Highlights

• COVID Isolation Site Hours
• No ID Needed for Vaccine
• SNAP Emergency Allotments
• SNAP for Gig Workers
• Free School Lunch for All
• P-EBT Updates
• New Parents Who Took FMLA Can Use PFML
• ICE Blocked from Courthouses
• TPS for Venezuelans
• TPS Work Authorization Papers Valid Though Expired
• Emergency Broadband Benefit Start Date
• Dementia Care Collaborative Website
• COBRA Special Enrollment Period
• MassHealth Cost Sharing Changes

Sections

• Program Highlights
• Health Care Coverage
• Policy & Social Issues

Questions, comments about the newsletter? Contact Ellen Forman, 617-726-5807.

Beginning July 1, 2021, two MassHealth PT-1 transportation brokers will cover the entire state. This change is in response to feedback Human Service Transportation (HST) received from the public. Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (MART) will cover the Northeastern and Western portions of the state, while Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (GATRA) will cover the Southeastern part of the state. Here are the changes:  

Current and future broker assignments by city/town: Find your HST broker. 

Brokers will continue to work with the same transportation companies. Those who currently receive rides will continue to get rides and existing PT-1 requests will be honored by the new broker. Clients will receive a change of broker notice via mail with the new broker contact information.  Additionally, clients do not have to wait until July 1st to schedule rides with their new broker, MART and GATRA will start accepting reservations for July trips starting June 17th.

This change also comes with additional improvements at MART and GATRA.

Broker-Level Changes Beginning July 1st

• MART and GATRA are set to launch free, consumer smart phone apps.
• Both brokers will hire additional call center staff over the next few months to be available for the growing number of clients.
• Brokers will monitor providers to prevent overbooking and consumer portals will be enhanced to allow for easier booking.  
• Clients will be provided additional ways to file complaints, including an option to file through the app. Brokers will initiate a notification system for complaint resolution.

MART and GATRA are currently working on other improvements set to launch after July 1st including GPS tracking on all vehicles, ride-hail pilots for on-demand service, and additional app functionalities. Consumers and providers can submit a complaint, ask questions, or provide feedback by calling the appropriate broker directly:

• MART 866-834-9991.
• GATRA 800-431-171

State-Level Transportation Changes

Human Service Transportation (HST) is implementing state level improvements to transportation including performative incentives for transportation companies tied to metrics regarding operations, complaint resolution, consumer satisfaction, and timeliness of services, as well as fines for consumer safety violations and complaint resolution violations. Additionally, HST is making improvements to compliance and quality assurance. These improvements include a new HST Compliance and Quality Assurance Unit to conduct inspections, hold brokers and transportation providers accountable, and work with brokers to review complaints. This will provide consumers with a dedicated resource for escalation and resolution of issues.

Provide state-level feedback or file a complaint about a specific trip or vendor by emailing HST  hstcomplaintincident@mass.gov or by calling HST at 617-847-3427.

For more information regarding all changes, contact HST at hstinfo@mass.gov or call 617-847-3427.

Sources and for More Information

• Consumer Information Sessions for the HST Office’s Brokerage System webpage: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/consumer-information-sessions-for-the-hst-offices-brokerage-system#what-will-the-meetings-discuss?-
• HST & MART consumer information session slides: https://www.mass.gov/doc/hst-mart-consumer-information-session-slides-april-2021/download
• HST & GATRA consumer information session slides: https://www.mass.gov/doc/hst-gatra-consumer-information-session-slides-april-2021/download

- Thanks to Bianca Viazzoli for this article.

COVID-19 isolation and recovery sites, where people with COVID-19 who meet certain financial guidelines and who do not require daily medical assistance can stay while they recover, have new operating hours for intake and transportation. The intake phone line now operates Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., and on Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Transportation is available Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on the weekends from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

- From New Definition for LTCFs, Vaccine Eligibility, and more ..., COVID-19 Update -- Patricia Noga, R.N. MA Health & Hospitals Association, April 16, 2021.

Attorney General Maura Healey this month sent out a notice reminding the public and those providing vaccines that anyone seeking a vaccine does not have to show ID, or provide a Social Security number, or health insurance card. Providers can ask for the information for data collection purposes, but cannot require the ID. And vaccines are free.

See the notice: AG Healey Reminds Public that ID Cards, Social Security Numbers, and Health Insurance are Not Required to Get Vaccinated

- From New Definition for LTCFs, Vaccine Eligibility, and more ..., COVID-19 Update -- Patricia Noga, R.N.. MHA, April 16, 2021.

An individual’s SNAP benefit is calculated by subtracting the amount that the individual is expected to contribute to food from the maximum SNAP benefit. Typically, the lower the income, the lower the expected contribution and the higher the benefit, up to the benefit maximum. Since relatively early in the pandemic, everyone receiving SNAP has been getting the maximum benefit for their household size (regardless of “expected contribution”).  They receive a payment for the difference between their usual benefit and the maximum household size - their “Emergency Allotment”. Those at the lowest incomes did not see an increase in benefits/emergency allotment, because they already received the maximum benefit.

USDA announced on April 1st that because they did not get any extra allotments since last March, these lowest income SNAP households will receive $95/month in extra SNAP benefits. For example, a single individual currently receiving “regular SNAP” of $234/month will get another $95 in an emergency allotment – for a total of $329/month.

Under this policy, all SNAP households will receive a monthly emergency allotment of at least at least $95. Scenarios:

1. Households currently receiving $95 or more of emergency allotment will continue to receive that same amount—no change for these households
2. Households receiving the maximum base SNAP benefit for their household size at the will receive $95 per month emergency allotment.
3. Households with a calculated emergency allotment amount less than $95 will receive EA totaling $95 per month.

Emergency allotments will continue for the duration of the national public health emergency declaration as long as the state-issued emergency or disaster declaration remains in place and the state meets certain conditions.

Here’s the FNS Policy Memo issued April 1st. USDA projects that MA SNAP households will receive a total of $23.6M in SNAP each month for the next 6 months, and very possibly longer!  DTA has not yet issued guidance - but we hope to hear more soon about when these new emergency allotments will be received.  

