Guest blog: Paying tribute to Jimmy Carter, pension champion

/in , /by

A version of this guest post was originally published by the Pension Rights Center.

By Karen Friedman

When Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976, I was a young whipper snapper living in an old, disheveled group house in Washington D.C. When I think back on that time, I fondly remember that his Administration—dedicated to energy conservation, peace and human rights—inspired me and many of my friends to become social justice warriors.

It was thus fitting that yesterday a group of my activist friends (albeit a bit older and I hope wiser) joined throngs of other citizens to pay tribute to President Carter who was lying in state in the Capitol’s Rotunda.

President Carter accomplished so much as the many tributes about him reflect. But among his deserved accolades there is one that often gets overlooked: Jimmy Carter was a pension champion.

In 1978,  Jimmy Carter established the President’s Commission on Pension Policy, which was tasked with conducting a 2-year study of the nation’s pension systems and the future course of national retirement income policies. The Pension Rights Center (PRC) provided input to the Commission (through our own Citizens’ Commission on Pension Policy).

Among the most visionary of the study’s recommendations was the call for the establishment of a minimum universal pension system (on top of Social Security) that would require private employers to contribute at least 3% of payroll for all employees over the age of 25. Close to a half century later, despite the efforts of PRC and others, our nation has yet to enact an adequate and secure universal pension system akin to what President Carter recommended.  (Other Commission recommendations, e.g. to improve survivors’ benefits and protect spouses in divorce have since become law.)

The conversation that President Carter began those many years ago is needed more than ever today. We must continue to work together to create a pension system that, in conjunction with Social Security, provides adequate and secure retirement income to our nation’s working families.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

Guest Blog: Standardizing portions could help stem the obesity epidemic

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

By Deborah A. Cohen, MD, MPH

The past few decades have seen dramatic changes in the food environment and food behaviors, all resulting in the epidemics of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.  About 72% of American adults are overweight or obese and more than half have diet-related chronic diseases. Our research shows that the food environment actually encourages people to eat impulsively and markets twice as much food as people need to maintain a healthy weight.  Our diets are largely influenced by the relative supply and availability of different food products, by marketing, and by other factors we aren’t even aware of.1-3  Restaurants are among the largest risk factors for a poor diet.

Here’s a rather shocking statistic: most Americans dine out between 4-5x per week and, on average, spend 55% of all their food dollars on meals and snacks away from home.4,5  The problem is that away-from-home meals are often inferior in nutritional quality to meals prepared at home – they tend to be higher in salt, fat, and calories, and lower in fruit, vegetables, and whole grains; they also typically include 2-3 times more calories than we need to maintain a healthy weight.6,7  Indeed, portion sizes have been increasing substantially over the past three decades.8

When people dine away from home, their ability to control portion sizes, and thus caloric intake, is limited. Studies demonstrate that we all eat more when we are served more. 9,10   As portion size increases, calories go up. The results are stunning:  Laboratory based studies in both adults,11,12 and children13,14 show that when larger portion sizes are served, calories go up as much as 30% with no differences in self-reported hunger.  So eating out – which we do a lot more than we used to – is a major contributor to weight gain and increases the risk of obesity and chronic diseases.6 Multiple studies support the association between frequency of meals consumed in restaurants and the risk for overweight.15-18

My research looks at how portion sizes can be made transparent and predictable with the hope that this would have an enormous benefit for America’s obesity crisis. Smaller, standardized portions are a practical and feasible solution to help stem the obesity epidemic.

Portion control has also proven to be an effective measure to reduce the amount – and therefore the harm – of alcohol consumption.19,20 Alcoholic beverages are classified by the percentage of alcohol content and the U.S. government defines a standard drink as containing 0.6 oz. of alcohol. Standard drink sizes are 12 ounces for a standard beer, 5 ounces for a glass of wine, and 1.5 ounce shot of 80 proof spirits.  These standard portion sizes allow us to measure a standard drink and to limit the risk of inebriation. Many states mandate that alcohol be served in standard portions; twelve states also require that larger portions of alcohol carry a higher price.21  Applying these principles to food could be an enormous aid, since people are not reliably able to judge what constitutes an appropriate individual portion just by looks.22-24 Standard portions are also a necessity for medications.  Many consider food as “medicine”, so applying portion standards to food is a natural extension that could improve health outcomes. That was our goal.

