From the Dispatch

Wage Theft by Employers Surging in Wake of Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law, Even as Judge Blocks Implementation of Key Provisions

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:44:07 -0400

The Arizona Interfaith Alliance for Worker Justice, a worker center in Phoenix, has seen a “huge spike” in wage theft -- violations of minimum wage laws -- since the passage of SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. "Employers are even more brazen in their mistreatment of workers," said Executive Director Trina Zelle in an interview with In These Times. "Increasingly, 'Go ahead, try and make me pay you' is the response workers hear when they confront their employers over unpaid wages."

Workers' rights organizers report that the law's passage in April has already begun to drive immigrant workers even further underground, effectively silencing them in the face of rampant workplace rights violations. The irony is that this makes undocumented immigrants an even more attractive workforce for unscrupulous employers, who know they can illegally underpay them without fear of those employees reporting them or taking them to court. “If we ever hope to bring immigrant workers out of the shadows in which they’ve been laboring,” says Kim Bobo, Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice, “we need to forcefully oppose anti-immigrant legislation and stand up for both comprehensive immigration reform and vigorous enforcement of the nation’s labor laws.”

Progressive States Network's model legislation for wage law enforcement outlines how wage enforcement campaigns can counter anti-immigrant rhetoric by raising wage standards for all workers and uniting native and immigrant communities to oppose unscrupulous employers.

Judge Strikes Down Worst Provisions of SB 1070: Yesterday, a federal judge struck down key provisions of SB 1070 as likely violating federal law or being unconstitutional, reinvigorating hope among immigrant communities that state anti-immigrant laws will fail to gain traction. Key provisions that were blocked include:

Requiring police officers to investigate the immigration status of individuals they stop who they suspect are undocumented;
Mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested if they cannot verify they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
Imposing state criminal penalties on non-citizens who fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
Warrantless arrests of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and,
State statutes that make it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.

The initial court injunction will be followed by a full hearing to determine whether these provisions, as well as the law's other troubling components, will be permanently struck down. The ruling echoes numerous other legal decisions that struck down broad state anti-immigrant laws - and should serve as a warning to other states that enacting copycat legislation similar to Arizona's will lead to costly legal proceedings and, as discussed above, only serve to empower unscrupulous employers to violate wage laws.

Resources:
Working In These Times - ‘Go Ahead, Try and Make Me Pay You’: Wage Theft and SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Promoting Wage Law Enforcement Policies in 2010
Interfaith Worker Justice - Thou Shalt Not Steal - A Toolkit on Wage Theft
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Court Blocks Implementation of Key Sections of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
National Employment Law Project (NELP) - Enforcement of Workplace Standards

Anti-immigrant Proposals Continue to Fail in Wake of Arizona’s Law

Suman Raghunathan — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:05:36 -0400

In the wake of the April 2010 passage of Arizona’s draconian and misguided anti-immigrant state law, SB 1070, which would give local governments responsibility to enforce federal immigration law, media coverage has focused on the many states, elected officials, and candidates who have voiced their support for similar anti-immigrant legislation. Despite the disturbing situation in Arizona, however, what is increasingly becoming clear is that anti-immigrant policies and initiatives are failing across the country in the wake of SB 1070’s passage, underlining Arizona’s anti-immigrant approach as an outlier.

As this Dispatch will detail, after considerable media hype about Arizona-style bills sweeping across the nation, the reality is that from from Nevada to Arkansas to Massachusetts to Kansas and Rhode Island, anti-immigrant bills and ballot initiatives largely didn't move or failed to make this fall's ballot. A key reason: most state leaders and police chiefs recognize that requiring local governments to assume immigration enforcement responsibilities from the federal government will distract them from fighting violent crime and undermine trust with local residents that are essential to successful community policing.

Table of Contents:

- A Trend of Failed Anti-Immigrant Proposals

- Anti-Immigrant Laws Increase Crime and Hamper Community Policing Efforts

- Lawsuits Against AZ SB 1070 Seek to Maintain Clear Federal Responsibility for Immigration Law

A Trend of Failed Anti-Immigrant Proposals

In the wake of AZ SB 1070’s passage in late April, a far right network of groups and legislators announced plans to move bills in state around the country. But the list of states rejecting those bills continues to grow and efforts to get anti-immigrant proposals on the ballot continue to fail.

Ballot Initiatives Fail in Nevada and Arkansas: The latest state to join this list is Nevada, where Assemblyman Chad Christensen’s effort to gather signatures for an anti-immigrant ballot initiative similar to Arizona’s recently faltered in the face of a lawsuit. Christensen’s effort was challenged by the Nevada Open For Business Coalition, a group that includes State Assemblymen Mo Denis and Ruben Kihuen as well as the Nevada Resort Association, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce, and the NAACP. The coalition is also working with the Las Vegas Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The delay caused by the Coalition's multiple legal challenges caused Christensen, who recently lost a June 8 US Senate Primary, to drop his petition rather than attempt to get his broad anti-immigrant proposal on the ballot.

In Arkansas, the anti-immigrant group Secure Arkansas also failed to get its anti-immigrant proposal (which simply re-iterated existing federal law by seeking to bar undocumented immigrants over the age of 14 from receiving public assistance) on the November 2010 ballot. Secretary of State Charlie Daniels rejected the group’s petition after finding they were nearly 10,000 signatures below the minimum required to appear on the ballot.

Anti-Immigrant Legislation Defeated or Blocked in Multiple States: In both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, state leadership refused to allow anti-immigrant legislation to gain traction. In Massachusetts, twenty-seven pages of anti-immigrant budget amendments that resembled Arizona's SB1070 was shot down and ultimately approved as a final bill which simply restated existing federal bars on undocumented immigrants accessing public benefits, and included no new anti-immigrant provisions.

Rhode Island’s anti-immigrant bill, introduced by conservative Democrat State Representative Peter Palumbo, did not even receive a public hearing earlier this summer: the bill was ‘killed’ by House Speaker Gordon Fox, who voiced his opposition to the bill and reiterated that enforcing immigration laws remains the responsibility of the federal government.

And in Kansas, when a conservative legislator sought to attach an Arizona-style anti-immigrant amendment to the state budget, Kansas Representative Delia Garcia challenged its late introduction on procedural grounds and the Republican chair of the chamber's Rules Committee ruled the amendment out of order.

Most High-Immigration States Have Taken a Positive Approach to Integrate New Immigrants: As PSN detailed in a 2008 report, only 11% of undocumented immigrants live in states that have enacted comprehensive punitive anti-immigrant policies. Far more states promote positive integration policies and believe leaving immigration enforcement policy to the federal government is the best approach.

Resources
Colorlines - The Far-Right Movement Behind Arizona Copycat Bill
Progressive States Network - The Anti-Immigrant Movement that Failed: Positive Integration Policies by States Still Far Outweigh Punitive Policies
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change

Anti-Immigrant Laws Increase Crime and Hamper Community Policing Efforts

One reason many leaders are rejecting Arizona-style anti-immigrant policies is the clear evidence that they undermine public safety. Police chiefs nationwide, including the chiefs of Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, New York, Phoenix, and Tucson, have consistently underlined their opposition to local enforcement of federal immigration law, citing the dramatic and negative impact these approaches have on community members’ willingness to cooperate with the police -- and predicted they will increase crime. Law enforcement leaders such as Salt Lake City Chief of Police Chris Burbank have voiced concerns that burdening them with enforcing federal immigration law will actually make communities less safe: witnesses will be less likely to assist police investigations for fear of disclosing their immigration status; women will fear reporting instances of domestic violence, and crimes will go unreported, affecting all residents' safety.

Recent evidence highlights this problem with anti-immigrant legislation.

More Immigrants Means Less Crime, Not More: Overall, states with high immigration levels have actually seen their crime levels decrease; updated FBI and law enforcement data debunk any connection between higher levels of immigration resulting in more crime. The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that violent crime declined by 35% from 1994 to 2001 -- a period when the nation saw its undocumented population double. This precipitous drop in crime is part of a national trend, one echoed along the U.S.-Mexico border and in immigrant-heavy cities such as San Diego, El Paso, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami. In fact, even conservative groups found states with the steepest growth among their immigrant residents also report the lowest crime rates. In these 19 states, the total crime rate declined nearly 14% from 1999 to 2006.

Arizona Itself Shows Failure of Anti-Immigrant Approach: Evidence from Arizona highlights why local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to fighting crime. The FBI reports that violent crime has been falling in Arizona for years -- even as the state’s number of undocumented residents rose.

The glaring exception to this trend in Arizona is Maricopa County, which falls under the jurisdiction of its notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio has devoted considerable (and often-scarce) law enforcement resources to apprehending undocumented residents county-wide. Arpaio’s insistence on apprehending otherwise law-abiding undocumented residents in high-profile (often televised) raids and routine stops of Latino drivers for immigration checks means the Sheriff’s Department has less time to focus on violent criminals and pursue felony warrants. The East Valley Tribune, an Arizona newspaper, won a 2008 Pulitzer Prize for their multi-part series on the evolution and impact of Arpaio’s anti-immigrant pursuits.

Despite his ‘law and order’ rhetoric, Arpaio’s approach is a failed law enforcement strategy, and one that has apparently served to increase crime in his jurisdiction-contrary to state crime trends. Recent data from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and compiled by America’s Voice found the Maricopa County crime rate increased by 58% from 2002 to 2009, while the state as a whole saw an average 12% decrease in crime rates. Other Arizona localities that did not engage in broad raids and traffic stops saw their crime rates plunge during the same period: Phoenix enjoyed a 14% decrease in crime; Tempe saw a 26% decrease; and Mesa (Senator Pearce’s district) experienced a 31% decrease.

Misinformation from the Anti-Immigrant Right: Many anti-immigrant legislators and candidates have issued a steady drumbeat of misinformation that attempts to draw a connection between immigrants and crime. AZ Governor Jan Brewer, State Sen Russell Pearce, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and national anti-immigrant groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have attempted to justify and explain their efforts toward draconian state immigration legislation by claiming their proposals will make communities safer.

Yet even as Pearce and Brewer have, in fact, predicted that their state’s anti-immigrant measures will result in lower levels of crime throughout Arizona, evidence from Maricopa County shows that exporting Sheriff Joe Arpaio's brand of anti-immigrant policing will likely reverse the progress made in other parts of the state, imposing Maricopa's failed model on the the whole state.

Resources:
Immigration Policy Center - Arizona's Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime: Studies Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rates Over Time
Immigration Policy Center - New FBI data Confirms Falling Crime Rates in Arizona: Violent Crimes Are Down in the State's Three Largest Cities
America's Voice - Arizona Immigration Law Could Lead to Surge in Violent Crime
America's Voice - Fact Sheet: Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Notorious Record
East Valley Tribune - Reasonable Doubt Series
Washington Post - US Police Chiefs Say Arizona Immigration Law Will Increase Crime
Americas Majority Foundation - Immigration and Wealth of States

Lawsuits Against AZ SB 1070 Seek to Maintain Clear Federal Responsibility for Immigration Law

As the evidence increasingly points to how local police and sheriffs enforcing immigration law undermines community policing and increases crime rates, it becomes even clearer why the nation has traditionally kept responsibility for enforcing immigration law in the hands of federal officials. But as PSN has detailed before, Arizona’s law, unprecedented in its scope if it is implemented, would land immigration enforcement (a federal responsibility) squarely in the hands of state government.

This blurring of immigration enforcement roles between federal and state officials has already been legally challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least seven prominent national civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Both the U.S. Department of Justice and these civil rights groups have filed lawsuits against Arizona’s law which is scheduled to take effect on July 29 if a federal court does not impose an injunction.

Arizona's Law Undermines Federalism and Threatens Racial Profiling: SB 1070’s scope is unprecedented, misguided, and likely unconstitutional: the law not only makes it a crime to lack immigration status, but also allows state and local law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship or immigration status from anyone they believe has ‘reasonable suspicion’ of being undocumented. Apart from greenlighting racial profiling, Arizona’s approach is widely perceived by legal experts as unconstitutional because it requires the state to take on enforcing federal immigration law.

A federal judge heard arguments outlining seven civil rights groups’ opposition to Arizona’s anti-immigrant law on July 22. These groups are asking for a preliminary injunction to freeze implementation of the law, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 29^th.