- Adapted from Training updates, SNAP Emergency Allotments, P-EBT & CEP Updates and Call to Action, Pat Baker,  MLRI, April 7, 2021.

Mass Law Reform Institute has created a new flyer to help gig workers, including Rideshare and delivery drivers understand that they may be eligible for SNAP, specific tips for these independent contractors to apply and claiming work expenses to reduce income and increase likelihood of eligibility.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) can help you and your family buy food at supermarkets, grocery stores, and farmers markets. If you are a rideshare or delivery driver - or another type of “gig” worker - and you need food benefits, here’s what you need to know.

 Most delivery and rideshare drivers are “independent contractors,” not employees. This includes drivers with: Uber, Lyft, UberEats, GrubHub, DoorDash, InstaCart, and many other app-based platforms. As an independent contractor, you get a tax form called a 1099 (such as a 1099-K, 1099- MISC, or 1099-NEC) instead of a W2.

Independent contractors are considered self-employed for public benefits like SNAP. The DTAConnect.com SNAP application asks for your “type” of income. For rideshare/delivery work, check off “self-employment.” Then list your estimated pre-tax net income in the field that asks for your "gross income.”

Pre-tax net income is what you make after taking out the costs of doing your work (business expenses), but before your income taxes and other pay deductions. You will need to prove your income and business expenses with DTA – it is ok to list an estimate on the application if you need time to collect proofs! See below for more information.
.
What expenses can I claim as a driver? You can claim all work-related expenses that you are not reimbursed for. This includes:

• Car mileage or vehicle costs
• Tolls and parking (you can claim this in addition to mileage).
• Platform/App related fees and commissions.
• The cost of your cell phone and phone plan – but just the portion used for business (ex. a percent of your total bill). You can get an itemized phone bill from your provider to help you figure out what portion of your phone expenses went towards your job.
• Supplies such as food and drinks for passengers, phone chargers and mounts, and mileage tracking software.

More information and the new MLRI patient handout: SNAP for Gid, Rideshare and Delivery Workers, April 2021.

The United States Department of Agriculture recently announced  it would extend universal free lunch through the 2021-2022 school year, in an effort to reach more of the estimated 12 million youths experiencing food insecurity.

In March, the USDA said these waivers, which made school meals more flexible to administer, would be extended only to Sept. 30, leaving schools and families uncertain about what next school year might look like.

Child nutrition program waivers, which aimed to cut through red tape to allow kids to eat free even outside normal meal times, were implemented at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, at a time when millions of families faced financial strain, hunger and hardship. The waivers allowed schools and community organizations to adapt programs to better meet the needs of children and families.

The waivers allowed all children to eat free and outside of the traditional group settings and mealtimes. They also allowed parents to do curbside pickup of multiple days of food at once for students learning from home, even without the children’s presence, and in many cases for meals to be dropped off at a student’s home if they continue to learn virtually part- or full-time.

According to Lisa Davis, a senior vice president at Share Our Strength, a charity combating hunger, the announcement is also important for schools and community organizations, giving them time to plan and budget for next year.

She said that the waivers reimburse schools for meals at the summer rate, which is higher than the rate during the regular school year. This increase has helped schools pay for higher costs for boxes and bags for to-go options, for increased transportation and labor costs, and for bringing in temporary support and providing PPE. The reimbursement rates for the next school year’s national school lunch program haven’t been announced yet.

Diane Pratt-Heavner, director of media relations for the School Nutrition Association, the trade group for school food-service manufacturers and professionals, said the waiver extensions are a “lifesaver” from a number of perspectives.

“Schools aren’t going to have to scramble to collect applications from families that are eligible,” she said. “At the start of every school year, this is a huge task for administrators to collect and process the applications, a task made bigger because during the pandemic there are more families eligible who may never have applied before.”

She said the waivers allow for fewer “touch points” and more social distancing, including not requiring eligible kids to punch in a pin on a keypad with their fingers. And because a lot of schools have been serving students in the classrooms, the waiver extension means teachers won’t suddenly be required to keep track of which of their students is eligible.

- See the full Washington Post article.

P-EBT for homeless students

School homeless liaisons can now help homeless students get a P-EBT card! The P-EBT card can be sent to the school directly and the Liaison can then contact the student to get them the card, or the student can update their mailing address to a new address (including a shelter). Learn more at MAp-EBT.org.

MLRI flier on food resources as kids return to school in-person

MLRI has created a flier with talking points families should know about food resources when kids return to in-person school. While some students will have an interruption in P-EBT while they are learning in person before P-EBT kicks in for the summer, all kids are getting free school meals due to the pandemic - and many families are eligible for additional food benefits like SNAP! Check out the flier for more info, and please share broadly.

Back to School and Pandemic EBT  food resources- MLRI

- From SNAP Awareness Week, P-EBT updates, Child care lawsuit, Victoria Negus, MLRI, April 15, 2021.

MLRI periodically hears from families that received P-EBT cards that they do not need or want Pandemic EBT (P-EBT) benefits. This may be the case school districts with universal free school meals through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), like Boston.  Unfortunately, P-EBT cards cannot be transferred to other families, but families can use the P-EBT benefits to purchase food and donate it to local organizations or use the benefits to purchase food and donate equivalent funds. 

See and share the flyer: P-EBT- MLRI Neighbors Flier

And at some point, P-EBT benefits will get expunged (removed) from the card. 

Note: if you have clients who never got a P-EBT card, lost or discarded the card, or have struggled with how to use it, please check out the MAp-EBT.org website as to how to PIN the card or get a new card issued.  We are especially worried about homeless students who never got their cards. 

- From Training updates, SNAP Emergency Allotments, P-EBT & CEP Updates and Call to Action, Pat Baker, MLRI, April 7, 2021.

Under the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave law, starting Jan. 1, new parents became eligible for three months of paid leave any time within the first year of their child's life. Going forward, the state leave — called "bonding leave" — will typically run at the same time as the three-month leave guaranteed to new parents by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

But for those who became parents in 2020 and took FMLA leave then, the new state law lets them take leave again, as long as they take it before their child turns one. And though the three-month leave guaranteed by FMLA is unpaid, the state will pay new parents a portion of their income.