Piloting the Solution: Standardized Portions

Under a National Institutes of Health funded planning grant, my colleagues and I  developed guidelines for standard portions .  With input and guidance from an advisory board composed of nationally recognized nutrition researchers, we set calorie limits for meals at 700 calories each for lunch and dinner, 500 calories for breakfast and 200 calories for snacks.  We separated meal components into appetizers (150 calories), soups (150 calories), dressings and salads (150 calories), plain entrees (200 calories) for breakfast, lunch and dinner, mixed entrees (350 calories), non-starchy sides (100 calories), starchy sides (150 calories), beverages and desserts (100 calories).25

We conducted a pilot study with three local restaurants in Southern California. We incentivized these establishments to create an alternative menu to their usual offerings, providing meals in quantities that met the above caloric guidelines. We offered restaurants a $2000 participation fee as well as paying for all the costs of the menu development and printing, and purchasing gift cards to offer customers as part of the evaluation. The restaurants created new “Balanced Portions” menus, which included 6-8 items from their regular menu. The meals were not intended for weight loss purposes, but are only designed to prevent unintended overconsumption.

We began our pilot project by  asking restaurant managers to identify which menu items were the most popular. The project did not change any preparation or recipes. Not surprisingly, even though we would be reducing the quantity of some items served and increasing the quantity of others, none of the restaurants were interested in reducing the price of any item for offering less.

One restaurant did not want to change the price or the quantity, we plated the calorically set portions and then had them pack the remaining food for carry out.   (see Figure 1, top menu.) When we measured the original food quantities, in most cases the amounts served were double the guidelines for a single meal, so leftovers were sufficient for a second meal. The meal was marketed as “Dinner today, Lunch tomorrow”.

The other two pilot restaurants were not interested in packing up extra food, so they created an alternative menu by selecting menu items that already met the guidelines. The owners came up with new prices comparable to other selections on the menu. At yet another restaurant, the regular menu only included entrees and sides, so to get variety, people needed to order several large dishes. The new menu allowed people to get variety with one order. In all cases we requested that each meal contain at least one cup of vegetables. We piloted this with 3 restaurants: First Szechuan Wok, Dave’s Deli & Catering, and Delhi Belly. (Figure 1)

Once we verified the quantity of food to be plated as a serving size, we sent the meals out for calorimetry (measures calories) to verify that the calories would be <700.  All the meals met the criteria. We then held a training session for restaurant staff and provided written guidelines on food to be plated for each menu item. We provided restaurants with measuring cups and kitchen scales so they could meet the guidelines. The plates were full, as we generally increased the quantity of vegetables and reduced the quantity of meats and starchy sides. The restaurants all passed the training session.

Feedback from Customers. Once the menus were launched and made accessible to patrons, we invited customers to provide feedback on the menus and their experience and offered them gift cards from the restaurant for their participation, whether or not they ordered from the Balanced Portions Menu.

Overall, the feedback on the alternative Balanced Portions menus from customers was positive. We conducted in-person and phone interviews with 33 customers (56% ordered from the Balanced Portions menu) who dined at one of the three restaurants. Findings from the one-on-one interviews revealed that 16 of the 18 customers who ordered from the Balanced Portions expressed satisfaction with their meals and shared that they “would love” to see Balanced Portion menus offered at other restaurants. In addition, the availability of Balanced Portions menu may help them reduce food waste, maintain healthy eating habits, and meet recommended dietary guidelines. Interestingly, among those who ordered from the regular menu, one participant described the portions as “very generous” and more than half reported going home with leftovers.

However, some of the interviewees expressed concerns regarding cost and thought lowering the prices and offering more Balanced Portion menu options may encourage more people to opt for standardized portions. Some participants thought eliminating to-go options and offering smaller portions at lower prices would be most  appealing.

Adherence to Portion Sizes. We also assigned a research assistant (RA) to be a “secret shopper.” The RA ordered Balanced Portions meals to-go and then carefully measured each component with measuring cups and kitchen scales to determine adherence to the guidelines previously issued. In all but one case, the restaurants were adherent to the guidelines. At Delhi Belly they did give a little extra rice, and we advised the owner to be serve a bit less rice.

Conclusion: Our results were very promising.  We concluded that it is highly feasible for restaurants to offer meals with standard portions that reduce the risk of overconsumption, overweight and obesity associated with dining out. We also concluded that we will need more attention to the issue of Balanced Portions menus over time to inform future rollouts at a national level.  Furthermore, understanding the impact on customer attitudes and behavior will provide critical insights into how to scale this in the future. This research is a rewarding and promising first step, full of opportunities to effectively address the obesity crisis and its connection to eating food outside of home.

  1. Milliman RE. Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing. 1982;46(3):86-91.
  2. Milliman RE. The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons. Journal of Consumer Research. 1986;13(2):286-289.
  3. Curhan RC. The relationship between shelf space and unit sales in supermarkets. Journal of Marketing Research. 1972;9:406-412.
  4. Kant AK, Whitley MI, Graubard BI. Away from home meals: associations with biomarkers of chronic disease and dietary intake in American adults, NHANES 2005-2010. Int J Obes (Lond). 2015;39(5):820-827.10.1038/ijo.2014.183
  5. Saksena MJ, Okrent AM, Anekwe TD, et al. America’s Eating Habits: Food Away From Home. In. Wash, DC: USDA; 2018:*https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90228/eib-90196_summary.pdf?v=98073.90222*
  6. Lin BH, Frazao E. Away-from-home foods increasingly important to quality of American diet. ERS/USDA. 1999;*http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB749/.*
  7. Rosenheck R. A systematic review of a trajectory towards weight gain and obesity risk. Obes Rev. 2008;9(6):535-547.
  8. Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998. JAMA. 2003;289(4):450-453.
  9. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS. Larger portion sizes lead to a sustained increase in energy intake over 2 days. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(4):543-549. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16567150
  10. Diliberti N, Bordi PL, Conklin MT, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res. 2004;12(3):562-568. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15044675
  11. Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS. Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(6):1207-1213. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12450884
  12. Kral TV, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(6):962-968. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15159224
  13. Rolls BJ, Engell D, Birch LL. Serving portion size influences 5-year-old but not 3-year-old children’s food intakes. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 2000;100:232-234.
  14. McConahy KL, Smiciklas-Wright H, Birch LL, Mitchell DC, Picciano MF. Food portions are positively related to energy intake and body weight in early childhood. . Journal of Pediatrics. 2002;140:340-347.
  15. Ayala GX, Rogers M, Arredondo EM, Campbell NR, Baquero B, Duerksen SC, Elder JP. Away-from-home food intake and risk for obesity: examining the influence of context. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2008;16(5):1002-1008. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=18309297&site=ehost-live
  16. McCrory MA, Fuss PJ, Hays NP, Vinken AG, Greenberg AS, Roberts SB. Overeating in America: association between restaurant food consumption and body fatness in healthy adult men and women ages 19 to 80. Obes Res. 1999;7(6):564-571.
  17. Jeffery RW, French SA. Epidemic obesity in the United States: are fast foods and television viewing contributing? Am J Public Health. 1998;88(2):277-280.
  18. Hornick BA, Krester AJ, Nicklas TA. Menu modeling with MyPyramid food patterns: incremental dietary changes lead to dramatic improvements in diet quality of menus. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(12):2077-2083. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=19027412&site=ehost-live
  19. Voas RB, Fell JC. Preventing alcohol-related problems through health policy research. Alcohol Research & Health. 2010;33(1-2):18-28. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-23622-003&site=ehost-live
  20. Anderson P, Chisholm D, Fuhr DC. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet. 2009;373(9682):2234-2246. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=19560605&site=ehost-live
  21. NHTSA. Preventing Over-consumption of Alcohol – Sales to the Intoxicated and “Happy Hour” (Drink Special) Laws *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/PIREWeb/images/2240PIERFINAL.pdf*. 2005.
  22. Levitsky DA, Obarzanek E, Mrdjenovic G, Strupp BJ. Imprecise control of energy intake: absence of a reduction in food intake following overfeeding in young adults. Physiol Behav. 2005;84(5):669-675. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15885242
  23. Levitsky DA, Youn T. The more food young adults are served, the more they overeat. J Nutr. 2004;134(10):2546-2549. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15465745
  24. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J. Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res. 2005;13(1):93-100. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15761167
  25. Cohen DA, Story M, Economos C, Ty D, Martin S, Estrada E. Guidelines for Standard Portions in Away-From-Home Settings In:2023.

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings.

Guest Blog: The FABRIC act will address garment industry workplace concerns

/in , , , , /by

By Rebecca Ballard

Last year the first ever federal fashion bill, The FABRIC Act, was introduced in Congress, and it will be reintroduced this September. However, the intersection between labor rights, legislation, and the garment industry is far from new. The industry has been tied to labor abuses since before our country’s founding; it was cotton that enabled the United States to reach global economic prominence, and issues with forced labor in fashion continue to this day. And it is not just labor concerns linked to fashion, but key labor achievements as well. Many of the labor laws that govern our lives and workplaces took root in the garment industry.

As a guest blogger for NCL and a longtime partner with the organization, I am excited to briefly share the fascinating history linking the garment industry and labor movements, some of the present-day issues in the industry, and even an opportunity to advocate for change this year.

The Industrial Revolution and the U.S. Fashion Industry

The industrial revolution gave rise to the fashion industry as we know it today, bringing innovation and affordable mass-produced items as well as widespread workplace labor abuses, sweatshop conditions, and pollution. In fact, the beginning of the U.S. industrial revolution is often cited as the opening of a textile mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in 1793. During the Industrial Revolution we saw women, including recent immigrants, and children take jobs in textile mills to supplement family income. Many of these workers were exploited, toiling sometimes for 16 hours a day during high demand periods, for a subsistence income; all too often they were subject to wage theft.

But through this work, many women garment workers also achieved a measure of independence, leaving homes and families, and some used that newfound independence to join social activist movements and advocate for improved labor conditions. Female workers in Lowell, Massachusetts, for example, formed America’s first women’s union in the 1830s, which focused on maximum hours laws, including a 10 hour work day and higher wages, and they conducted one of the first major labor strikes in this nation’s history. Workers in New York’s sweatshops were victims of harassment, wage theft, and terrible conditions, and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America unions formed to demand labor reforms there in the early 1900s.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire and Subsequent Labor Reforms 

Just as unions were gaining strength, the United States saw a devastating example of the incredible harms that can take place in the garment industry. Near closing time on March 25, 1911, the factory fire that broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory killed 146 workers, many of whom were immigrant women and girls. The building’s only fire escape building had collapsed during the rescue effort. Machinery and tables crushed workers, while locked doors trapped them, and there were only a few buckets of water to douse the flames. Firefighter ladders were too short to reach the 9th floor and safety nets ripped. The survivors from the 500-plus Triangle Shirtwaist Factory recounted the horrors they witnessed, including their fellow workers leaping to their deaths from the 9th floor rather than being burned alive. Some victims were as young as 14 years old.

In New York state, this tragedy prompted the transformation of the state’s labor and fire codes, thirty-six new state laws, and increased labor funding. The New Deal era under President Franklin Roosevelt saw adoption of similar legislation at the federal level nearly 20 years later with the support of some of these same reformers, like Frances Perkins who witnessed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire herself and later became the Secretary of Labor under President Roosevelt. The *Occupational Safety and Health Administration, country-wise fire and safety laws, and the Fair Labor Standards Act could be said to have arisen from laws enacted in New York after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.

Following the lead of women’s suffrage groups, and often in concert with women’s rights leaders, a number of trade unions formed to support the rights of garment workers. Roosevelt’s New Deal offered legal protection to unions, and through union gains and New Deal programs sweatshop conditions lessened and wages increased. However this brief period of reforms for workers in the US garment industry did not continue when the industry expanded and much of the industry moved abroad.

In addition to labor issues, the modern garment industry continues the environmental degradation that started during the industrial revolution. The industry today is playing a role in climate change and not on track to meet key climate goals and operate within planetary boundaries in its current form. Overproduction as well as over-purchasing are both extreme, and there are presently enough clothes on our planet to clothe six generations of people. Waste is often exported to other countries, hurting local economies and climates through waste colonialism. The industry continues to be powered by coal and uses toxic chemicals that are dangerous for workers, wearers, and our planet. Water usage is also highly problematic. For example, it takes over 2,000 liters of water to make just one t-shirt, around as much as one person drinks in three years. The water used in clothing creation, as well as clothing use, is often filled with microfibers that reach even the depths of our oceans and cause great harm to planetary ecosystems.

California Legislation

Sweatshops reemerged in the 1960s due to a range of forces in the U.S. and abroad: the changing retail industry, the growing global economy, increased contracting, and a large number of immigrant workers in the U.S. In the 1970s, manufacturers began outsourcing production to other countries to lower labor costs and employ a more compliant, non-union worker base. Despite increased consumption and a growing population, the number of U.S.-based garment workers dropped 37 percent, from 1.2 million in 1970 to 760,000 in 1995.

When sweatshops reemerged on U.S. soil they brought with them many horrific practices.  In California in the 1990s, the El Monte sweatshop, was subject to a raid that uncovered workers held behind fences surrounded by razor wire. These modern-day sweatshops exposed brutal conditions, with many tricked into accepting U.S. employment while living in other countries and once here being subject to debt bondage, threats of harm to them or their families, and violations of wage and hour codes. 

The 2021 California’s Garment Worker Protection Act (SB 62) enacted many statewide reforms for the industry in the state with the greatest number of garment workers. This landmark law aims to end wage theft and the payment of less than a minimum wage to garment workers by ending the piece rate of payment and creating liability for contractors for the full amount of unpaid wages and reimbursement of expenses, no matter how many layers of contracting are used. It also aims to enhance workplace safety by having garment workers no longer need to work at unsafe speeds to complete as many items as possible each day to reach a fair rate of pay.

The FABRIC Act

On the federal level, promising reforms include the first federal fashion industry bill, The Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institution Change (FABRIC) Act, which was introduced in 2022 and will be reintroduced this September. A federal Lobby Day on September 12th is planned in partnership with national worker rights and sustainable fashion NGOs. The FABRIC Act follows in the footsteps of California’s SB62 by eliminating the piece rate and creating joint and several liability for violations of the law.  The FABRIC Act also creates a national garment manufacturing registry and incentivizes domestic production through a $40 million garment manufacturing grant program and reshoring tax credits. Anyone is welcome to be a part of the Lobby Day, and can sign up to volunteer here.

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings

It is time to give Medicare beneficiaries effective obesity care

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Sally Greenberg

By Sally Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer

“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

As one of the most recognized quotes of all time, this line from the 1967 movie, Cool Hand Luke, originally addressed the struggle of a person’s will over government control.

Now the line is applicable to another and equally intractable struggle: ending outdated Medicare rules that leave millions of seniors with diagnosed obesity – particularly members of Black and Latino communities – vulnerable to disability, disease and premature death due to lack of access to the full range of treatment options.

The struggle is not new. As documented in a 2010 report from the US Surgeon General, the prevalence of obesity began to increase sharply in the 1980s and by the 1990s, public health leaders were calling obesity a national emergency. Now, the obesity rate among adult Americans exceeds 40 percent but is even higher among communities of color: virtually *half of African Americans (49.6 percent) and 44.8 percent of Hispanics are living with obesity. Moreover, because obesity is directly linked to over 230 medical conditions, the disease is responsible for an estimated 400,000 deaths a year, costing the nation over $1.72 trillion annually in direct and indirect health costs.

Confronting this growing crisis, in 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued guidelines recommending screening all U.S. adults aged 18 and above for overweight and obesity and encouraging clinicians to treat or refer adults with obesity for treatment. Then, in 2013, the *American Medical Association officially recognized obesity as “a disease state” on a par with other serious chronic diseases, like type 2 diabetes and hypertension, so healthcare professionals (HCPs) would be motivated to diagnose, counsel and treat obesity. These actions were the impetus for most private insurers, state health plans and state Medicaid programs to cover obesity care to some degree. Moreover, the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health coverage for federal employees, now requires that insurers cover the full range of obesity treatment options, including intensive behavioral therapy (IBT), prescription weight loss drugs, and bariatric surgery. Additionally. Tri-Care, which covers military personnel and their families, and the Veterans Administration cover AOMs for adults who do not achieve weight loss goals through diet and exercise alone.

This leaves the Medicare program, which today represents the biggest obstacle impeding access to quality obesity care. Outdated Medicare Part B policy places undue restrictions on intensive behavioral therapy by allowing only primary care providers to deliver IBT and severely restricting the physical locations where this care can occur. Equally troubling, new FDA-approved anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are excluded from Medicare coverage based on a statutory prohibition tracing back to the start of the Part D program. This was in 2003 when fen-phen (the drug combination of fenfluramine and phentermine) controversy raised questions about the safety of weight loss drugs, leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to classify these medicines as “cosmetic” treatments not eligible for coverage, just like hair loss drugs and cold and flu treatments.

But obesity medicine has improved substantially since 2003. Due to the latest science on obesity as a serious chronic disease, there have been major advances in drug development, including new anti-obesity medications that achieve meaningful weight loss. Yet, while science has moved forward, CMS policy is stuck in the past.

To change this situation, advocates have gone to both Congress and CMS for help. In Congress, public health and aging organizations have been working to pass bipartisan legislation called the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) that would end the exclusion under Medicare Part D prohibiting coverage for AOMs and change Medicare Part B rules to permit all qualified health practitioners to provide Intensive Behavioral Therapy (IBT) to Medicare beneficiaries. With CMS, advocates have written to and met with key staffers on several occasions, urging the agency to use its inherent authority to allow flexibility to include drugs under Part D that might otherwise be excluded. One key argument is that CMS has already done this on multiple occasions, ending exclusions for treatments for AIDS wasting and other medical conditions when it is urgent to do so.   And yet, ten years have passed since AMA classified obesity as a chronic disease with no action from either Congress or CMS. In Congress, TROA did not receive a floor vote in the House of Representatives in 2022 despite having 154 co-sponsors and widespread support from medical societies, public health organizations and the aging community. Similarly, CMS has kept the exclusion on coverage for anti-obesity medications, even though the Biden Administration has asked for ways to address systemic racial inequity and obesity is a throughline to better health outcomes.

To start a dialogue that could lead to meaningful action, the National Consumers League and the National Council on Aging decided to change the dynamic. In September 2022, our organizations sent an urgent letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure requesting a meeting so we could speak to her directly on behalf of  about 18 million traditional Medicare beneficiaries whose diagnosis of obesity puts them at risk of other serious conditions. Our letter was well received and on January 17, this meeting took place.

Recognizing that there has been a “failure to communicate” the urgency of the moment, our purpose was to put a human face on seniors with obesity and to convey that bureaucracy and intransigence cannot be the reason that 18 million older adults are denied effective obesity care. As such, we asked Administrator Brooks-LaSure to end the impasse in Part D coverage of FDA-approved AOMs by making access to obesity treatment an agency priority. This action could be the catalyst empowering CMS staff to think differently about obesity and be more open to interpreting the statutory exclusion provision in a way that would permit coverage for anti-obesity medications.

It is too soon to know what the outcome of the meeting will be. We opened a door and pledged to maintain a frank and constructive dialogue with Administrator Brooks-LaSure and staff she designates on the needs of Medicare beneficiaries living with obesity. Our hope is to elevate obesity as a priority for CMS policy and to work with CMS and other stakeholders to remove the access barriers that keep too many Americans from seeking obesity care.

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings.

Guest Blog: Urgent push to get the Senate to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by end of year

/in , , , /by

By Robin Strongin

Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is real and it’s dangerous.  But, if the Senate acts quickly, it can pass S. 4431, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) which provides reasonable accommodations for pregnant and postpartum workers.

The legislation, which has already passed in the House, enjoys strong bipartisan support and has garnered wide-ranging support from business associations, the US Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, faith organizations, civil rights organizations, maternal health groups, and others.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that “These and other efforts to protect pregnant workers and new mothers should be applauded as they demonstrate a respect for life, family, and the dignity of workers.”

NCL stands with these organizations in urging the Senate to pass the legislation.  Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is not only medically dangerous, but disruption to a woman’s career hurts her earning power and has implications for the labor supply.  More than 85 percent of women will become mothers at some point in their working lives, the majority of whom cannot afford not to work.

Despite passage of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978, employer bias against pregnant women still exists, especially when it comes to employers providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers.

In early February 2022, the Bipartisan Policy Center and Morning Consult conducted a survey of 2,200 adults on the prevalence of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The survey found that “pregnancy discrimination is common across race, incomes, and other demographics, causing fear about informing employers about a pregnancy and leading many pregnant workers to consider a career change. These trends are particularly elevated among younger women and those who are currently working.”

Key Results:

  • Nearly 1 in 4 (23%) mothers have considered leaving their jobs due to a lack of reasonable accommodations or fear of discrimination from an employer during a pregnancy.
  • 1 in 5 mothers (20%) say they have experienced pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.
  • Adults are witnessing pregnancy discrimination in their workplaces.
  • Over 1 in 5 mothers have been afraid to tell an employer about a pregnancy.
  • A comparable portion of adults report that their partner or spouse has experienced pregnancy discrimination at work.

In their November 10, 2022 letter to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, urging swift passage of the Senate bill, the bipartisan members underscored what pregnancy discrimination looks like, and the terrible toll it takes:  …”a warehouse employee in Tennessee who suffered a miscarriage after lifting heavy boxes and being denied light duty; a retail worker in Kansas who was fired because she needed to carry a water bottle to stay hydrated, and a hardware assembler in Ohio who was terminated after her doctor recommended she not lift more than 20 pounds.”

Advocates are raising the alarm: if the Senate doesn’t enact the bill by the end of this year, opposition from Republicans over a lack of religious exemptions could jeopardize the passage of the legislation as Republicans take over the House.

The bill that passed the House did so with a strong bipartisan vote of 315 – 101.  And the Senate bill enjoys strong bipartisanship as well, according to Senate HELP Chair, Patty Murray (D-WASH), who is working across the aisle to get it passed.

If a stand-alone vote in the Senate doesn’t materialize, backers of the bill are considering its inclusion in the year-end spending package. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) warned, “The clock is ticking… This is a bipartisan bill that’s pro-mothers, pro-healthy pregnancies, and pro-workers,”…”Let’s get it through the Senate by the end of the year.”