The lawsuit’s central legal argument (one echoed by the US Department of Justice’s own lawsuit challenging SB 1070) is the law seeks to pre-empt the federal government’s jurisdiction over enforcing federal immigration law, and that it allows the state too much power to enforce immigration law. Finally, the groups’ lawsuit states that implementing the law would cause considerable harm to Arizona residents as a whole. State legislators, immigrant rights advocates, and responsible law enforcement professionals will be hoping the federal courts agree.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Arizona and the Nation: A Failed State Versus Positive Approaches to Immigrant Integration
Progressive States Network - Arizona Jeopardizes its Economic Future As it Contemplates Passing Anti-Immigrant Law
National Immigration Law Center - NILC and Civil Rights Groups Ask Court to Block Implementation of Arizona Law
American Civil Liberties Union Immigrant Rights Project - Friendly House et.al vs. Halliday et. al: Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
Immigration Policy Center - The Impact of SB 1070: Usurping the Federal Government's Ability to Set Clear Enforcement Priorities
Immigration Policy Center - The Legal Challenges and Economic Realities of Arizona's SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Polling, The Arizona Law, and Majority Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Progressive States Network - Press Call: State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy

New Health Insurance Plans Required to Provide Free Preventive Health Care

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:09:10 -0400

New federal regulations were issued that will guarantee affordable preventive care services for millions of Americans. The new interim final regulations specify that new health insurance policies beginning on or after September 23, 2010, must include preventive services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, as well as preventive services recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in their coverage plans. In addition, health plans will be prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles for these services when they are delivered by network providers.

These new rules supplement other provisions in the Affordable Care Act that support prevention, such as the creation of a National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy and a Prevention and Public Health Fund to invest in prevention initiatives. Another policy in the federal law will increase the number of primary care professionals in order to increase access to preventive services. The elimination of cost-sharing for preventive care will make it easier and more affordable for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to access critical preventive screenings and services.

Plans covered by these rules must offer coverage of a comprehensive range of preventive services that are recommended by physicians and other experts. The covered services will include: mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations as well as screenings for diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, breast cancer, depression, HIV and obesity. Children would qualify for more than two dozen services, including vaccinations for influenza, diphtheria and tetanus and screenings for autism, hearing and vision impairments. A full list of the covered services is available at HealthCare.gov.

It is estimated that by next year, 41 million people in employer and individual plans will benefit from the new prevention provisions under the Affordable Care Act. By 2013, the total number of Americans who will benefit from the improved prevention coverage will increase to 88 million.

These rules will not apply to grandfathered health plans, which are group or individual plans that existed at the time the federal law was enacted and are therefore not subject to a large majority of the new insurance reforms. However, HHS officials expect the number of grandfathered plans to decrease over time.

Resources:
HealthCare.gov - Background: The Affordable Care Act's New Rules on Preventive Care
HealthCare.gov - Implementation Center
HHS.gov - Press Release - Administration Announces Regulations Requiring New Health Insurance Plans to Provide Free Preventive Care
LA Times - New Healthcare Rules Issued for Preventive Services

Project to Get Veterans VA Benefits Expands Access, Saves Millions of State Medicaid Dollars

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:51:19 -0400

Based on an innovative model from Washington state, states have the opportunity to help veterans improve their benefits and save millions of dollars for their own budgets.

Using a US Department of Health and Human Services national database called PARIS, Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services has launched a program that identifies veterans on Medicaid. If those veterans are found eligible for health coverage, long-term care benefits or pensions through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or Department of Defense, they can be taken off the state’s Medicaid rolls. Since 2003, Washington state has shaved $18 million from their Medicaid budget by qualifying over 5,600 veterans and their families for VA or Defense Department coverage. The program in Washington is designed to ensure that until clients qualify for a VA monthly cash benefit that makes them financially ineligible for state public assistance, they maintain existing state benefits.

The Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) was originally designed to weed out people who were cheating state benefit systems by receiving benefits from more than one state. But in realizing how effective the database can be in not only providing veterans with more comprehensive health and related benefits and trimming state spending in the process, no less than 20 other states have expressed interest in following Washington's example.

For example, Montana implemented the system in 2007 and has saved almost $900,000 in Medicaid costs. Since last November, Colorado has identified about 1,600 potentially eligible individuals or families that could save the state up to $8 million a year. California began a 2009 pilot program of the system in three counties. According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could save $25 million per year if only 10% of its veteran population switched from enrollment in Medicaid to health coverage through the VA.

The program of course doesn't reduce medical costs overall, but by shifting spending from the states to the federal government, it both eases state budget deficits and ensures that veterans, who have earned the right to access the full range of VA benefits, are informed of their eligibility so they can exercise that right.

Resources
CMS letter to State Medicaid Directors: Background of PARIS (June 21, 2010)
Washington State Department of Social & Health Services - Interface between PARIS and the Veteran Benefit Enhancement Project
Washington State Department of Social & Health Services - DSHS Veterans Project
CA Legislative Analyst Office - Analysis of Veterans’ Benefits
USA Today - States try to link up vets with federal government benefits
The Bellingham Herald - Benefits Program Helps Veterans and State Taxpayers.

Bills on Single-Payer and Health Reform Implementation Move Forward in California

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:50:04 -0400

California lawmakers worked feverishly at the end of June to move forward significant health reform legislation, including implementing new Medicaid rules for the next five years, setting a framework for establishing health insurance exchanges, and moving the state towards a single-payer health care system.

The challenge of getting the bills through the Assembly Health Committee was daunting because it was deadline week in the state legislature, the final days for policy committees to act on bills. But in the end, all three bills prevailed and now move on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. All three bills previously passed the Senate.

The three major bills approved by the Assembly Health Committee include:

Medi-Cal Waiver: As one of two vehicles for renewing and implementing a new Medicaid waiver, SB 208 sets rules for the state's Medi-Cal program for the next five years. The new waiver is presented as a bridge between the existing Medi-Cal program and the full access expansion that will happen in 2014 as a result of federal health reform.

Health Insurance Exchange: SB 900 would establish the state insurance exchange pursuant to provisions in the federal health reform law. Passage of this bill in this session will allow the state the time necessary to plan how their exchange will operate beginning in 2014. Ideally, the exchange will provide expanded access for health consumers by eliminating adverse selection, creating a seamless process for enrollment and subsidies and providing an array of standardized plans and products for informed decision making. This bill also moves on to the Appropriations Committee. Its Assembly companion bill, AB 1602, was also passed this week by the Senate Health Committee.

Single-Payer Health Reform: SB 810 would create a single-payer health care system that would cover all California residents. The legislation is a policy bill that would allow a single-payer system to be established. It does not address how the system would be financed.

Resources
Health Access - Health Reform 3 Month Status Report: Californians Begin to See the Benefits; Much More to Do to Fulfill Its Promise

Indiana Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Voter ID Law

Cristina Francisco-McGuire — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:37:48 -0400

In a disappointing turn of events, Indiana’s Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in favor of the state’s voter ID law, overturning last year’s decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals that deemed voter ID requirements unconstitutional partly because it treated those casting absentee ballots differently from those at voting booths. But in the end, the Indiana Supreme Court majority opinion stated, “It is within the power of the legislature to require voters to identify themselves at the polls using a photo ID.”

Disenfranchising Voters: While most states allow non-photo identification to establish identity, such as utility bills, payroll checks, or other government documents, Indiana only accepts photo ID’s issued by the state or federal government. Though the state allows those without ID’s to vote on provisional ballots, their votes are only counted if they are able to present proper ID within ten days.

The problem is that, while most Americans have government-issued ID’s, studies show that 6-10% of eligible voters don’t have a state-issued driver’s license or ID card, which amounts to potentially disenfranchising as many as 20 million people nationwide who are disproportionately poor, urban, non-white, and elderly.

The American Association of People with Disabilities further estimates that more than three million people with disabilities similarly do not possess state-issued photo ID.
Some US citizens – such as Native Americans born on reservations, and elderly African Americans born in the South under the care of midwives – were never issued birth certificates in the first place, a major roadblock to obtaining a state-issued photo ID.
Victims of natural disasters, such as Katrina, may also have had their original birth certificates destroyed.

A De Facto Poll Tax: In all cases, replacing these documents can be expensive and time-consuming – a new birth certificate can cost more than $40, while a new passport costs $97. Replacement citizenship documents for naturalized Americans costs $220. De facto poll tax aside, processing these requests can take as long as a year – during which time an otherwise eligible voter cannot vote.

And photo IDs don’t always reflect current information. Surveys show that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to their birth certificates have a certificate with their current legal name, while only 66% of voting-age women with access to any proof of citizenship have a document with their current legal name. 10% of all voting-age citizens have a photo ID that does not reflect their current address and current legal name. Among those aged 18-24, the percentage increases to 18%.

The burden of voter ID laws is real, and suppresses the vote of a demographic that is overwhelmingly poor, urban, non-white, and elderly. The decision of Indiana’s Supreme Court will only serve to further disenfranchise an already-disenfranchised population.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Voter ID Law Struck Down by Indiana Appellate Court
Demos Briefing Paper Series: Challenges to Fair Elections - Issue: Voter ID/proof of citizenship requirements for voting and registration
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Survey Indicates House Bill Could Deny Voting Rights to Millions of U.S. Citizens
NAACP Legal Defense Fund - Restrictive Voter Identification Laws: A Barrier to the Ballot Box for Eligible Voters
The Brennan Center for Justice - Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification
League of Women Voters v. Rokita

Anti-Immigrant Amendments Fail in Massachusetts State Legislature

PSN — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:35:03 -0400

Yet another set of anti-immigrant proposals, this time offered as last-minute amendments to a Massachusetts state budget bill, failed to gain traction last week. Twenty-seven pages of draconian anti-immigrant amendments were reduced to text that simply re-states existing bars on undocumented residents applying for public benefits.

When originally approved on May 28^th, the amendment included a slew of anti-immigrant measures that sought to scapegoat undocumented immigrants and prohibit their access to work, shelter, education, and safety in the state. In response, the Student Immigrant Movement and other immigrant advocates organized the MassHope 2010 vigil outside of the State House to highlight the knee-jerk, anti-immigrant nature of the amendments. After 19 days of rallying, protesters celebrated victory.

Failed Anti-Immigrant Legislation Trend : This triumph of reason over politics means Massachusetts joins several other states where anti-immigrant policies have amounted to nothing more than flawed political opportunism and hot air.

Much of this noise emanates from states whose legislatures have already closed their 2010 sessions, making these promises to introduce legislation mirroring Arizona’s controversial recent immigration law, SB 1070, premature at best. Bills for the 2011 state legislative session will not be considered or voted upon for months, leaving their ultimate success or failure still unknown.
Several Governors, including Texas’ Rick Perry, have already declared their intention to veto broad anti-immigrant legislation based on Arizona’s heavily criticized SB 1070.
In other states such as Rhode Island, whose anti-immigrant bill was killed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives even before it received a hearing, support for anti-immigrant politics and rhetoric is simply not as broad as legislators may think.

As the White House attempts to revive efforts to overhaul federal immigration laws, public and voter support for comprehensive immigration reform remains strong. According to polls commissioned by the group America’s Voice, voters on either side of the partisan aisle want common-sense, federal immigration reform that reflects American values, welcomes immigrants and provides them a pathway to citizenship.

Resources:
Immigration Policy Center - The Legal Challenges and Economic Realities of Arizona's SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Arizona and the Nation: A Failing State Versus Positive Approaches to Immigrant Integration
Progressive States Network - Arizona “Copycat” Anti-Immigrant Bill Killed in Rhode Island Without Hearing
America’s Voice - Public Opinion on Immigration Reform

Rahul is a summer immigration policy intern at Progressive States Network and a Drum Major Institute Scholar.

Preventing Loss of Medicaid Drug Rebate Funds for States

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:31:24 -0400

While the new Affordable Health Care law provides a variety of funding opportunities for states, one provision in the health law that could shift billions of dollars from cash-strapped states to the federal government. Under the National Medicaid Drug Rebate Program created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, drug manufacturers are required to enter into agreements that provide rebates for Medicaid purchased drugs, establishing a 15% minimum level of rebates. Up until now, the rebates were divided between the states and the federal government. But under the new health reform law, a significant portion of the rebates will go solely to Washington beginning this year.

Changes in Federal and State Rebate Share: On the positive side, the Affordable Care Act now requires greater discounts in Medicaid rebates by increasing the minimum rebate level from 15% to 23.1% for most brand name medications. This increase, which also applies to manufacturers of generics, is projected to raise $36 billion over 10 years. Under the old policy, states sent Washington a proportion equal to the share of Medicaid funding the federal government paid. But now, the new federal reform law allows the federal government to keep 100 percent of the rebate that falls within the 15.1 to 23.1 percent range. Any rebates above 23.1 percent will continue to be shared. According to the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the change was necessary to help pay for a $434 billion 10-year increase in federal Medicaid funding.

Some States Stand To Lose Millions: Based on 2009 Medicaid data, states received average rebates of 38.5 percent a year ago, well above the previously required 15 percent, so the change will cost them dearly. California, for instance, could lose as much as $50 million next year alone because of the changes. Indiana predicts losses of $400 million over the next 10 years. And because the new policy is retroactive to 2010, Vermont stands to lose $2.3 million in fiscal year 2010 and $4.2 million in FY 2012.

What States Can Do: If states move quickly, they can secure both federal best price rebates and state supplemental rebates that can realize Medicaid rebates as high as 40-50%- increasing the rebate portion states hold onto and offsetting losses.

One key step is to secure clear state data on base prices from which rebates are calculated. Currently, the federal government is barred by a court order from sharing data on the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) and federal Best Price with the states, so since states don’t get this price data reported to them, state laws need to be in place to require drug companies to report AMP and best price directly to them.

Only Maine and Vermont have apparently passed such reporting laws. To respond to this emergency, Maine Rep. Sharon Treat, who also serves as Executive Director of the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices (NLARx), recommends that State Medicaid directors and State Legislatures need to immediately review their preferred drug lists. They need to make changes from a clinical perspective to reflect retroactive changes in rebate policies that will affect their budgets this year. States also need to pass a state drug price reporting law.

See also model AMP/best price legislation to address this data reporting issue.

Medicaid Rebates Now Available for Medicaid Managed Care Plans: One more twist on the changes affecting Medicaid rebates is that another provision of the federal law will help to offset the loss of rebate dollars in some of the states. For the first time, drug rebates will be allowed for drugs sold to State Medicaid managed care plans. Forty-one states use managed care plans and in total this accounts for about 70 percent of Medicaid enrollees across the country. However, only 16 of them depend on the managed care programs to administer drug benefits, while others have opted to pay for many drugs directly to get rebates. Clearly the new managed care policy strongly favors those 16 states. The provision will encourage more states to use managed care plans for drug coverage, which could lead to a reduction in drug spending. Arizona is one of the states that will see a major benefit. Its entire Medicaid program is run through managed care plans, so the state did not benefit in the past from the federally required rebates.

Resources
CMS - National Drug Rebate Agreement
Kaiser Health News - States' Medicaid Funds Tapped For Federal Health Overhaul
National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices - Special Report: States Must Act Now to Preserve Medicaid Drug Rebates!
National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices - Model Law: Manufacturer Drug Price Reporting
Inside Health Reform - States Upset With Guidance On Medicaid Dug Rebates, Still Have Questions
Inside Health Reform - Reid Bill Would 'Recapture' $20 Billion In Medicaid Rebates From States

New Health Insurance Rules Hailed as Patient's Bill of Rights

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:33:49 -0400

Marking the 90 day anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama used the occasion to announce the implementation of a Patient’s Bill of Rights. After meeting privately with health insurance CEOs and state insurance commissioners, the White House sent a signal to insurers and to the public that the President intends to monitor how the insurance industry responds to the law’s implementation. In warning industry executives to refrain from using the law as an opportunity to boost unjustifiable rate increases, the Administration unveiled new regulations that will govern how new consumer protection provisions are implemented.

The Patient’s Bill of Rights rules are designed to clamp down on some of the most notorious practices of the insurance industry. After September 23rd,

Insurers are prohibited from denying coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions.
Certain annual and all lifetime limits on benefits would be prohibited.
Insurers would no longer be allowed to drop coverage when policy holders get sick.

The rules also ensure the ability choose a primary care doctor or pediatrician, lift the requirement of needing a referral to see an OB-GYN and dismiss the need for prior approval if out of network emergency care is needed.

While the new law does not grant the federal government authority to regulate premiums, Obama pointed to states such as Maine, Pennsylvania and New York that are investigating sudden spikes in health insurance rates. Pennsylvania is investigating the state's nine largest health insurers over rate increases that Governor Ed Rendellcalls exorbitant. California officials have investigated WellPoint's proposed 39% increases that the insurer later called a mistake.

The 196 pages of new regulations were simultaneously released by the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services and come on the heels of findings from a Kaiser Foundation survey that premiums for the policies most recently bought by individuals have increased by an average of 20 percent.

Resources
Health Care for America Now (HCAN) - Insurance Industry Inflates Rates While Falsely Blaming New Health Care Law
The White House - Background and Fact Sheet on the New Patient's Bill of Rights
Kaiser Family Foundation - Survey of People Who Purchase Their Own Insurance
New York Times - Obama Says Health Law Shouldn't Be Excuse to Raise Rates
Reuters - Obama warns health insurers not to hike rates
Federal Register - Interim Final Rules - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, and Patient Protections

Paid Sick Days Legislation has Overwhelming Support, Polling Shows

Tim Judson — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:56:56 -0400

86% of the public favors legislation that would mandate seven paid sick days per year for all employers, according to study sponsored by the Public Welfare Fund in collaboration with the National Partnership of Women and Families (full results here). Even when the public is asked about mandating nine paid sick days per year, 71% still support the proposed legislation. The study found that paid sick days legislation enjoys deep public support across all demographics and political leanings, including large majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats.

In response to the statement, “Paid sick days is a basic worker right, just like being paid a decent wage,” not only did 75% of public agree, but on a scale of 1 to 10 signifying agreement, 43% rated the statement a 10 and 64% agreed strongly (rating it an 8 or higher).

The issue strongly colors how voters view elected officials, with 47% saying they would favor a candidate who supports paid sick days, while only 14% said they would not support that candidate.

Job Losses Suffered Due to Need for Sick Days Drives Opinion: Driving the poll numbers is the reality that too many workers have lost a job or been threatened with losing a job because they needed to take a sick day for themselves or to care for a family member. One out of every six people (16%) has lost their job for missing work due to illness, and one in four (25%) has been told they would either lose their job or be suspended or punished. And while 64% of workers are “eligible” for paid sick leave, the real picture is much more dire:

Less than half of the workforce (47%) can take a paid sick day to care for a sick child or family member, meaning most parents either have to risk their job to care for their children or send them to school sick.
Most workers (58%) whose employers offer only generic “paid time off” get a total of 10 days or less per year to cover vacation, personal, and sick leave.
55% of people without paid sick days have had to go to work sick, compared to 37% of workers who can take a paid sick day.
24% of those without paid sick days have had to send a sick child to school because they couldn't get the day off, while only 14% of those with paid sick days had to do so.

Public Does Not Believe Paid Sick Days Hurts Business Bottom Line: While paid sick days legislation has faced vigorous opposition from some in the business community, in most of the 23 states where it has been introduced, the public overwhelmingly rejects the typical arguments that paid sick days will harm jobs or individual businesses. The research indicates that their messages are not persuasive to voters:

54% of those polled find "very convincing" the argument that "Requiring paid sick days doesn't hurt employers' bottom line" because paid sick days increases worker productivity.
By contrast, only 26% of those polled found the opposition argument "very convincing" that "Given the economic downturn we are now in, businesses can't afford to add new benefits like paid sick leave."

In fact, while almost all of the arguments in favor of paid sick days were viewed by majorities as "very convincing," no arguments by opponents were considered "very convincing" and only four of seven opposing arguments were seen as even "somewhat convincing" by more than half of those surveyed.

Reinforcing the polling numbers is the reality that where paid sick days have actually been implemented, such as the City of San Francisco, even original opponents of the policy, are now applauding its success. In a recent Business Week article, the such as the Golden Gate Restaurant Association stated that paid sick days has been “the best public policy for the least cost" since the policy was enacted.

Resources
Public Welfare Fund - Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences