect tenants and prevent unnecessary suffering and loss of life.

The Deadly Impact of Evictions

Evictions in Arizona are fast and often leave tenants with little time to find alternative housing. The result? Many end up on the streets, exposed to the elements, particularly the brutal Arizona sun.

In 2023, Maricopa County recorded a record number of heat-related deaths, a trend that shows no sign of slowing down. A significant portion of these deaths were among the homeless population, who are especially vulnerable to extreme temperatures.

The connection between eviction and homelessness is clear, and with Arizona’s eviction process being one of the swiftest in the nation, it’s clear that the current law is worsening our public health crisis.

Arizona’s most populous county has confirmed 645 heat-associated deaths in metro Phoenix last year | AP News

Maricopa County Heat Deaths in 2023: A Crisis for the Homeless & a Call for Housing Reform

The 1973 Landlord and Tenant Act, designed during a very different time, lacks the tenant protections needed in today’s housing market. While landlords benefit from a streamlined eviction process, tenants face an uphill battle to secure their housing, often with life-threatening consequences.

Learning from Other States

Other states have recognized the need for stronger tenant protections, and Arizona should take note.

Minnesota’s Landlord and Tenant Act, for example, includes more fair provisions that could serve as models for reform. Landlords must provide just cause for evictions, ensuring that tenants are not removed from their homes arbitrarily. Additionally, Minnesota law includes protections for tenants during the winter months, prohibiting evictions when the weather poses a risk to health and safety.

Colorado’s recent updates to its landlord-tenant laws also provide valuable lessons. Colorado has implemented mandatory mediation programs for evictions, offering tenants and landlords a chance to resolve disputes without resorting to eviction. This approach not only helps keep tenants in their homes but also reduces the burden on the court system and promotes fairer outcomes.

Proposed Reforms for Arizona

Arizona needs to modernize its Landlord and Tenant Act to reflect the current realities of the housing market and the increasing threat of extreme heat. Key reforms should include:

  1. Just Cause Eviction Protections: Require landlords to provide a valid reason for eviction, preventing arbitrary and retaliatory actions.
  2. Extended Eviction Timelines: Lengthen the notice period for evictions to give tenants more time to find alternative housing, reducing the likelihood of homelessness.
  3. Mandatory Mediation: Implement a mandatory mediation program for eviction cases, encouraging dispute resolution and keeping more Arizonans in their homes.
  4. Heat Season Eviction Moratorium: Prohibit evictions during the hottest months of the year to protect tenants from the dangers of extreme heat.

Updating Arizona’s landlord-tenant laws is not just a matter of fairness—it’s a matter of life and death. By adopting tenant-friendly provisions like those in Minnesota and Colorado, Arizona can reduce homelessness, save lives, improve the social determinants of health and create a more just and fair housing market.

Evictions, Homelessness & Heat Related Deaths: Is Arizona’s Antiquated Landlord & Tenant Act Part of Our Problem?

Yes, it is

Arizona’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Act was enacted by the Arizona Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jack Williams in 1973. The Act outlines the rights and responsibilities of both landlords and tenants in residential rental agreements across the state.

It covers a wide range of issues, including security deposits, maintenance obligations, lease termination, eviction procedures, and the conditions under which landlords and tenants can take legal action.

Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act | Arizona Department of Housing

One of the key aspects of Arizona’s landlord and tenant law is its landlord-friendly nature. Compared to tenant protections in other states, Arizona’s law provides landlords with greater flexibility and control over rental agreements.

For example, Arizona doesn’t have any limits on rent increases (aka rent control), allowing landlords to increase rent was they see please as long as they give basic notice (30 days for month-to-month agreements)​. Landlords also don’t have to provide a grace period for late rent payments and there’s no state-imposed limit on late fees, although they must be considered reasonable.

Metro Phoenix evictions climb again in July. Where are rates highest?

Landlords can end a lease and begin eviction proceedings with short notice periods, especially when compared to states with more balanced laws like Colorado and Minnesota. For example, if an Arizona tenant doesn’t pay rent the landlord can issue a 5-day notice to pay or vacate the premises. If the tenant doesn’t comply within this period, the landlord can file for eviction in court. ​The entire process, from issuing the notice to completing an eviction is much faster than in states with more balanced laws.

Metro Phoenix eviction filings hit new high
Eviction filings are on the rise in metro Phoenix. What can be done?

