Consumers should never ingest or inject disinfectants!

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

The President of the United States speculated at a press conference this past week that since disinfectants kills germs on surfaces, perhaps someone should look into whether humans should ingest or even inject disinfectants.

“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute,” Trump said during Thursday’s coronavirus press briefing. “And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

Under no circumstances should any of these cleaning products be ingested! THEY ARE POISONOUS!

Sadly, some consumers considered seriously Trump’s suggestion. Poison centers in New York and Illinois reported a doubling of calls after Trump’s statements.

Consumer and product safety groups like NCL have worked for years with makers of disinfectants and bleaches with brand names like Lysol, Chlorox, and Fantastic to prevent accidental ingestion of these products. Children used to die in large numbers from ingesting cleaning products, but they can harm or kill adults too.

To its credit, Proctor & Gamble, makers of Clorox, issued this statement after Trump’s remarks: “Bleach and other disinfectants are not suitable for consumption or injection under any circumstance.”

Makers of Lysol issued this statement: “As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route).”

Consumer organizations were behind passage of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, which provides child-resistant packaging to protect kids from getting into products under the sink. Since the PPPA’s implementation, deaths in children aged five and under went down by 1.4 per million.

With COVID-19 overtaking this country, resulting in more than 53,000 deaths in the United States alone to date—and growing daily—we need accurate and honest information from our leaders. We do not want consumers exposing themselves to hazards from ingesting cleaning products.

Consumers: do not ingest or inject household cleaning products. THEY ARE POISONOUS if consumed. A network of poison control centers exist around the nation. Visit https://aapcc.org to get your questions answered 24 hours a day. They are the experts!

Coronavirus and food safety: What you need to know

By Nailah John, Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

Perhaps some of the only good news about the Covid-19 is that food is not the primary way that the virus can be spread. According to Harvard Medical School, “We are still learning about transmission of COVID-19. It’s not clear if this is possible, but if so, it would be more likely to be the exception than the rule. That said, COVID-19 and other coronaviruses have been detected in the stool of certain patients, so we currently cannot rule out the possibility of occasional transmission from infected food handlers. The virus would likely be killed by cooking.”

Great, but not all foods can or are intended to be cooked – think of deli meats, cole slaw, potato salad, cheeses, salads, fresh fruits and vegetables, breads, pastry, butter, cream cheese; so if the mainstay of a deli or restaurant is “fresh” foods, spreading the virus is a real threat if the right precautions are taken.

And COVID-19 has made us all keenly aware of the importance of wiping surfaces and washing hands frequently, especially when handling food. We also know that COVID-19 can’t typically be transmitted from food or from food packaging. But we do have suggestions.

Food safety measures one should take:

  • Wash your hands the right way: Use plain soap and water- skip the antibacterial soap, scrub the backs of your hands, between your fingers and under your nails for about 20 seconds, if you need to time yourself sing the chorus of your favorite song twice. Rinse your hands, and then dry them with a clean towel. Remember to wash your hands often especially since COVID-19 lives on surfaces for an extended period.
  • Wash surfaces and utensils after each use: Wash cutting boards, utensils countertops with hot, soapy water, especially if you had raw meat, seafood, poultry or eggs on these surfaces. Don’t cross contaminate!
  • Remember it is very important to wash your dishcloths in a hot cycle of your washing machine, sometimes we forget this key element to food safety.
  • Learn more from FoodSafety.gov.

Food safety is paramount in our day-to-day lives – it’s so important that we take the necessary steps not to expose ourselves – whether eating in a restaurant or cooking at home, to COVID-19. Remember eat healthy, nutritious foods and take all the steps needed in preparing a safe meal for you and your family.

Understanding the rapidly emerging disease, Coronavirus

Nissa Shaffi

On January 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated the Coronavirus as a global health emergency. The virus first emerged from a seafood and poultry market in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China, in December 2019. Since then, it has paralyzed several cities around the world, metastasizing into a global public health and economic crisis.

