14

Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2022 If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562. GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced writers Chris Van Buskirk and Keith Regan who introduce each article in their own clever and inimitable way. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription go to: www.massterlist. com/subscribe THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of February 7-11. SOLDIERS’ HOMES OVERSIGHT BILL (H 4441) House 156-1, approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would make major changes to the oversight and governance structure of the state’s veterans’ homes in Holyoke and Chelsea. The proposal follows the deaths of 77 veteran residents in 2020 as a result of a COVID-19 outbreak at the Holyoke facility. Key provisions include requiring superintendents of the two soldiers’ homes to be licensed as nursing home administrators and either be a veteran or someone with experience managing veterans in a nursing home or long term-care facility; establishing an ombudsperson for each facility to advocate on behalf of the veterans and staff ; requiring the Office of Veterans’ Homes and Housing to submit an annual report including findings on the quality of care provided at the homes at each facility; establishing a 17-member statewide Veterans’ Homes Council to manage and control the homes and confi rm and remove superintendents; and establishing the Offi ce of the Veteran Advocate, an independent offi ce that will be led by a person appointed by the governor, attorney general and auditor. “I believe this comprehensive bill takes the necessary steps to protect deserving Massachusetts veterans,” said Rep. Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham), House chair of the Veterans and Federal Aff airs Committee. “It’s not about partisan politics, and it’s certainly not about control. It is first about ensuring that a tragedy like this never happens again and providing our veterans the best possible care we can. I believe this legislation takes the necessary steps forward toward achieving that worthwhile goal.” “Today, with the best interests of our veterans and their families in mind, the House took action to ensure greater accountability and oversight for veterans’ homes in Massachusetts,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “This legislation takes signifi cant steps to change how our veterans’ homes are governed and managed and establishes protocols that are designed to identify and correct any examples of mismanagement or inadequate care as quickly as possible.” “I don’t think this bill addresses the core concerns of the people who testifi ed before the investigatory committee,” said Rep. Chris Markey (D-Dartmouth) who cast the only “No” vote. “I [favor] a centralized chain of command and a single person who is responsible for the hiring and fi ring of the superintendent.” Rep. Linda Dean Campbell (DMethuen) voted “Present” on the bill. “Like the Inspector General of the commonwealth, I have serious concerns about the new bill,” said Campbell who along with Sen. Mike Rush (D-Boston) last year had fi led a diff erent bill that she says was more comprehensive. “The Inspector General has stated in a letter his ‘offi ce fi nds that the current and proposed structure for the governance and oversight of the homes are fl awed,’” said Campbell. Campbell said that her bill included provisions that are not in the current measure including ones that would have elevated the secretary of veterans’ services to a full Cabinet-level position and given the governor authority to appoint or remove a facility’s superintendent and deputy superintendent based on consultation with other offi cials. Campbell continued, “In the original bill fi led, we identifi ed qualifications for service on a statewide council with expertise in fi nancial management, health care administration, clinical services, treatment of PTSD and labor relations, among others. Our original bill intends for statewide representation on this council, as these homes are for all veterans in the commonwealth, not just veterans located geographically near to the homes. Accordingly, the original bill also calls for participation by a female veteran, the fastest growing population of any veterans’ group and a member of the LGBTQ veterans’ community, among other veterans’ groups that served in various confl icts. The bill passed by the House … has none of these provisions and no qualifi cations to serve on this council.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against the bill.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes DRUG COSTS (S 2651) Senate 39-1, approved and sent to the House a bill aimed at addressing the high and rapidly increasing costs of prescription drugs in the Bay State. A key provision provides immediate price relief for insulin used by one in ten people living with diabetes who must take it daily or risk major health problems. The measure limits out-of-pocket spending for insulin by eliminating deductibles and coinsurance and capping co-pays at $25 per month. Rising insulin prices have resulted in some people paying out-of-pocket costs of $1,000 or more per year, leading to some patients decreasing their insulin dose or not taking it at all. Other provisions include requiring pharmaceutical companies to notify the state in advance of new drugs coming to market, and of signifi cant price increases for existing drugs; providing patients with greater access to mailorder prescriptions; and several transparency and accountability mandates. “This legislation moves the commonwealth one step closer to a system that delivers aff ordable, high quality and accessible care for our residents,” said Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington), Senate chair of the Committee on Health Care Financing. “[The bill] ensures that more consumers can access prescription drugs at a fair price, by capping out-of-pocket insulin costs, providing relief for certain highcost drugs, improving patient access to medications and pharmacies of their choice and enhancing transparency and oversight within the pharmaceutical industry.” “Our Helpline takes calls from people across the state who can’t afford their medications,” said Amy Rosenthal, executive director at Health Care For All. “Individuals and families in Massachusetts have been struggling for far too long to access and afford the prescriptions they need, and this legislation provides critical financial relief at a pivotal time,.By passing this bill today, senators took an important step to rein in excessive drug costs, bringing oversight of pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefi t managers in line with other health care industries in the state.” Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), the only senator to vote against the measure, acknowledged that there are many laudable parts of the bill but criticized parts to which he objected and resulted in his vote against it. “[The bill] unfairly penalizes individuals who receive mail-order prescriptions by raising the cost of their drugs,” said Fattman. “Many people today use mail order prescriptions from pharmacies because of the convenience and the fact that there are certain discounts off ered for out-of-pocket costs. The number of people that use this program has increased signifi cantly since the start of the pandemic, as it was seen as a safer and more convenient alternative for many people who wanted to avoid going to the store and being in public. The passage of this bill will force all current mail-order pharmacy patients, many of whom are older or ill, to pay higher out-of-pocket cost because they will not be allowed to take advantage of these discounts. [That provision] is a poison pill, and in good conscience, I can’t vote to increase costs for drugs for those who want them delivered via mail.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against the bill.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes DRUG COUPONS (S 1651) Senate 7-31, rejected an amendment extending until 2028 the current law, due to expire in 2023, that allows consumers to use coupons to get discounts and rebates when purchasing prescription drugs. In 2012, Massachusetts was the last state to lift a ban on the use of prescription coupons. “It’s important that we continue to have this particular tool particularly because it helps those who have high out of pocket costs, which a recent state study concluded are twice the national average and the third-highest in the nation,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester). “This amendment helps consumers control their out-of-pocket costs and provides further information for policymakers so we can achieve what is clearly our common objective—reducing the systemic cost of prescription drugs and improving the lives of those who need prescription medicines.” Amendment opponents said that extending the authorization for prescription drug coupons is typically done through a provision in the annual state budget. They noted they prefer doing it that way because the budget, with the coupon provision, will eventually get to the governor’s desk and be signed into law. They noted that including it as part of a comprehensive drug bill with an uncertain future is not a good idea. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment extending the use of coupons. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Lydia Edwards No POSSIBLE LICENSING OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE SALES REPS (S 1651) Senate 38-0, approved an amendment that would require the Department of Public Health, in consultation with the attorney general, district attorneys, health care practitioners and patient advocates, to review the existing “gift ban law” which is the marketing code of conduct that bans and limits gifts by pharmaceutical and medical device representatives to physicians. The original ban from 2008 included a ban on the payment and provision of meals to doctors at restaurants and other venues outside of the health care setting. This provision was repealed in 2012 and current law now allows for those meals. The department’s analysis would include a comparison of the marketing code of conduct rules with similar rules established in other states; a review of any enforcement actions taken for violations of the law; a review of opioid marketing practices and direct impact upon increased substance abuse disorders and related deaths; an assessment of the need and recommendations for implementation, for further requirements to ensure marketing activities by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers do not infl uence prescribing patterns in a manner that adversely aff ects patient care; and requiring the licensing of all pharmaceutical and medical device representatives. “We license hairstylists to protect the safety and wellbeing of consumers so there really isn’t a legitimate argument against the licensing of pharmaceutical and medical device sales reps marBEACON | SEE Page 15

15 Publizr Home