The state has not actively advertised the launch of the online application or done significant outreach explaining to new parents that they may be eligible for more leave. In several social media groups, Massachusetts parents have lamented the lack of publicity around the law's rollout and tried to help one another understand its intricacies. Parents in these groups say in many cases, pediatricians and OBGYNs have also not been aware of the new benefits. The Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave declined an interview request to explain why it hasn't done more to spread the word.

Rep. Ken Gordon (D - 21st Middlesex), who sponsored the legislation said the parents eligible for the double maternity leave is not the population he was focused on when pushing to make sure this law became a reality.

“The population that I really had in mind were those that couldn't afford to take the unpaid leave,” he said.

He wanted to ensure those who had kids in 2020 but hadn’t been able to afford to take the federal unpaid leave could now have leave time to bond with their children.

At a virtual town hall last month, the state’s Department of Family and Medical Leave confirmed the one-off double maternity leave opportunity. Department representatives pointed out that in the future, under the new law, birth mothers are eligible for two separate leaves anyways.

“If you're the birth parent, you can apply for both medical and bonding leave. In those situations, we ask that you apply for a medical leave first," Greg Norfleet, the deputy director of operations at the Department of Family and Medical Leave, said at the virtual town hall.

If a doctor certifies that a pregnant woman has a “serious medical condition,” she can take up to 14 weeks of medical leave while pregnant or after delivery. In addition, any time in the first year of their child’s life, she can take 12 weeks of bonding leave. If a woman takes both medical and bonding leave, she could have up to 26 weeks — or half a year — of paid leave.

If the law had been in effect in 2020, Young likely would have qualified to take paid medical leave to recover from her emergency c-section before taking paid bonding leave.

- See the full GBH story.

In another reversal of Trump administration immigration enforcement policy, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday that federal agents would no longer be permitted to arrest people in or near courthouses for most immigration violations.

In a statement, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said such arrests interfered with the administration of justice and public safety. "The expansion of civil immigration arrests at courthouses during the prior administration had a chilling effect on individuals' willingness to come to court or work cooperatively with law enforcement," Mayorkas said.

The previous policy, formalized in 2018, authorized ICE to enter federal, state and local courthouses to arrest people who were there for reasons unrelated to their immigration status. Witnesses in trials, people seeking court protection from abusive partners and others pursuing mundane civil complaints were among persons seized by federal agents.

The directive applies to agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which both fall within DHS. According to DHS, arrests in or near courthouses will only be permitted if "(1) it involves a national security matter, (2) there is an imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm to any person, (3) it involves hot pursuit of an individual who poses a threat to public safety, or (4) there is an imminent risk of destruction of evidence material to a criminal case.

The Biden administration is reorienting how the government enforces immigration violations. Like the Trump administration, it is focusing on those who present a threat to public safety, but in a major change has largely stopped indiscriminate arrests of anyone in the country illegally.

- See the full WBUR story.

In March the Biden Administration designated immigrants from Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months until September 2022. TPS temporarily grants immigrants living in the U.S. protected immigration status if their homelands face extreme hardships, like armed conflict, natural disasters, and political or social instability. For Venezuela, the Secretary of Homeland Security extended TPS benefits to an estimated 300,000 undocumented Venezuelans due to the country's ongoing political and economic turmoil. This means they can now receive deportation protection and work authorization, allowing many to live without the fear of being forcibly returned to the country they fled.

See the HCFA website for more information.

- From HCFA's Weekly Newsletter - April 22, 2021: For The People 2021 is One Week Away!, Health Care For All, April 22, 2021.

Many Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders have expired Employment Authorization Documents (EAD), also known as work permits, due to USCIS delays. USCIS has extended the validity of several TPS-related documents, including Form I-766, Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) through October 4, 2021 for beneficiaries under the TPS designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua and Sudan, provided that the affected beneficiaries remain individually eligible for TPS. USCIS however is not currently issuing new documents. Unfortunately this can cause issues with employers and with the Registry of Motor Vehicles who may need assistance understanding that these “expired” documents are still valid. TPS holders can refer to https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status for USCIS announcement that these documents have extended validity.

Beneficiaries under these TPS designations may also apply for new EADs, though it is not required, according to the procedures set forth in the Dec. 9, 2020, Federal Register notice (FRN). We do not have any information on the processing times for those applications. For country specific information on the extension of work documents see: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status

- Adapted from Follow up from the April 1 immigration q and a, Rochelle Hahn, MLRI, April 5, 2021.

Those who already filed a 2020 return and were assessed an overpayment had been advised by IRS not to file an amended return and to await further guidance. This is the guidance, the IRS says it will be processing refunds for these taxpayers with no need for an amended return, the guidance also has instructions for those who have not yet filed or completed filing s 2020 return. (The tax filing deadline for 2020 was previously extended to May 17, 2021).

The April 9, 2021 IRS announcement is here: 
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-suspends-requirement-to-repay-excess-advance-payments-of-the-2020-premium-tax-credit-those-claiming-net-premium-tax-credit-must-file-form-8962

- From Health Care Access: Upcoming events & updates, Vicky Pulos, MLRI, April 12, 2021.

Visa applicants who have not yet been interviewed or scheduled for an interview will have their applications prioritized and processed in accordance with existing phased resumption of visa services guidance. Visa applicants who were previously refused visas due to the restrictions of Presidential Proclamation 10052 may reapply by submitting a new application including a new fee.

The resumption of routine visa services, prioritized after services to U.S. citizens, is occurring on a post-by-post basis, consistent with the Department’s guidance for safely returning our workforce to Department facilities. As post-specific conditions improve, our missions will begin providing additional services, culminating eventually in a complete resumption of routine visa services. Applicants should check the website of their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate for updates on the services that post is currently offering.