Coronavirus, officially renamed COVID-19 by WHO, is a member of a large family of viruses that can cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to more severe, life-threatening conditions. Coronaviruses are transmitted between animals and people (zoonotic). There have been only two prior coronaviruses that have exhibited zoonotic transmission, which include the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Secure Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus that has not previously presented in humans. With nearly 80,000 confirmed cases across 37 countries—which resulted in over 2,700 deaths—WHO warns that COVID-19 is likely to become a global pandemic. Nancy Messonnier, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, cautioned that the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. is inevitable and could cause severe disruptions to everyday life.

Here’s what you need to know about COVID-19 

Risk Factors

Based on surveillance of COVID-19 thus far, it appears that the virus is nondiscriminatory, and anyone could be at risk for contracting the virus.

Symptoms

According to the CDC, the incubation period for COVID-19 may range from two to 14 days, and symptoms include high fever, cough, and shortness of breath. In more severe cases, the virus develops into pneumonia, which presents the most danger.

Transmission

The method of transmission is suspected to be from person to person via droplets resulting from breathing, coughing, or sneezing. The virus is also suspected to be transmitted via contaminated surfaces. WHO recommends maintaining a distance of at least one meter (three feet) between yourself and anyone who presents the symptoms mentioned above.

Precautions

WHO recommends regular hand washing with either an alcohol-based gel or soap and water to prevent the spread of infection. Individuals should also cover their mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing and should avoid close contact with anyone showing similar symptoms of respiratory illness. Additionally, while getting the flu shot cannot protect you from contracting COVID-19, it does protect you from the flu, a condition that has a far higher mortality rate than COVID-19.

Travel

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has advised that older and at-risk travelers limit travel to Japan, Italy, and Iran, where the disease is rapidly gaining ground. CDC has also explicitly advised against all non-essential travel to South Korea and China. For more information on CDC’s travel advisories, please click here.

Although the rapid spread of the disease is concerning, the promising news is that the number of new cases in China has dropped–indicating that aggressive interventions deployed by health officials in the region are working. While there are international efforts underway to develop treatments for COVID-19, there is currently no vaccine to prevent the disease. According to the CDC, the best way to prevent contracting the virus is to avoid exposure. For more information on prevention against COVID-19, click here and here.

New study reveals promising progress in fight against cancer

Nissa Shaffi

A recent study released by the American Cancer Society (ACS) shows that breakthrough treatments for lung cancer have resulted in a 26-year record low for cancer mortality overall. Cancer-related deaths have dropped at an average rate of 1.5 percent from 2008 to 2017 and between 2016–2017, cancer mortality rates dropped to 2.2 percent. This translates to nearly three million fewer American cancer-related deaths than would have occurred if mortality had remained stagnant.

ACS revealed that much of this success is due to declines specifically in lung cancer mortality. This is a promising development as lung cancer leads to more cancer-related deaths than colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers combined. Steady reductions in smoking and advancements in early-detection practices have created the perfect environment for dramatic drops in lung cancer rates. Technologies like video-assisted surgeries have enabled doctors to more clearly scan stages of tumor growth, providing patients with higher eligibility for operations and more targeted radiation treatments. Additionally, groundbreaking immunotherapies for both lung cancer and melanoma have acted as a catalyst for an expanding area of research, providing renewed hope to cancer patients with metastatic disease.

Despite the welcome decline in deaths associated with lung cancer, the death rates of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers have plateaued. Progress for the treatment of prostate cancers has been especially compromised due to growing skepticism from health officials regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screenings. While the original intent of reducing PSA screenings was to prevent over-diagnosing and unnecessary treatments for potentially benign tumors, fewer treatable cancers are being detected as a result.

The National Consumers League (NCL) lauds this truly welcome progress in reducing cancer deaths. At the same time, we would like to echo ACS’s call for better testing, which will lead to accurate and better screening of cancers. It takes a village to see progress of this magnitude in public health. Doctors, researchers, advocacy groups, drug companies, and access to life-saving preventive care afforded by the Affordable Care Act can all take credit for this very good report. NCL recognizes the many factors that helped to reduce the incidence of a terrible disease that takes the lives of more than 600,000 people a year. Let’s keep the progress going into 2020 and beyond!

I’m going for the kids’ portion!

With overweight and obesity stats in an upward trajectory, the National Consumers League and the Georgetown School of Business are partnering up for a survey on a simple topic: what do Americans know about portion sizes, calories of average foods, and how many calories we can eat each day without packing on the pounds? 

We have a health crisis in AmericaFrom 2015-2016, 39.8 percent of American adults were considered obesewhich means the body mass index (BMI) measurements of more than 129 million of us are considered obeseThe annual medical cost of obesity is estimated at $147 billion because heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancers are tied to obesity. What is particularly concerning is that more than a third of younger people, ages 20-39, are obese.  

In fact, the New York Times reported that roughly a fifth of our soldiers are obese! The military is trying to combat this problem by replacing sweet drinks with water and cutting out fried foods, but it’s not working. 

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines recommend that the average person should consume about 2,000 calories a day. Do most of us know that if you exceed 2,000 calories day regularly, you pack on the pounds? (That’s unless, of course, you’re getting a lot of calorieburning exercise or have a great metabolism.) Is that number too high for many of us? (It is for me. If I eat more than 1,650 calories, I know I’m going to put on weight.That’s what we want to find out with our research: what do Americans really know about this guideline? 

We will also be asking whether most Americans know how many calories are in average serving of common foods such as yogurt (150), hamburgers with bun (350), pizza (350 per slice), bagels (325), muffins (425), 4-piece fried chicken dinner with all the fixings (850-1,200), a 30oz. steak (1,400), a piece of cheesecake (650)big chocolate chip cookie (450)and an ice cream cone (300-400.) 

Also, dAmericans know what an average serving is? A Cheesecake Factory salad is not an average serving! Each of their salads have more than 1,300 calories. That’s too much for one meal. Unfortunately, restaurant serving sizes have increased a lot over the last several decades. 

Which brings me back to my headlinekids portions! I’ve begun sampling my local downtown DC upscale food spots popular with millennials like Roti, CAVAChoptThe custom is that you order a bowl of lettuce or spinach as a base and put lots of pretty healthy but also pretty caloric toppingsadd a protein for a few bucks extra, and crowned with shredded cheese and salad dressing. When you’re done, you have a big portion and lots of good food but also lots of caloriesalbeit not from hamburger and fries but still, calories! 

So try the kids’ portion! They are cheaper by a thirda lot less food, a lot fewer calories, and completely filling. My CAVA kids meal had a small white bread (unfortunately) pita, yogurt spread, two small spicy meatballs, cucumber salad, tomato salad, three pieces of fried breadand scoop of brown rice. In other words, a lot of food! I figured it was about 550 calories. Voila! A third of my 1,650 allowable daily intake of food. And I was stuffed. I’ll be trying other food outlets to check out the kids portions. And we recommend that other consumers do the samehelps to limit calories and prevent food waste when you’re eating out!

No more surprises: Congress and patients alike sick of surprise billing

headshot of NCL Health Policy intern Alexa

By NCL Health Policy intern Alexa Beeson

This July, the House Energy and Commerce’s Health Subcommittee passed the No Surprises Act (H.R. 3630) to protect patients from surprise billing. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee also passed its companion to address surprise billing, the Lower Health Care Costs Act (S.1895). These bills were being considered after a press conference at which President Trump called for reform in surprise billing.

Stakeholder witnesses at the House hearing this June on H.R. 3630 included patient, provider, and insurance payer groups. Reimbursement models were discussed at length, but the unifying theme was that patients should be held harmless in surprise billing situations.

Surprise billing happens mostly in a small subsect of out-of-network providers; the patient has no idea about who’s in or out of network. Some professionals are out-of-network technicians subcontracted by an in-network facility, such as a last-minute anesthesiologist switch for a surgery, or any other non-disclosed provider. To get reimbursed for their services, providers send a bill to the patient for whatever wasn’t covered by the insurance company.

Surprise billing also occurred among patients who should receive reduced prices for care. Johns Hopkins Hospital filed suit on more than 2,400 patients in the last decade, collecting the equivalent of 0.03 percent of its operating revenue. Some of these patients were never told about their right to charity care, and many who qualify never received a discounted rate. These bill collections are inconsequential for Johns Hopkins but could bankrupt a patient.

Legislation to address balance or surprise bills will protect patients, ensuring they will only have to pay in-network rates for out-of-network emergency care. This will help patients avoid bills that can set them back, sometimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although surprise bills only come from a small portion of providers, 1 in 7 insured adults will receive a surprise medical bill from an in-network hospital. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 70 percent of such patients were not aware that the provider was out-of-network when they received the care.

Panelist Sonji Wilkes, a patient advocate, presented testimony about her struggle with a surprise bill sent after the birth of her son, who was diagnosed with hemophilia. That child was treated by a charitable out-of-network hematologist who did not charge them for her services. However, the NICU that observed the boy was subcontracted to a third-party provider. This meant that the NICU was out-of-network. The Wilkes were sent a $50,000 bill by the hospital that still haunts them 15 years later.

Thomas Nickels, the executive vice president of the American Hospitals Association, claimed that fixed reimbursement rates, such as a median benchmark or percentage of the Medicaid reimbursement value, would disincentivize insurers from maintaining adequate provider networks. Nickels supported the Alternative Dispute Resolutions method, which involves baseball-style arbitration where providers and payers settle on reimbursement value on a case-by-case basis.

Jeanette Thornton, a senior vice president at America’s Health Insurance Plans, argued that the New York model of baseball-style arbitration would create immense clerical burden, resulting in lost time and greater administrative costs. She argued the arbitration reimbursement model would raise costs for patients in the end. Instead, she advocated for the government-dictated fixed reimbursement rates.

Both versions of the bill call for a benchmark to resolve payments between insurance plans and out-of-network providers. This benchmark says health plans would reimburse providers with the median in-network rate already contracted within specific geographic areas. The House bill contains binding arbitration as a fallback in case either the provider or payer decide the payment was an unfair price.

The National Consumers League supports Congress’ tackling of this issue of surprise or balance billing. NCL has taken no position on how these bills are settled between the payer and provider, as long as patients are protected from outrageously expensive bills they can never hope to pay and were never anticipating. In addition, medical debt is the greatest contributor to consumers declaring bankruptcy, and balance billing is a contributor to that troubling consumer issue. The bottom line is that a bill for medical services should never cause bankruptcy, and a patient should never have to choose between medical treatment and food or housing. We are hopeful this issue will be resolved during this Congressional session.

Alexa is a student at Washington University in St. Louis where she studies Classics and Anthropology and concentrates in global health and the environment. She expects to graduate in May of 2020

NCL continues to advocate for breastfeeding mothers

headshot of NCL Health Policy intern Alexa

By NCL Health Policy intern Alexa Beeson

This July, Dutch airline KLM found itself in the middle of a breastfeeding snafu: “public decency” vs. “natural practice.” A mother wrote about the airline with a Facebook post describing how a KLM flight attendant asked her to cover up if she wanted to continue nursing her baby. The new mom said that, while contacting KLM to file a complaint, she was told that she should “be respectful of people of other cultures.”

Other moms went on Twitter to ask KLM about its official breastfeeding policy. KLM responded with: “Breastfeeding is permitted at KLM flights. However, to ensure that all our passengers of all backgrounds feel comfortable on board, we may request a mother to cover herself while breastfeeding, should other passengers be offended by this.” The National Consumers League is disappointed.

New moms should be encouraged, supported, and protected to breastfeed. It has so many health benefits for mom and baby including the prevention of allergies in babies and the reduced risk of developing certain forms of cancer in moms.

A few years back, NCL posted a Breastfeeding Mothers’ Bill of Rights, that included the following:

  • A mother should have the right to breastfeed her child in any public or private establishment where they both are legally present, without harassment or discrimination of any kind,
  • No establishment should enact a rule that prevents breastfeeding a child, and
  • Breastfeeding mothers should not be told to only do so in a discreet manner.

Breastfeeding is a safe, healthy, and natural act, through which mothers provide nourishment to their children. NCL stands with mothers wishing to express milk whenever needed, regardless of the presence of their child. In no way should breastfeeding ever be considered lewd, immoral, or indecent–you are feeding your baby! That has nothing to do with sex.

Memo to KLM: check with your lawyers. Both the United States and the Netherlands protect public breastfeeding. All 50 states have laws that allow breastfeeding in public or exempt breastfeeding from public decency laws. In the Netherlands, there are no specific laws regarding public breastfeeding, but it is widely socially accepted. Why then, on a flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam, should KLM be able to prevent a woman from breastfeeding?

Reading replies to this tweet is a happy reminder that people do, in fact, support a woman’s right to breastfeed in public. Many people were upset that KLM considered breastfeeding an offensive act. Others satirically asked whether KLM would force an adult to cover his head if his eating “offended” another passenger. A few people questioned why a woman needs permission from an airline to feed her child. KLM themselves called breastfeeding “the most natural thing in the world,” yet still uphold their policy of having the right to discourage mothers from breastfeeding.

No mother should never feel uncomfortable or judged by another while feeding her child or expressing milk. KLM’s policy shows they would rather cater to someone who is “offended” by the most basic act of feeding one’s child; that is wrong. KLM–you must do better! And all airlines should publish affirmative policies supporting breastfeeding. Women and their babies need our support.

Alexa is a student at Washington University in St. Louis where she studies Classics and Anthropology and concentrates in global health and the environment. She expects to graduate in May of 2020

The ‘tampon tax’: an unconstitutional loss to American consumers

headshot of NCL LifeSmarts intern Alexa

By NCL LifeSmarts intern Elaina Pevide

Bingo supplies in Missouri, tattoos in Georgia, cotton candy in Iowa, gun club membership in Wisconsin; what do these products and services have in common? They are all treated as tax-exempt by states that still put a tax on tampons.

Sales taxes on menstrual products, often referred to as “tampon taxes”, are still present in 35 states. Tampon taxes are cited as a major contributor to the “pink tax”, the heightened cost of products and services marketed toward women. For example, a purple can of sweet-smelling shaving cream for women will almost always cost more than its male counterpart across the aisle. This trend translates across industries. A 2015 study from the Joint Economic Committee found that women pay more 42 percent of the time for products from pink pens to dry cleaning. These pricier goods and services serve no benefit to the consumer and have no apparent improvement in function or quality. The pink tax cuts into women’s spending power and takes advantage of consumers simply on the basis of gender.

Tampon taxes and the pink tax have both been making waves recently as pressing feminist issues. While markups on products for women are unjust, activists are targeting the tampon tax as priority number one. Menstrual products, they argue, are necessities and states have the power to cut sales taxes on them by labeling them as such. States give tax exemptions to other items– like bingo supplies, tattoos, and cotton candy–that are far less vital to the health and success of consumers. Today, five states do not have sales taxes on any products, five states have always given hygiene products tax-exemption status, and five states have successfully fought to eliminate the tampon tax. Currently, 35 states remain with 32 having tried–and failed–to pass legislation on the matter.

States resistance to eliminate the tampon tax, typically for fiscal reasons, is at odds with the interests and demands of consumers. A survey of 2,000 women, conducted on behalf of menstrual cup company Intimina, found that three out of four women believe the tampon tax should be eradicated. Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed interpreted taxes on feminine products as a form of sexism.

Countless advocacy organizations have been established out of the need to provide consumers with affordable menstrual products and eliminate the tampon tax. One such group, Period Equity, recently launched a campaign with reproductive care company LOLA called “Tax Free. Period.”. Their campaign calls for the remaining 35 states with a tampon tax to eliminate it by Tax Day 2020. In the meantime, they’re gearing up for a legal battle to challenge the states that refuse to comply. Their argument? Taxes on a product that affect only women and other individuals who menstruate is a form of discrimination and thereby unconstitutional.

As reproductive rights groups await the response of state legislatures and federal courts on this issue, the half of Americans that use menstrual products in their lifetime are suffering. Women make less in wages than men but are forced to spend more. The tampon taxes expound gender inequality and costs American consumers millions of dollars each year–dollars that could benefit their families and stimulate the economy elsewhere. Period Equity’s tagline says it best: “Periods are not luxuries. Period.” It’s about time for American tax policy to reflect that reality.

Elaina Pevide is a student at Brandeis University where she majors in Public Policy and Psychology with a minor in Economics. She expects to graduate in May of 2020.

NCL to USDA: Portion control must be key strategy for fighting America’s highest-ever obesity rates

July 11, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Shaunice Wall, MS, RD, shaunicew@nclnet.org, (202) 835-0331, Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242, or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) presented oral comments to the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee today in Washington, DC, urging the committee to focus on portion control as a key strategy to address the rise of obesity.

“Unfortunately, while the current version of the Dietary Guidelines mentions portion size – it appears to be mostly an afterthought among the various strategies to improve diets and fight obesity,” said NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “Portion balance is not mentioned in the guidelines’ executive summary; this is despite the fact that larger portion sizes have greatly contributed to the problem of overweight and obesity.”

Nationally, 39.6 percent of adults and 18.5 percent of children were considered obese in 2015-2016, the most recent period for which NHANES data were available. These figures represent the highest percentages ever documented and obesity rates are projected to affect half of all adults, or 115 million adults, by the year 2030. There are also substantial economic losses associated with obesity. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the United States was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical cost for people who have obesity was $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. 

“One promising, and we think underutilized, strategy for tackling the obesity epidemic is helping consumers understand and implement appropriate portion control,” said Greenberg. “This simple step to improving public health should not be marginalized in the forthcoming edition of the Guidelines; rather it should be one of the key points stressed by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and form a cornerstone of the Dietary Guidelines.”

NCL’s full testimony is available here (PDF).

###

About the National Consumers League

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 www.nclnet.org.

Oral argument for ACA case will determine the fate of millions

Nissa ShaffiOn Tuesday, July 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit will hear oral arguments that will determine whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be overturned. Throughout the course of its life, the ACA has been under the specter of possible repeal. While there have been piecemeal attempts to strike down the legislation over time, none have been as concerning as the most recent Texas v. United States case, which argues that since the individual mandate is no longer enforced, ACA  would be unconstitutional.

The individual mandate requires that most people maintain a minimum level of health insurance or be subject a financial penalty. In 2017 however, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), set the individual mandate to $0 as of 2019. As a result of this ruling, the Texas v. United States case was filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors. The plaintiffs argue that the ruling rendered the individual mandate futile, as it no longer produces revenue for the federal government, and since Congress declared the individual mandate to be “essential” when enacting the ACA, this would now make the entire law invalid.

In an ideal situation, the court would maintain the ACA as it exists today, absent the individual mandate. If the ACA is repealed along with the protections that come with it, close to 20 million people would lose their health coverage. Those affected will include mostly low-income adults and children with chronic or pre-existing conditions, dependent adult children ages 26 and younger, Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, employer and employee groups, and more.

Repealing the ACA would jeopardize Medicaid expansion, further burdening uncompensated care and provider reimbursement. In addition, repealing the ACA would increase health care costs among the uninsured by $50.2 billion, result in more than 9 million people losing federal subsidies to purchase health insurance via the marketplace, and would endanger consumers’ ability to obtain essential health benefits.

California’s Attorney General, Xavier Beccerra, is leading a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general who have intervened to defend the ACA. Advocates interested in joining these efforts can contact izzy@xavierbecerra.com – please do so and sign the petition by July 14. In addition, organizations can participate in the TXvUS Tweetstorm to express their concerns regarding this case, using the hashtags #TXvUS and #WhatsAtStake, on July 9th at 2 pm EST/ 11 am PST.

NCL is a zealous supporter of the ACA and notes that it is still the law of the land. We are following the developments of this case closely and will continue to fight for access to affordable healthcare for all Americans. For more information on developments of this case, please click here.