What The Senate Health Care Bill Could Mean For People With Mental Illness

The draft of the Senate health care reform bill, called the Better Care Reconciliation Act, released Thursday prompted new anxiety over what the eventual bill could mean for those living with mental illness.

The short answer: Less coverage for more money.

The bill is largely similar to the one passed by House Republicans in May. Nearly 23 million Americans were estimated to lose health coverage under the House bill, known as the American Health Care Act, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Lawmakers hope to have the CBO’s analysis for the Senate’s version by early next week.

The Senate’s bill most striking measure would slash Medicaid by almost a trillion dollars through cutting back on federal funding over a decade. That will affect all aspects of health coverage (for example, Medicaid covers 40 percent of all children’s basic health care). But it will also have a major impact on mental health: Medicaid is the single largest payer of mental health services in the country.

This could potentially leave millions of Americans without coverage that could help them get the care they need, like therapy, for mental health issues.

The Senate bill does protect those with pre-existing conditions, including mental illness, more than the House version. It does this by keeping a provision, known as the community rating, that prevents health insurers from charging those with pre-existing conditions more.

However, the Senate’s plan may still propose giving states the power to waive what’s known as essential health benefits. This would allow insurance companies in those areas to exclude certain benefits from their coverage, like mental health or substance use disorder services.

An analysis published Tuesday, before the draft was released, by the Center for American Progress said prices could go up for mental health and substance use disorder treatment because of these waivers.

Less comprehensive insurance plans could drive up costs of treatments for conditions like mental illness by essentially forcing people to buy added coverage for treatment for their behavioral health condition. Or, it may push them to select a more expensive plan with broader coverage in the first place. As CAP points out, expenses people could incur by the year 2026 are not small:

In states that waived requirements for substance use disorder and mental health benefits, coverage for drug dependence treatment would cost an extra $20,450, and coverage for depression would cost an extra $8,490.

The Senate’s draft legislation could be changed before there’s a vote on it. Still, the chamber’s GOP leaders are pushing to bring it to the floor as early as next week.

What all of this means

The proposed plan by the Senate Republicans threatens the coverage that now exists for those with mental illness, including children and veterans.

Mental health protection is something the country supports: A recent poll found that the majority of Americans ― regardless of political party ― think mental health care should be covered by insurance.

Mental health organizations have been expressing concern about how the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare could affect people living with mental illness. American Psychiatric Association officials noted that they were not consulted on the House version or the Senate’s draft legislation.

Dr. Saul Levin, the association’s CEO and medical director, on Thursday blasted the Senate proposal as “represents a significant move in the wrong direction, resulting in fewer people having access to insurance, fewer patient protections, and less coverage for essential behavioral health care.”

He urged the Senate “to reject this harmful legislation and start again on a health care bill that puts patients first.”

About one in five American adults will be affected by a mental illness annually. Not having access to proper treatment for those disorders can be catastrophic: Data shows untreated mental health issues is one of the most frequent causes of suicide ― major public health problem that’s been steadily on the rise over the last 15 years.

Research shows medical care, through therapy, medication or both, is effective in helping to curb mental health issues, but that access to such care is slowly dwindling. That’s thanks in part to issues with insurance. A study published in April by NYU’s Langone Medical Center found that 10.5 percent of people in 2014 experienced delays in getting treatment due to insufficient mental health coverage, a small rise from the last time data was gathered in 2006.

Mental health advocates have vowed to fight against any legislation that threatens those living with mental illness. This includes pushing for other laws that help those individuals and promoting programs that help them get treated, said Linda Rosenberg, president and CEO of the National Council for Behavioral Health.

Mental illness is an illness like any other,” Rosenberg previously told HuffPost. “People recover and they can live full and productive lives with effective treatment. We just have to be sure that treatment is still available in every community, just like we do for cancer and heart disease.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Sheryl Sandberg On What So Many People Get Wrong About Expressing Sympathy

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Reading about grief and actually experiencing it are two very different things, as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has learned over the last few years. After the sudden death of her beloved husband, Dave Goldberg, in 2015, Sandberg understandably struggled with her immense grief. Now, she’s sharing the truths and lessons she learned from her bereavement in her new book, Option B, and in a “SuperSoul Sunday” interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Speaking with Oprah, Sandberg admits that, before experiencing this personal tragedy, she would express her sympathy to others in a very common way: by saying very little, as to not remind an individual of their pain.

“If someone in my life were going through something hard, usually the first time I saw them, I would say, ‘I’m so sorry,’” she says. “And then I would never bring it up again because I didn’t want to remind them.”  

Though well-intentioned, Sandberg now says she realizes the flaw in this logic.

“You can’t remind me I lost Dave,” she says. “You also can’t remind someone that she has cancer, or that his father just went to jail, or that she lost a job. It’s not possible. Big hardships, these challenges ― they’re always with us.”

In the above clip, Sandberg also addresses the trouble with asking, “How are you?” to someone grieving a loss. The rest of her conversation with Oprah airs this weekend on “SuperSoul Sunday” at 11 a.m. ET on OWN.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This Guy Wore A Dress To Work To Expose Dress Code Double Standards

On an uncomfortably hot day in Buckinghamshire, England on Monday, a call center worker named Joey tried to wear a pair of “smart shorts” to his office, paired with a black button down shirt.

After being sent home from work for dressing inappropriately, Joey returned to the office in an outfit worn by many of his women colleagues: a summer dress. 

He documented his acts of sartorial resistance on Twitter:

According to the Daily Mail and Joey’s tweets, the company he works for changed their dress-code policy in response to his act of resistance. 

Even though Joey tweeted that he was allowed to go back home and change into his shorts, he opted to stick to the dress. 

“They said it was a bit too colourful and asked if I wanted to go home and change because they were letting us wear shorts because of my ‘protest’ ― but I said I was happy to stay,” he told the Daily Mail

Other people on Twitter were happy about his preferred look, too, tweeting their support: 

TL; DR ― stop policing peoples’ clothing (especially during a heatwave). 

HuffPost has reached out to Joey for comment and will update accordingly. 

H/T Mashable

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Batman Cop Nabs Alleged Shoplifter With 'Lego Batman Movie'

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

A police officer dressed like Batman saved the day at a Texas Walmart after a suspected shoplifter tried to make off with several DVDs, including ironically “The Lego Batman Movie.”

Fort Worth Police Officer Damon Cole was off-duty meeting with children for a safety program on Saturday when he said the alleged sticky-fingered fiend blew past security with unpaid merchandise.

“I was dressed as Batman but I was not going to let someone just walk out the store without paying,” Cole recounted on Facebook. “I identified myself as a Fort Worth Police officer and detained him and took him back inside the store.”

As it turns out, it wasn’t just the children who were impressed by Batman’s appearance. The shoplifting suspect was too.

“As I started to walk away to go back in the store to see all the kids as Batman the male asked me, can he please take a selfie with me,” Cole recalled, while noting that the man had apologized for the theft, which resulted in a citation.

“I told him sure, he tells me it’s not everyday that you get arrested by Batman. I swear I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted. This was the first time in my 17 years as a police officer that I have ever arrested anyone as Batman.”

This isn’t the first time Cole has made news.

The dynamic officer also runs a foundation called Heroes And Cops Against Childhood Cancer and is a member of Dallas organization Heroes, Cops And Kids. Through the programs, Cole and other officers dress up like superheroes to meet with children that are battling illnesses or who are in need of positive role models.

“I have a Batman cape in my back window. I have an Iron Man mask and a Spider-Man mask in my back windows,” he told the Houston Chronicle of his costumes.

“My goal is to go to all 50 states and Canada to see every child that wants to see me,” his foundation’s website states.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=590bf602e4b046ea176ae9b6,57110aa5e4b0018f9cb9d0c2,56fd2afae4b0a06d5804e429

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Jimmy Fallon Announces New Children's Book

Jimmy Fallon entered the children’s book world in 2015 with the release of his New York Times bestseller Your Baby’s First Word With Be DADA. Now he’s back with a follow-up that’s all about moms.

On Tuesday, Fallon announced his new picture book, Everything Is MAMA. The book is scheduled for an October 10 release from publisher Feiwel & Friends. 

Introducing the book on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” the host said Everything Is MAMA was a natural sequel to Your Baby’s First Word With Be DADA

“Even though I basically forced my second child to say ‘dada’ as her first word, every other object that mattered in her life was ‘mama,’” Fallon explained.

“The idea of this one is that moms are trying to educate and teach their babies other words, but the babies are obsessed with the word ‘mama,’” he added.

Fallon and his wife Nancy Juvonen have two daughters, 3-year-old Winnie Rose and 2-year-old Frances Cole. 

He told People he believes the book is great for babies and toddlers.

“If you have a 3-year-old, they’ll love the pictures,” Fallon said. “And if you have a 1-year-old, they’ll love how it tastes.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Surprisingly, 1 In 4 Couples Does This In The Bedroom

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Humans have slept in social groups from the beginning of our ancestral past, particularly for warmth and safety from predators. Today, however, 1 in 4 couples sleeps alone, for all kinds of reasons, from noisy snoring, to different sleeping climates, to blanket hogging.

When we sleep alone today, however, we aren’t worried about physical predators, we’re concerned with social ones. We associate sleeping together with being happy together, though snagging healthy sleep is an important factor in building a healthy relationship.

Check out the video above, created in partnership with Sleep Number, to learn more about the correlation between healthy sleep and healthy relationships.

 

Just like diet and exercise, sleep is unique to each person and important for optimal health. Sleep Number® beds adjust on each side to your ideal level of firmness, comfort and support — your Sleep Number® setting. And when you add SleepIQ® technology you’ll know what to adjust for your best possible sleep.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Spotify Ad Calling Justin Bieber A 'Latin King' Infuriates Latinxs

Spotify has officially pulled an ad naming Justin Bieber a “Latin King,” after uproar from Latinos around the web.

The advertisement seemed to connect Bieber with the mainstream success of Luis Fonsi’s “Despacito” (featuring Daddy Yankee) in the United States. The Canadian star remixed the already global hit in April and that version became the first No. 1 Spanish-language single in the country since the “Macarena” in 1996.

The ad garnered attention after one Twitter user posted a screenshot and a short message directed at Spotify on June 14. The message in the tweet included a few words asking the streaming company to take down the ad on behalf of the Latinx community.  

Latinos have pointed out that the Spotify ad whitewashed the work of the Latino artists who were truly behind the mega hit. Twitter users responded to the ad by threatening to stop using Spotify and calling it “disgusting.” 

Some even pointed to Bieber’s butchering of the “Despacito” lyrics during a live performance in May. The incident angered many Latino fans, who accused the singer of “mocking the Spanish language.  

Jeronimo Saldaña, from the Latinx political organization Mijente, even started a petition against the ad. 

The company responded to the furor in a statement Thursday. 

“We made a creative decision to feature Justin Bieber in our ad because we wanted to celebrate ‘Despacito’ as a key cultural moment when music genres crossover,” a Spotify spokesperson told HuffPost via e-mail. “We realized that this could be seen as culturally insensitive so we have pulled those ads.”

When HuffPost asked if Spotify planned to issue an apology to the community, the company responded saying there were no current plans to issue anything further.

H/T We are mitú

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Senate Republicans Haven't Read Their Health Care Bill, But A Lot Already Support It

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON ― Senate Republicans have finally released their health care bill, and although most GOP lawmakers ducked questions on Thursday because they had not yet read the legislation, the reflexive reaction from many Republicans was that leadership had hit the mark.

When Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) was asked about the bill, he told reporters that the GOP measure was “much better than Obamacare.” Asked why that was the case, he admitted he didn’t actually know. “I’ve got to read it first,” Perdue said.

GOP senators met in private Thursday morning to discuss the legislation for roughly 90 minutes. More than 100 reporters were on hand to mob the lawmakers as they came out of that briefing. But one trend was particularly interesting: When certain senators emerged ― those who every journalist was confident would support the legislation no matter what ― most reporters simply let them float through the crowded halls without a question.

Scrums only developed around senators who could feasibly vote against the bill, not lawmakers like Perdue or his Georgia colleague Johnny Isakson who people expect to be a “yes.”

The Republicans who have expressed at least some reservations were mobbed. Many of those senators still reacted to the bill with knee-jerk support, even though they haven’t read it.

Although he didn’t formally endorse the legislation, it’s clear how Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) would vote. Low-income people would have “more access” to health care because of the bill, he claimed. Asked how those sorts of people would have more access if the measure would result in Medicaid cuts, Scott offered a complete mischaracterization of the bill.

“Medicaid’s not actually being cut from our perspective,” he said. “You look where the ― we’re taking the expansion population, it comes down over a long time it appears.”

The Senate legislation would dismantle the so-called Medicaid expansion, which opened up who was eligible for Medicaid to 133 percent of the poverty rate (about $16,000 a year for a single adult). But it guts the expansion over seven years, instead of the shorter timeline in the House bill.

Medicaid’s not actually being cut from our perspective.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

More moderate senators, particularly those from states that expanded Medicaid, had initially balked at the idea of taking away Medicaid from people who gained it under Obamacare. The expansion has been incredibly popular in states that accepted the federal money and has helped roughly 14 million people gain insurance. But those moderates who had once sounded so resolute about preserving the expansion seemed to have been won over by the longer runway for the cuts.

“The fact that it phases out beginning in 2020, I think, is better,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said Thursday. “I’ve always said, by 2020, states would not be able to afford the 10 percent they are obligated to pay under current law. And so I think that is kind of a nod to the reality that states can’t afford the current law.”

Up until two weeks ago, Cassidy had looked poised to vote against the GOP bill due to concerns that it wouldn’t protect people with pre-existing conditions and because Republican insisted that their legislation end the expansion. But once Majority Leader Mitch McConnell let him know that the Senate bill wouldn’t let insurers charge people with pre-existing conditions more, and once Cassidy realized Medicaid cuts were inevitable in a GOP bill, he came on board ― with the condition of a longer expansion phaseout, although he has been careful to note all along that he won’t commit his support until he and his staff have reviewed the legislative text.

The biggest question marks in McConnell’s gambit to get 50 Republican senators are those who have not said where they stand. 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) released a statement that raised “a number of concerns,” particularly over the effect on insurance premiums and the changes to Medicaid. But she said she was reserving judgment until the Congressional Budget Office released a score of the bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who sped out of the meeting Thursday morning, is unlikely to comment before she better understands how the legislation affects Alaska, which would greatly suffer as a result of changes to how individual insurance plans would be subsidized. Both senators have also expressed frustration that the legislation may defund Planned Parenthood, which, as written Thursday, the legislation would.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), perhaps the most vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2018, has also said he had “serious concerns about the bill’s impact on the Nevadans who depend on Medicaid.” He may end up opposing the bill, particularly if it’s clear McConnell doesn’t have the votes for passage.

And on the conservative side, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have said they’re not ready to vote “yes” ― meaning McConnell currently doesn’t have the votes he needs to pass the bill. 

Many of their concerns all along ― that the bill would not end the Medicaid expansion fast enough, that it would not end certain Obamacare regulations (like the protections for people with pre-existing conditions), that it would raise premiums on healthier people ― came to fruition in the Senate bill released.

“It needs to look more like a repeal and less like Obamacare,” Paul told reporters Thursday afternoon.

Conservatives senators could sink the bill if they stick together. So could the more moderate ones. But even if McConnell never gets the bill through, one thing should be clear: There are dozens of Republican senators who would support this legislation automatically, as long as GOP leadership and the president told them to.

Jeffrey Young contributed to this report.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Republicans Might Actually Defund Planned Parenthood This Time

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

After more than a half-decade of unsuccessful attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, the GOP appears on the verge of actually doing it. 

The health care bill released by Senate Republicans on Thursday would block Medicaid patients from accessing family planning and preventative health care at Planned Parenthood clinics for one year. That means 60 percent of Planned Parenthood’s 2.5 million patients will no longer be able to go there for affordable birth control, pap smears, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, or breast exams. And it means that the family planning provider would lose nearly a half-billion dollars in federal reimbursements ― a financial hit that would force many of its clinics to close, especially in poor and rural areas. 

Republicans have been trying to defund Planned Parenthood since 2011, when then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) threatened to shut down the federal government over the issue, because Planned Parenthood clinics offer abortion services. The House has voted nearly a dozen times to strip funding from Planned Parenthood, but the more moderate Senate never managed to pass the bill, in part because doing so would be unpopular with a majority of the American public

Now, because Republicans are using the reconciliation process to push the health care legislation through the Senate, it only needs 50 votes to pass. So, even if the two moderate Republicans who have vocally opposed defunding Planned Parenthood ― Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) ― vote against the bill, the Senate could still pass it with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence. 

“Everything is going to be trying to get to 50,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of Senate leadership, told Politico. “The people who are opposed to having that provision in the bill, I’m sure there will be discussions with them to figure out what it will take to get the vote.”

Four other senators are reluctant to support the bill for other reasons, saying it isn’t conservative enough: Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). But they said they were open to negotiation.  

President Donald Trump, despite wavering on the Planned Parenthood issue during his campaign, has since made it clear with his own budget proposal that he is eager to cut the family planning provider out of the federal government.

For Republicans, the only obstacle now, aside from getting 50 votes, is the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” which states that a reconciliation bill can only include provisions directly related to the budget and deficit reduction. Defunding Planned Parenthood clearly runs afoul of the rule, but Republicans could find a workaround that allows them to keep the provision in.  

If enacted, the health care law would have an immediate impact. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March that defunding the provider would cause 15 percent of low-income and rural women to lose access to any kind of family planning services, because community health centers are not prepared to fill the void.

State efforts to block money to Planned Parenthood have been disastrous for women. When Texas cut Planned Parenthood out of its women’s health program in 2011, 30,000 women lost access to publicly funded family planning services, and the maternal mortality rate in the state doubled. After Indiana slashed Planned Parenthood funding and forced five clinics to close, the state was unable to deal with an exploding HIV outbreak

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, sounded the alarm after seeing the Senate bill on Thursday.

“If this is the Senate’s idea of a bill with heart, then the women of America should have fear struck in theirs,” Richards said. “Slashing Medicaid and blocking millions of women from getting preventive care at Planned Parenthood is beyond heartless. One in five women in this country rely on Planned Parenthood for care. They will not stay silent as politicians vote to take away their care and their rights.”   

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Yellowstone Grizzly To Be Removed From Endangered Species List

WASHINGTON — More than four decades after being listed as endangered, grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park have recovered to the point that they no longer require protection under the Endangered Species Act, authorities said Thursday.

The current Yellowstone grizzly population is estimated at 700 individuals, up from as few as 136 bears in 1975, according to the Interior Department. 

In a statement accompanying the agency’s announcement, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the delisting is “a long time coming and very good news for many communities and advocates in the Yellowstone region.”

“This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of the state, tribal, federal and private partners,” he said. “As a Montanan, I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together.”

This is a developing story and will be updated. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.