- Source: https://www.aila.org/File/Related/20042435f.pdf with additional material from Follow up from the April 1 immigration q and a, Rochelle Hahn , MLRI, April 5, 2021.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement SFE Energy, a competitive supplier, has agreed to waive the termination fees of anyone who was signed up for their electricity and gas in Massachusetts between 2017 and 2019 through door-to-door solicitation.  The entire joint statement about the case is below with the part relevant to other consumers highlighted:

The parties in Fuentes et al. v. SFE Energy Massachusetts, Inc. have reached a settlement. The case, brought by Greater Boston Legal Services on behalf of three individual Plaintiffs in Superior Court, alleged that SFE Energy Massachusetts, Inc. (“SFE”), in the course of its residential door-to-door sales business, did not accurately represent potential savings or provide certain disclosures to consumers. Plaintiffs alleged that this violated the Commonwealth’s consumer protection statute, Chapter 93A. The case concerned door-to-door sales of residential energy supply contracts by SFE’s agents to the three Plaintiffs between 2017 and 2018, one of whom allegedly experienced a language barrier during the sale. SFE denied all allegations, and presented how the company complied with applicable law and regulations.

To avoid the continued burden and expense of litigation, the parties entered into an agreement fully settling the case on mutually agreeable terms. SFE has admitted no liability or wrongdoing. There have been no findings as to the merits of the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, SFE will undertake a review of its Massachusetts residential supply contract, and forgo termination fees for Massachusetts residential customers who enrolled with SFE via door-to-door sales between 2017 and 2019, upon request to SFE from such customers. SFE has also decided to make a charitable contribution to a Greater Boston home energy assistance program.
All other terms of the settlement are confidential. Plaintiffs have dismissed the case with prejudice.

- From settlement with SFE Energy, utilitynetwork@nclc.org, Alexa Rosenbloom, NCLC, April 2, 2021.

The new temporary Emergency Broadband Benefit will start enrolling eligible households as of May 12, 2021. Eligible households can enroll through an approved provider or by visiting https://getemergencybroadband.org.

The program provides a monthly discount on broadband service of up to $50 per eligible household (or up to $75 per eligible household on Tribal lands) and up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from participating providers if they contribute more than $10 and less than $50 toward the purchase price.

More Information

• Overview and basic information at https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandbenefit
• For a more detailed program FAQ see: https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-faq-emergency-broadband-benefit

The MA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is working towards implementation of the Subsidized Housing Emergency Rental Assistance (SHERA) program, a collaboration with MassHousing and the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP), that will allow qualified owners of income-restricted units, as well as Local Housing Authorities, to apply for help directly on behalf of all of their income-eligible residents with past-due rent. On Thursday April 8, the SHERA policy was distributed to Phase 1 and 2 Owners and the pilot group. Registration was opened to the pilot group only at this time. In the coming weeks, DHCD will conduct outreach to owners and tenant advocates and provide training to staff in preparation for full implementation.

Owners will apply through an online single application process on behalf of multiple residents. It will offer a quicker and more efficient path to rental arrearage relief for residents of subsidized housing, avoiding duplication of the income verification and other compliance work that owners of subsidized housing are already doing to comply with program restrictions. Initially, the program will cover 100% of rental arrearages for qualifying tenants from April 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021.  

SHERA Rollout Overview 

1. The “soft launch” (Pilot) of the SHERA program began on April 8th. A group of test sponsors are being provided with everything they need to prepare to apply to the program through the system.
2. As soon as DHCD is confident that the system is running smoothly, with a target of end of April/early May, they will open the application process to other owner groups:
• Phase 1: MH/MHP portfolio of properties
• Phase 2: Housing Authorities and DHCD subsidy portfolio
• Phase 3: 40B and 40R properties not included in the two previous groups 

Please do not hesitate to reach out to Ryan Ambrose, ryan.ambrose@mass.gov with any questions.  
  
- From DHCD Updates from the Eviction Diversion Initiative – April 2021, Ambrose, Ryan (OCD), April 15, 2021.

The MGH Dementia Care Collaborative is proud to officially announce its new website: https://dementiacarecollaborative.org/

We created this website as a place of connection and education for those caring with someone with dementia, for fellow colleagues working in the field, and for the community at large.

Please take some time to explore all the great offerings from our Caregiver Support Program. Check out our keynote speaker for our monthly educational series, “Conversations with Caregivers,” join one of our weekly music-based movement classes, Ageless Grace, crafted to bring an hour of connection, play and positivity to all who participate. See if our Support Groups would create a place for you to share your feelings in a safe space with those having a shared experience.

Give yourself an hour on a Thursday afternoon to practice stress releasing and sustaining practices from Health & Resiliency experts. This journey can be emotional and complex and we can benefit from varied avenues of support, more information and understanding and more reminders that we are not alone.

Learn more about our dynamic pilot program, the Memory Care Initiative, where an innovative co-management model is being realized in specific clinics to benefit patients living with dementia, their care partners, and providers working with them.

Individual Care Consultations with Clinical Social Work dementia experts are also available in specific MGH clinics. Care partners are offered guidance and support ranging from understanding the diagnosis, what to expect in the future, and a custom care plan for short and long-term needs. We encourage the person living with the cognitive disorder to participate whenever possible. 

See the site for more.

- From It's Official! Our Website is Here, Dementia Care Collaborative, April 1, 2021.

Access to transportation services is an important determinant of health, as it is a lifeline to many individuals who otherwise would not be able to get to work, access healthcare, or get to other important destinations of everyday living.

To assist those who have difficulty utilizing transit services in the Greater Boston area, the MBTA provides Travel Instructions to help riders, mostly older adults, individuals with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people with low English proficiency learn to navigate the system. Training about these services is also available to front-line staff at hospitals, social and disability service agencies focusing on vulnerable populations.

What are travel instructions and why are they important?

Travel instructions teach people skills about how to ride the bus, subway, trolley, ferry and commuter rail safely and independently. While traditionally this training is face-to-face, during the pandemic we provided the same training through Zoom.

Our curriculum focuses on the T’s safety measures, followed by trip planning and the process of riding public transit. Trainees learn about paying with a Charlie Card, orienting oneself in the system, choosing a mode, using digital apps, identifying accessibility features of stations and vehicles, asking for assistance and more. While we talk about the T, we also present people choices of modalities in the local and regional mobility ecosystem. Some may take advantage of local community transportation, such as Council on Aging van service or on-demand micro-transit service. Where available, those may connect to buses, the subway and commuter rail services provided by the MBTA.  

The focus population for our training is mostly older adults and individuals with disabilities, but the T welcomes and trains riders who may have never taken a bus or train, did that decades ago but now unsure how it is different, or are entirely new to the Boston area. Since 2016, the MBTA provided free training to groups of individuals at the MBTA’s Emergency Training Center in Boston, on-site at senior centers, disability service agencies, and at hospital campuses (e.g. Children’s Hospital and Boston Medical Center). Our professional Travel Trainers also trained individuals one-on-one who needed personalized attention. Overall, we trained over 2,200 riders in the past few years.

What is mobility information training and why is it important?

There are many reasons why individuals will never become riders of public transit. One important obstacle is either the lack of, or improperly conveyed information about transportation options and how the system works. The most impactful information is provided in a culturally competent manner, in one’s preferred language, and by someone who is a trusted source.  People primarily trust their closest circle of family and friends but close second are service providers. People trust least government entities, including transit agencies. Therefore we developed a “train the trainer model” and reached out to community organizations with the goal to make front-line staff proficient and confident at providing timely, relevant and accurate information about local transportation options.

Our training to staff is flexible in both content and duration. We assess transportation information needs of staff through a questionnaire and tailor the presentation material to client needs. At Children’s Hospital and BMC, we trained social workers, care coordinators and physician residents (BMC) in one 90-minute session. Information material in seven languages in print or electronically is always available, so is follow-up support to answer questions.

A sample staff training may have the following building blocks: MBTA spider map and how to orient oneself in the system; accessible stations and bus stops and other system features; trip planning, reduced fare cards and how to get them; new digital tools on the T; paratransit service: THE RIDE; healthy modes and community transportation options; statewide inventory of all transit services; travel training and how to refer people to travel training; how to get disability placards, disability license plates, MA ID cards and other services of the Registry of Motor vehicles (RMV).

System-Wide Accessibility would be happy to bring its Mobility Information Training to MGH. Please contact Aniko Laszlo with any questions and requests at alaszlo@mbta.com.

- Submitted by Aniko Laszlo, Director of Coordinated Mobility, MBTA/System-Wide Accessibility

A provision under the American Rescue Plan (ARPA) gives a $0 premium for certain individuals on or eligible for COBRA. This $0 premium will be available from April through September 2021.

For some it may be beneficial to keep or enroll in COBRA. Individuals interested in receiving COBRA subsidies should talk to their employer/former employer.

For others it may be beneficial to inquire about subsidies available through the Health Connector. The Health Connector is developing a new tool for people to preview what they may be eligible for, including estimated plan premiums with savings.

The MA Health Connector has announced a special enrollment period (SEP) for people who enroll in COBRA, but cannot afford to continue it after the temporary 100% premium assistance for COBRA, authorized by the ARPA, expires after Sept 30, 2021. People who qualify for this SEP will be able to sign up for private insurance through the Health Connector for the balance of 2021 and many may qualify for the more generous subsidies under ARPA in 2021 (and 2022).

See the Health Connector announcement:  April 9, 2021 bulletin 

More info from federal Dept of Labor about COBRA premium assistance: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/cobra/premium-subsidy

$0 Premium Plan for Those Who Received Unemployment in 2021

In the coming months, the Health Connector will provide access to a $0 premium Health Connector plan for anyone who received unemployment income in 2021. 

- Adapted from Health Care Access: Upcoming events & updates, Vicky Pulos, MLRI, April 12, 2021 and More details on Savings through the American Rescue Plan, Massachusetts Health Care Training Forum, April 21, 2021.

MassHealth’s copay policy will change on July 1, 2021. The revised cost sharing policies will limit members’ copay and premium obligations to 5% of the member’s household income. These changes are not expected to increase members’ copay and premium obligations and are being implemented in two phases: the first phase became effective on July 1, 2020, and the second phase will become effective on July 1, 2021.

Overview of the Phase 1 Changes

On July 1, 2020, MassHealth excluded the following list of services and populations from copays (see list below). Please note that copays for acute inpatient hospital stays were also eliminated on March 18th, 2020.

Services

The following services were newly excluded from copays as of July 1, 2020:

• FDA-approved medications for detoxification and maintenance treatment of substance use disorders (SUD);
• preventive services rated Grade A and B by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or broader exclusions specified by MassHealth (e.g., low-dose aspirin; colonoscopy preparation); and 
• vaccines and their administration recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Populations

The following populations were newly excluded from copays as of July 1, 2020:

• members with incomes at or under 50% federal poverty level (FPL); and
• members automatically eligible for MassHealth because they are receiving other public assistance such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC), or services through the Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC) Program.

For the complete list of copay exclusions, go to https://www.mass.gov/service-details/masshealth-copayments-frequently-asked-questions or refer to 130 CMR 506.015 and 130 CMR 520.037.

Overview of the Phase 2 Changes

Starting July 1, 2021

• a member’s cost sharing obligation for copays and premiums COMBINED  will not exceed 5% of the member’s monthly household income. 
• MassHealth will replace the current $250 annual pharmacy copay cap with a member-specific monthly PHARMACY COPAY CAP not to exceed 2% of the member’s monthly household income. Please note however, for the duration of the COVID-19 federal Public Health Emergency, MassHealth will also ensure that members will not be charged more than $250 in total copays annually.
• A copay cap is the highest dollar amount that a member can be charged in copays in a month.
• MassHealth will calculate a monthly copay cap for each member based on the lowest income in their household and their household size, as applicable. MassHealth will round the member’s monthly copay cap down to the nearest ten dollar increment up to $60 and determine their final monthly copay cap as shown in the table below.

• For example, if a member’s monthly copay cap is $12.50 in July, a member will not be charged more than $10 of copays in July. If a member’s household income or family size changes in August, their monthly copay cap may change for August.
• MassHealth PREMIUMS will not exceed 3% of the member’s monthly household income, as applicable. This limit does not apply to CommonHealth members.

Member Notifications of These Changes

• Beginning in late May 2021, MassHealth will send members an initial notice explaining these changes and notifying them of their initial monthly copay cap.
• Starting July 1, 2021, MassHealth will send a notice to members whenever their monthly copay cap changes or whenever they meet their current monthly copay cap. 

Learn More

To learn more about these changes, go to the MassHealth Eligibility Operations Memo #21-07 at https://www.mass.gov/lists/eligibility-operations-memos-by-year.

Online Training via Zoom Platform

Webinar: Understanding MassHealth Cost Sharing Policy Updates: Phase 2

Coming June 2021! Be on the look-out for registration details.

- From Changes to MassHealth’s Cost Sharing Policy, Massachusetts Health Care Training Forum, April 26, 2021.

Addendum - The updated copay policy will apply to members in MassHealth Standard, CarePlus, Family Assistance, and CommonHealth. The updated copay policy will not apply to Children’s Medical Security Plan (CMSP) members and any drugs that are charged through Health Safety Net (HSN) will continue to be subject to the $250 annual pharmacy copay cap. For more information regarding MassHealth’s member cost sharing initiative please refer to All Provider Bulletin 315: https://www.mass.gov/lists/all-provider-bulletins (From: Member Cost Sharing – Important Information To Prepare For Implementation, Massachusetts Health Care Training Forum, May 10, 2021.)

The state’s new Paid and Family Medical Leave (PFML) law, which is just now being rolled out, is a crowning achievement for progressives, extending a safety net to workers at all income levels.

But more than a million people in Massachusetts work for companies that have opted out of the system, according to public records obtained by GBH News. That’s nearly one in three workers in the Commonwealth who are not in the state’s paid leave system. Some experts say that has the potential to undermine the program's financial stability.

The System and The Catch
The Paid Family and Medical Leave law created a classic insurance system. There’s a payroll tax for employers and employees. That tax revenue is then pooled together into a fund that allows the state to write checks to employees who need to take leave to recover from a medical issue or care for a loved one. People receive a percentage of their income while on leave.

It seems simple enough — but there’s a catch. Companies can choose to leave the state system, opting out of the pool and going with a private insurer.

Randy Albelda, an economist at UMass Boston, is confident that the program is still sound. But, she said, the current opt-out numbers are neither expected nor ideal. The concern is that, if too many employers opt out, the state will need to keep increasing the payroll tax to ensure the billion-dollar program is financially sustainable.

- See the full GBH article.

Charles Clark moved to Boston’s South End when he was a young musician, just getting by. Forty years later, he lives in the same historic brownstone, even as rising wealth has pushed many people out of the neighborhood.

He’s stayed thanks to a nonprofit that’s kept a few hundred apartments like his affordable. Tenants’ Development Corp. is one of the oldest groups of its kind in the nation, protecting the rights of renters — many of them families of color and seniors.

But now, TDC and its residents are facing the fight of their lives, as a Denver-based investment firm battles for control of 36 of the nonprofit’s properties. It’s a tactic Alden Torch Financial and firms like it are using to squeeze extra profits out of the federal government’s chief program for backing low-income housing, according to court cases in multiple states and interviews with more than 20 housing and legal specialists.

“They wanted us to sell the units — put them on the market, so that they could reap a lot more money than what they were entitled to,” Clark said of Alden Torch. “I’m appalled, and I’m upset about how they’re handling it.”

TDC officials never imagined this scenario when they tapped into the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program back in 2003, to renovate their buildings. Under these deals, a nonprofit forms a partnership with an investor (often a large bank) that provides funding in exchange for tax breaks. At the end of 15 years, the nonprofit generally gets to buy out the investor’s stake, taking ownership of the property for well below market value.

At least that was Congress’s intent, housing specialists say — keeping properties affordable for the long-term and in community hands. But the game has changed in recent years, as some project funders began selling off their partnership interests to investment firms with more aggressive profit motives. And those firms are demanding bigger payouts to exit the deals.

This shadowy secondary market is unregulated at the federal level and in nearly every state, a WBUR investigation has found, and it’s wreaking havoc in an $8 billion-a-year program funded by taxpayers.

“Honestly, I think it’s a national crisis,” said David Goldstein, a lawyer representing a Brooklyn, N.Y., housing group that’s fending off one such property challenge from a Wall Street giant. “This is a really serious problem and affordable housing is going to be potentially threatened, especially for places like Boston, New York, and Los Angeles.”

This new breed of investors is challenging housing groups in cities where real estate values have soared. The firms are looking to wrest cash and control away from local nonprofits and developers, lawsuits show, or attempting to oust managers from partnerships. And in some cases, they are forcing the sale of low-income housing to maximize their profits — as they have tried to do in Boston.

If investors are successful and properties are sold on the open market, the risk is that new owners could eventually abandon the affordable housing mission, charge higher rents or convert apartments to expensive condos. It’s a risk that looms on the horizon for thousands of residents in Massachusetts and across the country.

With a lack of federal or state oversight, these feuds are largely being decided in courts, where conflicting rulings on contract language only add to the confusion.

Under the law, even if ownership changes after the 15-year tax credits end, housing must stay affordable for a total of at least 30 years. But things could shift dramatically after that.

Only Congress Can Clarify The Rules

The majority of these 15-year tax credit deals have ended without incident, housing specialists say. The program has helped build or renovate more than 3 million apartments nationwide since its start in 1986. Only in recent years have these legal challenges emerged, as deep-pocketed investors found ways to poke holes in contracts that locked in tax benefits for investors and counted on their goodwill at the end of the partnership.

The IRS is not regulating the transfers of partnership interests or the exits. It counts on state housing agencies to dole out the federal tax credits and ensure properties stay affordable. But it’s also rare for a state agency to weigh in on 15-year exits. The result: Nationally, no one is in charge.

In Massachusetts alone, tax-credit deals will be expiring on 81 properties over the next four years, affecting nearly 5,000 residents, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data.

“Congress can solve this, and that would be the best outcome,” said Bill Brauner, a senior executive at the Community Economic Development Assistance Corp., a Boston group that provides financing for affordable housing.

The Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, which allocates federal tax credits in the commonwealth, declined multiple requests to comment for this report. And it has yet to publicly weigh in on the lawsuit threatening the South End properties.

In a recent funding offer for developers, the agency appears for the first time to be trying to exclude from future projects investors that have been involved in year-15 disputes. It’s unclear how this would be enforced.

-  See the full WBUR story.

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) “must provide services that accommodate the parent’s special needs,” a court wrote in a 2016 ruling, rescinding a previous order terminating a mother with disabilities’ rights. “The department is required to follow its regulations.”

Too often, critics say, it doesn’t. Hobbled by a lack of expertise — and will to correct it, according to some advocates — Massachusetts’ child welfare agency has long struggled to properly accommodate children and parents with disabilities, failing them in ways both small and devastating, according to a review of lawsuits, independent reports, and Globe interviews with a dozen attorneys, researchers, and others.

The long-festering issues have now rushed to the surface, crystallized in a pair of critical federal and state investigations released within five months of each other. A state Office of the Child Advocate probe into the death of an intellectually disabled and DCF-involved teen said in March that the agency currently has no “policies, standard practices, or training curriculum” about people with disabilities.

DCF social workers are equipped with access to in-house medical or substance use specialists to help navigate cases in which a child has a complex medical condition or a parent is seeking help from a substance addiction. But they have had no such resources when, say, assessing a child with autism, investigators said.

And currently, the department is unable to say what share of the 44,000 children under its watch have a diagnosed disability, even though they’re at least three times more likely to be abused or neglected than children without one, according to a 2012 study cited by state investigators.
Separately, the agency over several years discriminated against parents with disabilities by denying them an equal chance at receiving services, a Department of Justice review concluded in a landmark settlement with DCF released in November.

The announcement came five years after federal officials first determined the agency relied on “discriminatory assumptions and stereotypes” in removing a daughter from another mother with a developmental disability. DCF, in reaching the settlement, did not admit any wrong-doing, and disputes the findings in the earlier case.

“Whether we’re talking about kids or parents with disabilities, DCF does not have the knowledge, the skills, the awareness, and in some ways, the willingness” to fix its problems, said Robyn Powell, a researcher and attorney at the National Research Center for Parents with Disabilities.

The one-two punch of investigations has spurred promises of reforms, including the creation of a new disabilities director position within DCF. As mandated in the federal agreement, the department also has designated a statewide and regional coordinators to handle complaints under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is conducting a wide-ranging review of its policies, specifically those geared toward parents.

The agency said it’s also upgrading its technological infrastructure to determine, for the first time, what share of children have some form of disability. It’s currently able to capture that information in only individual case files. “The Department of Children and Families is focused on ensuring all children and parents with disabilities have the support they need,” spokeswoman Andrea Grossman said in a statement.

“This director position will bring expert knowledge of disability to the agency, and complement the work underway to strengthen supports for DCF-involved parents and children with disabilities,” said Grossman, the agency’s spokeswoman.

Some question whether it’s enough. The child advocate’s report, for example, also recommended hiring regional specialists within the department, and union officials say they fear social workers, already wearing so many hats, need more clinical backup.

“It can’t just be a consultant who sits at the central office,” said Peter MacKinnon, president of SEIU Local 509. “It speaks to the culture that you want in the agency of having a deep clinical understanding.”

Without it, attorneys and advocates say, DCF often relies on what several described as a rigid approach to planning for children and families with disabilities, including relying too often on what worked perhaps for one child and applying it to another.

Recognizing that need for services can be complicated by long-running concerns that DCF does not always provide foster families with crucial, yet basic, information before a child enters their homes. State lawmakers are weighing a bill that would create a so-called foster parents’ bill of rights, including a requirement that DCF first disclose a child’s “physical and behavioral health history.”

“It’s clear [social workers] need a better understanding of what to look for,” said Twiraga, “and to not hear the word ‘autism’ and write them off.”

- See the full Boston Globe article.

Federal law requires that state Medicaid programs attempt to recover costs from estates of deceased recipients. Estate claims often force heirs to sell a family home that otherwise would have been passed down. Because home ownership is one of the few ways to build generational wealth for lower-income families, the burdens of estate recovery fall disproportionately on economically oppressed families and communities of color.

A new issue brief, Medicaid Estate Claims: Perpetuating Poverty and Inequality for Minimal Return, makes the case that Congress should end mandatory Medicaid estate recovery. The report, authored as a collaboration between Justice in Aging, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR), National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), National Health Law Program (NHeLP), and Western Center on Law & Poverty, also includes recommendations to limit estate claims from a recent report to Congress by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC).

Read the Brief

If you have any clients who have experienced Medicaid estate recovery who would be willing to speak with members of the media, please email our Communications Director, Vanessa Barrington at vbarrington@justiceinaging.org.

- From Issue Brief: How Medicaid Estate Recovery Perpetuates Poverty, Justice in Aging, April 13, 2021.

There's widespread agreement that it's important to help older adults and people with disabilities remain independent as long as possible. But are we prepared to do what's necessary, as a nation, to make this possible? That's the challenge President Biden has put forward with his bold proposal to spend $400 billion over eight years on home and community-based services — a major part of his $2 trillion infrastructure plan.

It's a "historic and profound" opportunity to build a stronger framework of services surrounding vulnerable people who need considerable ongoing assistance, says Ai-jen Poo, director of Caring Across Generations, a national group advocating for older adults, individuals with disabilities, families and caregivers.

It comes as the coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and group homes, killing more than 174,000 people, by some estimates, and triggering awareness of the need for more long-term care options. "There's a much greater understanding now that it is not a good thing to be stuck in long-term care institutions" and that community-based care is an "essential alternative, which the vast majority of people would prefer," says Ari Ne'eman, a doctoral student in health policy at Harvard University, and senior research associate at Harvard Law School's Project on Disability.

"The systems we do have are crumbling" due to underfunding and understaffing, and "there has never been a greater opportunity for change than now," saids Katie Smith Sloan, president of LeadingAge, at a recent press conference where the president's proposal was discussed. LeadingAge is a national association of more than 5,000 nonprofit nursing homes, assisted living centers, senior living communities and home care providers.

But prospects for the president's proposal are uncertain. Republicans decry its cost and argue that much of what the proposed American Jobs Plan contains, including the emphasis on home-based care, doesn't count as real infrastructure.

Even advocates of Biden's proposal acknowledge it doesn't address the full extent of care needed by the nation's rapidly growing older population. In particular, middle-income seniors won't qualify directly for programs that would be expanded. They would, however, benefit from a larger, better paid, better trained workforce of aides that help people in their homes — one of the plan's objectives.

The services in question

Home and community-based services help people who need significant assistance live at home as opposed to nursing homes or group homes. Services can include home visits from nurses or occupational therapists; assistance with personal care such as eating or bathing; help from case managers; attendance at adult day centers; help with cooking, cleaning and other chores; transportation; and home repairs and modifications. It can also help pay for durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs or oxygen tanks.

Medicare limitations

Many people assume that Medicare — the nation's health program for 61 million older adults and people with severe disabilities — will pay for long-term care, including home-based services. But Medicare coverage is extremely limited.

Medicare covers home-based health care services only for older adults and people with severe disabilities who are homebound and need skilled services from nurses and therapists. It does not pay for 24-hour care or care for personal aides or homemakers. In 2018, about 3.4 million Medicare members received home health services.

In nursing homes, Medicare pays only for rehabilitation services for a maximum of 100 days. It does not provide support for long-term stays in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

Medicaid options

Medicaid can be an alternative, but financial eligibility standards are strict and only people with meager incomes and assets qualify. Medicaid supports two types of long-term care: home and community-based services and those provided in institutions such as nursing homes. But only care in institutions is mandated by the federal government. Home and community-based services are provided at the discretion of the states.

Although all states offer home and community-based services of some kind, there's enormous variation in the types of services offered, who is served (states can set caps on enrollment) and state spending.

Based on the best information available, between 4 million and 5 million people receive Medicaid-funded home and community-based services — a fraction of those who need care.

Workforce issues

Biden's proposal doesn't specify how the $400 billion in additional funding would be spent, beyond stating that access to home and community-based care would be expanded and caregivers would receive "a long-overdue raise, stronger benefits and an opportunity to organize or join a union."
Caregivers, including nursing assistants and home health and personal care aides, earn $12 an hour, on average. Most are women of color; about one-third of those working for agencies don't receive health insurance from their employers.

By the end of this decade, an extra 1 million workers will be needed for home-based care — a number of experts believe will be difficult, if not impossible, to reach given poor pay and working conditions.

- See the full WBUR story.

Early this month Governor Charlie Baker signed into law a bill that provides tax relief to Massachusetts employers. The new legislation freezes employer contributions to the unemployment system for 2021 and 2022 and it also provides tax breaks to businesses who received certain funding from the CARES Act. Indeed, it allows businesses to deduct forgiven Paycheck Protection loan amounts when calculating their Massachusetts gross income for tax purposes.

Unemployment Tax Relief

The bill also provides tax relief for lower-income workers who collected unemployment benefits in 2020 and 2021; these individuals can deduct the first $10,200 in unemployment compensation received in both calendar years. The bill prohibits the Department of Revenue from imposing any tax penalties for 2020 based solely on a failure to remit taxes on unemployment compensation. Taxpayers who have already been assessed the penalty will receive an abatement.

Sick Leave Provisions Amended – Fate Uncertain

The bill presented to Governor Baker also included provisions for the establishment of a paid leave program for employees who need to miss work for reasons related to COVID-19. Governor Baker returned those sections to the Legislature with the several amendments.

The Legislature and the Governor agree that employees should be provided with paid sick leave for absences related to COVID-19 or the vaccine. If ultimately passed, even as proposed to be amended, the sick leave provisions would make every full-time Massachusetts employee eligible for up to 40 hours of COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave (prorated for others). Employees would be able to use the new sick leave for a number of reasons, including to recover from COVID-19 or to obtain the COVID-19 vaccination or recover from illness or injury due to vaccination.

Amendments Include Excluding Municipal Workers

One of the governor’s amendments would exclude municipal workers, including teachers, public works employees, police and others. The administration said the change would align COVID-19 sick leave with the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program, which allows cities and towns to opt in instead.

Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill told the News Service that municipal employees deserve to take advantage of the program, which would provide up to five days of paid time off for full-time employees who are sick with COVID-19, isolating, taking time off to get vaccinated or caring for a family member ill with the virus. “Our municipal employees, including our teachers and first responders, have been essential to the state’s COVID-19 response. We were disappointed to see Governor Baker’s amendment to exclude them from paid sick leave benefits,” Mariano and Spilka told the News Service in response to questions about the program.

“The House and the Senate continue to believe that paid sick leave will protect our communities by preventing the further spread of COVID-19, and our municipal employees deserve the same access to it as other workers. We are committed to returning this legislation back to the Governor’s desk with municipal employees included,” the Democratic leaders said.

Why is This Leave Needed?

The state’s Earned Sick Time law, provides 40 hours of paid sick time yearly, but for thousands of workers this isn’t enough to meet the scale and impact of this public health crisis. The federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) provided 10 days of additional paid sick time for many workers, and it made a real difference: states that gained access to paid sick time under the FFCRA experienced about 400 fewer cases of COVID-19 per day, according to research from Cornell University and the Swiss Economic Institute. But the FFCRA had big coverage gaps that left millions of front-line workers without paid sick time, including workers at companies with more than 500 employees, and many employees of health care and residential facilities. The Center for American Progress estimates that at least 1.8 million workers in Massachusetts were not covered by the FFCRA’s paid sick time protections.

In December, the FFCRA’s paid sick time protections expired, leaving all Massachusetts workers without access to emergency paid sick time benefits if they contract or are exposed to COVID-19. