Viewpoints: Trump’s Budget Breaks Health Care Promises; New Mandate Could Stem Rising Premiums

Editorial pages highlight these and other health care issues.

The New York Times: Donald Trump’s Nasty Budget

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump told the “forgotten men and women of our country” that he would champion them. As evidence that he was a different kind of Republican, he promised not to cut Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that benefit poor and middle-class families. On Monday, President Trump proposed a budget that would slash spending on Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, transportation and other essential government services, all while increasing the federal deficit. (2/12)

The Washington Post: Trump Hates Deficits — Unless They Help Rich People

The president’s budget — a statement of principles rather than anything binding, especially given the recent congressional deal — would slash funding for lots of programs that lower- and middle-income Americans rely on. The budget would cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid, food stamps, educational programs, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (a program whose funds go toward cash welfare, child care, services related to child abuse and neglect), disability programs and Section 8 housing. Even Head Start and nutritional assistance for impoverished infants and pregnant mothers are not spared. It would also completely eliminate a number of programs, such as the Social Services Block Grant, which funds public services for the most vulnerable Americans, including poor children, the elderly and those with disabilities.When are deficits good? (Catherine Rampell, 2/12)

The New York Times: Republicans Need A Nudge To Lower Health Care Costs

Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration repealed the penalties associated with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate in the tax act that passed in December. Now they need to replace the mandate with something that will address rising premiums and command broader support. Automatic enrollment into health insurance plans is a good place to start. (Lanhee J. Chen and James C. Capretta, 2/12)

Bloomberg: A Better Way To Provide A 'Right To Try'

The idea that gravely ill patients should have access to experimental medicines is morally unassailable. A bill before Congress to establish a national “right to try,” however, is the wrong way of going about it. Passed by unanimous consent in the Senate last fall and endorsed with gusto by President Donald Trump in his State of the Union speech, the legislation would allow Americans to use yet-to-be-approved drugs that have passed only preliminary safety tests -- without permission from the Food and Drug Administration. The bill is similar to right-to-try laws that have been passed by 38 states. Though grounded in compassion, the bill would do little to actually improve the prospects of terminally ill patients -- and may put some of them at greater risk. For one, its underlying assumption -- that the FDA gets in the way -- is plain wrong. (2/12)

Boston Globe: The First Step To Treatment Is Staying Alive

Drug treatment can’t help dead people. That’s why San Francisco is scheduled to open two safe injection sites later this year, where drug users will be allowed to shoot up under medical supervision. If an addict overdoses, trained staff will be available to revive them with an overdose antidote like naloxone, commonly known as Narcan. Staffers can also recommend treatment options to those interested. In an effort to stem fatal overdoses, safe injection sites are now under discussion in such cities as Philadelphia, Seattle, and Ithaca. There are no similar discussions in Boston, however, or anywhere else in Massachusetts, where Governor Baker, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and Mayor Domenic Sarno of Springfield have all expressed either doubt or outright opposition. (2/9)

The Philadelphia Inquirer: The Other Opioid Epidemic: Chronic Pain Patients In Need Of Care

We have two epidemics related to misuse of opioids in America. First: people with addiction and premature death from abuse of opioids. Second: also devastating but getting far less attention, people suffering for years from chronic unrelenting pain losing access to needed medicine. (Ira Cantor, 2/12)

Miami Herald: Statewide Needle-Exchange Program Will Save Lives Of Opioid-Addicted Floridians

The situation on Miami’s streets is grave, and similar conditions can be found throughout Florida. Fifteen Floridians die every day from an overdose. This epidemic requires bold responses. A bill is pending in the Legislature (S 800/H 579) that would permit all counties in Florida to offer syringe-exchange programs. In 2016, lawmakers passed the Infectious Disease Elimination Act, authorizing a five-year pilot syringe exchange program at the University of Miami. As faculty at the Miller School of Medicine, we are proud of the university’s leadership in what has been a highly effective, front-line intervention for people who use drugs. (Hansel Tookes and Felicia Knaul, 2/12)

The New York Times: Background Checks Are Not The Answer To Gun Violence

With each mass shooting, calls rise from gun control advocates for tighter rules on firearms. The go-to policy prescription involves background checks. But a measure passed by the House and being considered in the Senate to expand the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would not only fail to fix major flaws in the system but would also probably introduce new ones. (John R. Lott, 2/12)

Kansas City Star: Don’t Use Powerful Drugs As Restraints In Nursing Homes

A new report from Human Rights Watch shows that many nursing homes across the country are using these drugs to control the way residents behave, often without consent from the residents or their families. ...But there is hope that things will change in Kansas. A bill has been introduced in the Kansas Legislature that would require informed consent to give nursing home residents psychotropic medicines. (Charlene Wagner, 2/12)

Seattle Times: Adding Third-Sex Option On Birth Certificates Is A Start

On Jan. 27, the state of Washington gave adults a third sex option on birth certificates — an “X” to indicate neither male nor female — without medical documentation. As gender scholars, we applaud this. It’s a big deal for the state to say that we don’t simply have males and females. Just adding one more category is a good start but doesn’t solve the problem of how we use these categories.We all learned from parents, teachers and friends that sex is an either/or, a binary. Males have XY chromosomes, testes and a penis, whereas females have XX chromosomes, ovaries and a uterus. But this attempt at classifying bodies is a flawed oversimplification. (Barbara Risman and Georgiann Davis, 2/11)

This is part of the KHN Morning Briefing, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription