News & Media
Coronavirus April 30 Update: Second Round of Rebate Checks Gaining Ground, Lawmakers Seek COVID-19 Mental Health Funds and Lawmakers Seek Mental Health Funding
Second round of rebate checks gaining ground
Momentum appears to be building for another round of direct payments to households as part of the next relief package.
"That's something that we're studying very carefully, and I know that people in the House are as well," White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Tuesday.
Top Democrats have made clear their interest in more direct financial payments to families for weeks. Legislation that House Democrats introduced last month (HR 6379) proposed checks and direct deposits of up to $1,500 per person, which was higher than the amount ultimately signed into law.
Pelosi told House Democrats on a conference call earlier this month that more cash payments are a priority for a new aid package, which she said could top $1 trillion, though that was before the latest $483 billion measure became law last week (PL 116-139).
Trump said this month that he favors another round of direct payments, though he didn't specify a figure, and he has also pushed for a payroll tax cut. "We could very well do a second round of direct. I would do a direct," he said during a White House briefing on April 6. Jennifer Shutt has all the details here.
Bipartisan group of lawmakers seeks COVID-19 mental health funds
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is calling, in a letter provided first to CQ Roll Call, for an emergency infusion of mental health and addiction funding to be added to the next COVID-19 economic stimulus package.
The 76 lawmakers from both chambers wrote to House and Senate leaders Wednesday requesting at least $35.8 billion for behavioral health in the next legislative package.
Lawmakers are working on an agreement on the fifth piece of major legislation to address the health and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The writers said this money would be used for evidence-based practices and that a large portion should be set aside for behavioral health organizations that accept Medicaid and perform services for other underserved populations.
The letter is spearheaded by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Mass. Other signers include Sens. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, as well as Reps. John Katko, R-N.Y., Doris Matsui, D- Calif., and Paul Tonko, D-N.Y.
“The immediate and long-term effects of this cannot be overstated as millions of Americans rely on BHOs to address their mental health and substance use disorder treatment needs,” the lawmakers wrote. “BHOs are crucial to the provision of behavioral health care to Americans across the country who rely on them for a variety of services, but are being burdened by the pandemic. “
According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, behavioral health organizations have collectively predicted a $40 billion loss due to increased staff overtime and additional costs for protective equipment and telehealth implementation.
The economic aspects of the pandemic and an increased need for behavioral health services put many of these organizations in jeopardy of closing permanently.
“Furthermore, social distancing measures have created barriers to accessing treatment, which has only been exacerbated by a scarcity of available providers as they either fall ill or become overloaded with patients,” the letter reads.
Read more on RollCall.com.
Trump order on meatpackers raises questions about its effect
An executive order designed to keep meatpacking and poultry plants up and running during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to produce legal fights over who sets public health standards to protect workers and communities.
Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown University’s global health law center, said President Donald Trump’s order on Tuesday could launch “a clash between the powers of the president and the powers of the states.”
Gostin said the executive order is unclear about the role that state and local governments will play in monitoring the facilities, which have become so-called hot spots as hundreds of workers test positive for the virus that causes COVID-19.
Ann S. Rosenthal, a Labor Department attorney for 40 years and its top occupational attorney at her departure, said the order was confusing but probably would give beef, pork and poultry companies a tool to fight state and local COVID-19 policies that could interfere with operations.
“It may intimidate some states who may otherwise be willing to close them,” said Rosenthal, who retired in 2018. “If a state health department wants to order a plant to close on similar grounds, I think this could complicate that as a practical matter because the plant could start raising all kinds of objections.”
The executive order invokes the Defense Production Act, declares the processing and packing plants part of the nation’s critical infrastructure and says the plants are to follow nonbinding guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19 among workers issued April 26 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Gostin said the courts could deliver a split decision in any legal action to clarify state and local governments’ roles under Trump’s directive. For example, he said, courts could rule that state and local governments can enforce their health regulations but cannot force a facility covered by the executive order to shut down.
Read the full story on RollCall.com.