At least Arizona’s law requires landlords to ensure rental properties are habitable and meet basic health and safety standards. Tenants at least have the right to request repairs and, in some cases, withhold rent or make repairs themselves and deduct the cost from the rent if the landlord doesn’t address significant issues.

Overall, while Arizona’s Landlord and Tenant Act offers some basic protections to tenants, its favors landlords overall, particularly in areas like rent control, lease termination, and eviction procedures. As a result, landlords in Arizona can manage their properties with few restrictions and evict tenants more quickly than in states with more tenant-friendly laws, leading to rapid eviction and increased risk for homelessness and even death during Arizona’s brutal summers.

In my next blog I’ll cover some best practice provisions that are fairer to tenants.

Resources for Tenants:

Note: I’ve been asked to summarize the typical timeline for eviction procedures in Arizona. Below is a basic timeline (recognizing that not every case will follow this timeline based on the decisions the landlord, tenant and court make (including the court schedule):

  1. Notice of Default: The landlord must provide written notice to the tenant for specific violations (e.g. non-payment of rent). For non-payment, a 5-day notice is given to pay the rent or vacate. For lease violations, a 10-day notice is typically required.
  2. Filing for Eviction: If the tenant does not comply with the notice (e.g. pay) the landlord can file a complaint with the court.
  3. Court Hearing: After filing, the court schedules a hearing, usually within 3 to 6 days of the filing. Both the landlord and tenant can present their case.
  4. Judgment and Writ of Restitution: If the court rules in favor of the landlord, a judgment for eviction is issued. The landlord can then request a Writ of Restitution, allowing law enforcement to remove the tenant. The tenant typically has 5 days to vacate after the writ is served.
  5. Enforcement: If the tenant does not leave, law enforcement may forcibly remove the tenant from the property.

The entire eviction process can take anywhere from 2 to 6 weeks, depending on the circumstances and the court’s schedule.

Arizona’s Proposition 135: Reckless & Potentially Lethal

The overall purpose of an emergency declaration at the state level is to provide the government with the authority and resources needed to respond swiftly and effectively to crises that threaten public safety and health.

This declaration allows the governor and state agencies to implement measures that are not typically permissible under normal circumstances. Many of those measures are designed to cut red tape and allow for temporary relief from ordinary regulations.

Some of the key purposes include:

  • Mobilizing Resources: Enables the rapid allocation of state resources, like funding, personnel, and equipment, to areas affected by the emergency.
  • Regulatory Flexibility: Allows for the temporary suspension or modification of regulations that may impede prompt response efforts. This can include waivers for healthcare facility requirements, licensing reciprocity for out-of-state medical professionals, and expedited procurement processes.
  • Information Gathering: Enhances the ability to collect and issue critical information, including enhanced surveillance data, to monitor and manage the situation effectively.
  • Public Safety Measures: Authorizes the implementation of necessary public safety measures, such as evacuations, curfews, and quarantine orders, to protect citizens from immediate threats.
  • Coordination and Support: Facilitates coordination between various state agencies, local governments, federal entities, and non-governmental organizations to ensure a unified and efficient response.

Overall, an emergency declaration is a crucial tool for state leaders to mitigate the impact of emergencies, protect public health, and restore normalcy as swiftly as possible.

Arizona Proposition 135, set to be voted on in November 2024, asks you to pass an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would significantly alter the governor’s ability to respond to emergencies.

As a constitutional amendment, reversing or changing these restrictions would be exceedingly difficult, requiring another amendment process and voter approval.

This proposition poses several risks to public health and safety:

Inability to Respond to Biological or Radiologic Emergencies Effectively

  • The governor’s response capabilities to public health crises, such as pandemics or radiologic events, would be severely restricted.
  • Essential measures like the rapid deployment of medical resources, quarantine enforcement, and coordination with federal agencies could be delayed or hindered.

Loss of Regulatory Flexibility After 30 Days

  • Interstate Professional License Reciprocity: Healthcare professionals from other states could not provide services in Arizona beyond 30 days, potentially leading to severe healthcare staffing shortages during prolonged emergencies.
  • Liability Waivers for Responders: Emergency responders would lose critical legal protections, discouraging volunteerism and participation in emergency operations.
  • Temporary Waivers of Healthcare Institution Regulations: Hospitals and clinics would be unable to adapt swiftly to the surge in patient numbers, affecting their ability to provide prompt and adequate care.
  • Clinic Licenses for Antivirals/Vaccine Distribution: The swift establishment of temporary clinics for mass distribution of antivirals or vaccines would be obstructed, delaying public access to life-saving treatments.
  • Tort Liability Protection for Emergency Responders: The removal of legal protections for responders would increase the risk of litigation, potentially reducing the number of willing participants in emergency responses.
  • Collection of Enhanced Surveillance Data: Essential data collection for monitoring and controlling the spread of diseases would be hampered, impeding the ability to make informed public health decisions.

Proposition 135 would undermine state and local government’s ability to safeguard public health during emergencies by imposing stringent limitations on necessary regulatory flexibility and emergency response measures. This inflexibility could lead to delayed responses, inadequate medical care, and increased mortality during crises.

It introduces unnecessary rigidity, as the current system already includes checks and balances to prevent abuse of emergency powers. A.R.S. § 36-787 already limits public health emergency declarations to 120 days. Any extensions beyond this period require legislative approval, ensuring a balance of power and oversight.

AzPHA urges voters to voters to say NO to this harmful and dangerous constitutional amendment which would have profoundly bad consequences during a biological or radiological emergency in Arizona.

Debate on Prop 135 – Emergency Declarations Amendment – Arizona PBS

Free Webinar Friday Morning: Voting & Public Health

Register Here

August is Civic Health Month—a time to showcase the link between voting and health and celebrate efforts that ensure each and every voter has the opportunity to support their community’s health at the ballot box.

Every August, over 300 organizations nationwide, including the American Medical Association, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the National Medical Association,join together to celebrate, learn, and take action to improve the civic health of their communities.

In this discussion you will learn how hospitals and clinics across the country transform into centers of democratic engagement by using Vot-ER tools. 

Sandra Gutierrez is the Western Region Deputy Field Director for Vot-ER. Based in Tucson, AZ Sandra loves engaging voters at the local and state level. She has over a decade of community organizing experience and is committed to making a difference in her community by volunteering as the current Moms Demand Action, Tucson Chapter Lead.

Sandra’s passion comes from working to prevent others from experiencing gun violence. When she is not working or tabling a local Moms Demand Action event Sandra spends time with her husband and 8 year old son. They love cheering on University of Arizona Baseball, enjoying live music, and visiting Mt. Lemmon.

VOT-ER is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, working to integrate civic engagement into healthcare.  At the core of their work is the premise that healthcare professionals are trusted messengers who can make the connection between health and voting. Sandra Gutierrez is the Western Region Deputy Field Director for Vot-ER. Based in Tucson, AZ Sandra loves engaging voters at the local and state level and has over a decade of community organizing experience. 

CMS Flexing Their Muscles to Drive Healthcare Quality Improvements

As the dominant payer for hospital & long-term nursing care in the US, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have considerable leverage over the healthcare industry – when leadership chooses to use it.

It’s refreshing to see CMS continuing to creatively use this leverage to push for higher standards of care in their newly finalized regulations that dictate certain requirements that need to be met in order for a provider to be able to participate in Medicare or Medicaid.

These changes, which take effect on October 1, 2024, are part of the FY 2025 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System & Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Final Rule.

The updated requirements focus on improving patient outcomes and ensuring that Medicare and Medicaid funds are used to support quality care. Here are some of the key features of the new rules:

Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting

Long-term care facilities (nursing care facilities) provide critical care to patients with complex medical needs, often over extended periods- and CMS is also the dominant payer for these services – giving them tremendous leverage.

The updated Quality Reporting Program for skilled nursing facilities will now require more comprehensive reporting on various quality measures, including patient outcomes and healthcare-associated infections.

These changes are designed to incentivize them to focus on preventing infections and improving overall patient safety. By refining the reporting requirements, CMS is driving long term care facilities to prioritize quality care for some of the most vulnerable patients in the healthcare system.

Reducing Hospital Readmissions

Reducing unnecessary hospital readmissions has been a longstanding goal of CMS ever since the Affordable Care Act was implemented (which introduced the opportunity to drive positive change by punishing hospitals that have too many unnecessary hospital readmissions (usually due to poor discharge planning).  

The new rules now include refined measures that better reflect the complexities of patient care and the various factors that contribute to readmissions. By penalizing hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates, CMS is encouraging providers to improve discharge planning, follow-up care, and patient education— core elements in reducing readmissions and enhancing overall patient outcomes.

Reducing Hospital-Acquired Conditions & Infections

Hospital-acquired conditions are avoidable infections and complications that can lead to significant patient harm. CMS’s updated HAC Reduction Program in the upcoming regulations aims to reduce the incidence of these conditions by penalizing hospitals who have high HAC rates.

The new regulations introduce updated measures and benchmarks that align more closely with the latest evidence on preventing these conditions. 

Hospital Respiratory Infection Data Reporting

For the last 4 years CMS has been placing a strong emphasis on the importance of respiratory infection data. The new regulations require hospitals to report detailed data on respiratory infections that can be used tracking trends, identifying potential outbreaks early, and improving preparedness for future respiratory pandemics.

By mandating these reports, CMS is requiring hospitals who want to continue to get reimbursement from Medicare or Medicaid to improve their infection control practices and to be more vigilant in monitoring and responding to respiratory health threats.

Brief Mention of Other Changes

In addition to these major updates, CMS has also amended other programs, such as the Value-Based Purchasing Program and the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program. These updates are part of a broader strategy to improve care quality across the healthcare system.

These new rules demonstrate that the agency under (its current leadership) is committed to using its considerable power to drive meaningful improvements in healthcare quality.

These new welcome regulations – which focus on reimbursement incentives – (both carrots and sticks) signal a positive shift towards a more accountable and patient-centered healthcare system, ultimately benefiting patients, taxpayer, and those who contribute to the Medicare Trust Fund through their payroll taxes.

Assistance Needed: Help with the New AZ Rural Health Needs Assessment

The Arizona Rural Women’s Health Network is requesting your assistance and input to identify and prioritize the health issues/topics impacting women and health providers in our rural communities.

The information you provide will help guide the future of the Network. This survey will close August 30, 2024.

Learn more about the Network on their website. To participate in the Network contact lorrainer@aachc.org

Respond Here

Using Maricopa County’s Heat Surveillance Data to Improve Public Health

Governor Hobbs announced yesterday that HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra will be visiting Arizona this week to ‘discuss the state’s heat preparedness plan and explore the best ways to protect residents from extreme heat’.

This visit underscores the critical importance of heat-related public health surveillance data – critical to designing and implementing interventions. Becerra’s visit is a perfect opportunity to highlight Maricopa County Department of Public Health’s 2024 Heat Related Illness Dashboard, which provides important information for designing and measuring the effectiveness of various interventions.

MCDPH’ Data Dashboard

The Maricopa County heat related illness dashboard is an essential resource that offers a comprehensive view of the impacts of extreme heat on our community. One of the standout features is its tracking of heat deaths by location and air conditioning status.

Maricopa County’s Data Dashboard (link) offers valuable insights into where fatalities occur and the role of air conditioning in preventing heat-related deaths. By highlighting areas with a lack of air conditioning, this data can guide targeted interventions to help vulnerable populations receive the necessary resources to stay cool and safe.

Another important feature of MCDPH’ dashboard is its analysis of risk factors, including drug and alcohol use. Understanding the correlation between substance use and heat-related deaths helps identify high-risk groups. This information is vital for developing focused public health campaigns that address these specific risks and ultimately reduce heat-related fatalities.

Homelessness is a significant concern in Maricopa County, especially during the scorching summer months. The dashboard provides detailed data on heat-related deaths among the homeless population, emphasizing the urgent need for effective interventions.

This data highlights the intersection of extreme heat and homelessness, calling for coordinated efforts to provide shelter, cooling centers, and resources to protect this vulnerable group.

In addition to monitoring heat-related deaths, the Dashboard tracks emergency department visits for heat illnesses… data that’s crucial for understanding the broader impact of extreme heat on public health and identifying trends that can inform preventive measures. By tracking these visits, public health officials can gauge the severity of heat waves and the effectiveness of interventions over time.

The dashboard data is valuable for cities in Maricopa County, the Maricopa Association of Governments, and Arizona’s “Heat Officer” in identifying (and hopefully implementing) necessary interventions to save lives.

By using this information, local governments and public health officials can implement targeted measures to mitigate the impacts of extreme heat on vulnerable populations.

Prevention Resources

For those seeking more information on intervention resources, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health provides a comprehensive list of resources on their Extreme Heat resource webpage: Staying Safe in the Extreme Heat including tips for staying cool, identifying cooling centers, and understanding the health risks associated with extreme heat.

The Pima County Health Department also has prevention resources on their website including the locations Pima County Heat Relief Network Cooling, Respite and Hydration Centers and Community Resources.

As we continue to face increasingly hotter summers, such resources are invaluable in our efforts to protect the health and well-being of all residents.

Let’s hope the discussions with Secretary Becerra will lead to more accountability at the state level and improved heat preparedness plans & more protection for Arizona’s residents.

Maricopa County Heat Deaths in 2023: A Crisis for the Homeless & a Call for Housing Reform

Arizona Public Health Association Issues Arizona Corporation Commission Candidate Policy Brief

As AZPHA members you have received our series of earlier this year shedding light on the various ways the Arizona Corporation Commission can influence public health. As a refresher, our series covered the following topics:

As the election approaches – AZPHA is following up with candidate education to make sure Candidates for the Commission understand our priorities. Below are our Policy Brief for candidates and letters that we’ll be sending them:

Public Health, Clean Energy, and Air Quality

The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) is committed to advancing public health through sound policies and practices.

As candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in 2024, it is imperative to grasp the public health implications of your decisions, particularly concerning utility rate increases and clean energy initiatives.

This policy brief outlines AzPHA’s priorities, focusing on the intersection of public health, clean energy, and air quality, and provides key questions to guide ACC decision-making.

Public Health Priorities

Affordable Energy

Importance: Ensuring utility rates remain affordable is vital for maintaining the health and well-being of Arizona residents. High energy costs lead to energy insecurity, forcing families to choose between utilities and other essentials such as food, healthcare, and medication. This financial strain disproportionately affects low-income households and can lead to adverse health outcomes.

Public Health Impact: Energy insecurity results in poor living conditions, increased stress, and negative health effects, especially in vulnerable populations.

Clean Energy Development

Importance: Transitioning to renewable energy sources is crucial for reducing pollution and combating climate change. Increased reliance on solar, wind, and other renewable energies can significantly decrease emissions of harmful pollutants such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter.

Public Health Impact: Reduced emissions lead to improved air quality, which is directly linked to lower rates of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Additionally, clean energy promotes sustainable economic growth and job creation.

Energy Efficiency Programs

Importance: Energy efficiency is a cost-effective strategy to reduce energy consumption and lower utility bills. Programs that support home weatherization, energy-efficient appliances, and smart grid technologies can improve living conditions and enhance public health.

Public Health Impact: Energy efficiency initiatives alleviate financial burdens on households, leading to better overall health outcomes. Improved living conditions reduce the risk of health issues related to poor housing quality.

Transparency and Accountability

Importance: Transparent and accountable decision-making processes are essential in ensuring that rate increases are justified and necessary. Utilities must provide clear, comprehensive evidence to support their requests, allowing commissioners to make informed decisions that protect public interests.

Public Health Impact: Transparent processes build public trust and ensure that utility rate decisions do not place undue financial stress on consumers, thereby protecting their health and well-being.

Key Questions for ACC Commissioner Candidates to Ask Utilities
    • Justification for Rate Increases:
    • What specific factors are driving the need for a rate increase?
    • Can you provide detailed financial reports and projections that justify the proposed increase?
    • Impact on Low-Income Households:
    • How will the proposed rate increase affect low-income and vulnerable populations?
    • What measures are in place to mitigate any negative impacts on these groups, such as discounted rates or energy assistance programs?
    • Investment in Clean Energy:
    • How much of the proposed rate increase will be allocated to clean energy projects?
    • Can you demonstrate a commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources and reducing reliance on fossil fuels?
    • Energy Efficiency Programs:
    • What plans do you have to expand energy efficiency programs?
    • How will these programs be funded, and what are the expected benefits for consumers in terms of cost savings and health improvements?
    • Accountability and Transparency:
    • How do you ensure transparency in your operations and decision-making processes?
    • Are there mechanisms in place for public input and oversight, and how do you address community concerns?
    • Long-Term Sustainability:
    • What steps are you taking to ensure the long-term sustainability of your energy infrastructure?
    • How are you planning to adapt to future energy demands and environmental regulations?

As candidates for the ACC commissioner positions, it is essential to prioritize public health in your decision-making process.

By focusing on affordable energy, clean energy development, energy efficiency, and transparent operations, you can make decisions that benefit all Arizonans. Asking critical questions and demanding clear evidence from utilities will help counter misinformation and ensure that rate increases are justified and necessary.

The AzPHA stands ready to support you with detailed analyses and resources to help you make informed decisions that promote a healthier and more sustainable Arizona.

View AZPHA’s Letter to Each of the 6 Arizona Corporation Commission Candidates

The Public Health Threats & Opportunities Among Arizona’s 2024 Ballot Propositions: A Summary

As Arizona’s 2024 election draws near, voters are confronted with several ballot propositions that will significantly impact public health. Some of these propositions pose serious risks, while a couple offer public health opportunities. It’s important for AZPHA members to be well-informed on each measure – not just for your own vote – but many in your friend groups and families will look to you for advice on the plusses and minuses of each the upcoming ballot measures.

AzPHA has written arguments against 5 of the upcoming ballot measures and in support of two. Here’s a thumbnail summary of each:

Oppose Proposition 133: Requiring Partisan Primaries
Our Argument: Protect Voter Choice: No On 133

The proposal to shift Arizona’s open primary system to a closed partisan primary process is problematic. It would exclude independent voters and reduce overall voter participation. When fewer voices are heard, especially those not aligned with major parties, health policies risk becoming less inclusive and representative. Public health thrives on diversity and comprehensive community engagement; limiting voter access undermines this foundation and can lead to health policies that do not reflect the needs of all Arizonans.

 

Oppose Proposition 134: Undermining Voter Initiatives
Our Argument: Arizona Voter Initiatives Under Siege: No On 134

Increasing the number of required signatures for voter initiatives seems like a measure to ensure seriousness, but in reality, it stifles grassroots movements. Public health advocacy often relies on the ability to mobilize quickly and effectively to address emerging issues. By raising the bar for voter initiatives, this proposition would hinder essential health campaigns and delay critical interventions that can save lives and improve community health.

 

Oppose Proposition 135: Undermining Arizona’s Emergency Response Authority
Our Argument: Arizona’s Emergency Response System at Risk: No On 135

The purpose of any state emergency declaration is to allow state agencies to implement reasonable measures to help quickly respond to disasters. Voting for this would add bureaucratic red tape and delay Arizona’s emergency response. The legislature wants to slow or stop the response to a declared state of emergency after only 30 days. The state legislature is already set up to micromanage executive branch public health emergency responses after only 120 days.

Without the governor having that extra temporary statutory authority during a public health emergency we’re in danger of losing the ability to quickly respond. And when people and communities are in a state of emergency, the last thing they need to do is wait for the legislature to come to a consensus.

 

Support Proposition 139: Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health
Our Argument: Vote for Access to Sexual & Reproductive Health: Yes On 139

Ensuring access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services is a cornerstone of public health. This proposition aims to safeguard these services, allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their bodies. Access to contraception, abortion services, and sexual health education are critical for reducing health disparities and promoting overall well-being. Supporting this measure is essential for protecting individual health rights and improving public health outcomes.

 

Support Proposition 140: Empowering Independent Voters with Open Primaries
Our Argument: Empower Independent Voters: Yes On 140

This measure proposes implementing open primaries, allowing all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in primary elections. From a public health perspective, increasing voter participation leads to more representative and responsive governance. Policies that reflect the diverse needs of the population, including health concerns, are more likely to emerge from a system where all voices are heard. Open primaries enhance democratic engagement and contribute to more effective public health policymaking.

 

Oppose Proposition 314: Harming Border Health and Safety
Our Argument: Insist on Law Enforcement Accountability: No On 314

 

This proposition advocates for stringent enforcement measures at the border, prioritizing ‘border security’ over humanitarian concerns. Such an approach neglects the health needs of migrants and border communities, increasing health risks and suffering. Public health emphasizes equitable access to care, regardless of immigration status.

Policies that marginalize and criminalize migrants undermine public health efforts and fail to address complex health needs at the border, leading to broader community health issues. This harmful proposition also provides blanket immunity for law enforcement actions – even further eroding accountability among law enforcement.

 

Oppose Proposition 315: Protect Arizona’s Healthcare, Seniors & Environment
Our Argument: Protect Seniors and the Environment: No On 315

Weakening the regulatory authority of state agencies is a direct threat to public health. This proposition seeks to limit the enforcement capabilities of agencies responsible for health and safety standards. Strong regulatory oversight is crucial for preventing public health crises, ensuring clean water, safe food, and effective disease control. Diluting this authority endangers all Arizonans, eroding essential protections that keep our communities healthy and safe.

 

See Also: