Judge finds ‘serious flaws’ in AZ Medicaid program’s contract awards (azcentral.com)
Metro Phoenix evictions rise amid housing crisis and extreme heat – Arizona PBS (azpbs.org)
AZ study looks at long COVID as risk for developing cognitive disorder (azcentral.com)
Toxic Waters: EPA and military clash over Tucson’s groundwater cleanup – AZPM
Life expectancy for Arizonans dropped in 2-year span, data shows (azcentral.com)
Recent reports reveal a concerning trend: life expectancy in Arizona plummeted by nearly three years from 2019 to 2021, one of the steepest declines in the nation.
This drop is closely linked to the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, where Arizona’s leadership under former Governor Doug Ducey and ADHS Director Cara Christ made critical missteps that contributed to this devastating outcome.
Arizona’s life expectancy decline is not just a statistical anomaly; it’s a reflection of policy failures. According to The Lancet, Arizona had the highest per capita standardized COVID-19 death rate in the U.S. from January 2020 to July 2022. This alarming statistic underscores the consequences of a state leadership that prioritized economic interests over public health.
Ducey and Christ’s reluctance to enforce mask mandates, social distancing, and other preventative measures during critical periods of the pandemic undoubtedly played a significant role in Arizona’s tragic mortality rate.
Their decision to forbid other jurisdictions and businesses from requiring proof of vaccine as a condition of admission to public venues also contributed to Arizona’s poor performance.
An AZPHA data brief highlighted how COVID-19 became the leading cause of death in Arizona during the pandemic, surpassing heart disease and cancer.
That report further illuminated the impact of inadequate state-level public health interventions. The state’s approach not only worsened the COVID-19 crisis but also overshadowed ongoing public health challenges, leading to broader declines in life expectancy.
Arizona’s performance starkly contrasts with states that implemented more aggressive public health measures, where life expectancy has been better preserved.
The decisions made by Ducey and Christ during the pandemic have left a lasting, detrimental impact on the state’s health outcomes, a legacy that continues to affect Arizonans today.
Moving forward, it’s critical that Arizona’s policymakers learn from these mistakes, prioritize public health, and hold executive branch appointees accountable.
The Inflation Reduction Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Biden is helping Arizona’s hospitals and health care centers save money while increasing their energy efficiency and building their own reliable power sources – here’s how:
The IRA also removed the restriction that limited the deduction to a single use over a building’s lifetime. Now, tax-exempt entities can transfer the deduction to design professionals who can then monetize it.
Renewable energy production allows healthcare facilities to contribute back to the community. The Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit supports healthcare organizations that produce some of their electricity from renewable sources by offering a 10-year tax credit. This credit ranges from 0.3 to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity generated from renewable resources and sold to an unrelated party after the facility is operational.
By using these incentives, Arizona hospitals can build more resilient and reliable facilities. With energy costs on the rise and extreme weather becoming more common, these investments are not just about saving money—they’re about ensuring that healthcare centers can continue to serve the community, no matter the circumstances.
For more details on these incentives, you can check out the following resources:
By taking advantage of the IRA, Arizona’s hospitals can enhance their energy resilience, cut costs, and continue providing essential care to our communities—rain or shine!
The UArizona Student Engagement & Career Development program is hosting a Health Professions Career Fair on November 7th. The Fair will have representatives from the Colleges of Public Health, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Health Sciences, and Veterinary Medicine.
Here is the link to register: https://arizona.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
The entire eviction process can take anywhere from 2 to 6 weeks, depending on the circumstances and the court’s schedule.
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:
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
Loss of Regulatory Flexibility After 30 Days
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.
|
|
Register HereAugust 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. |
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
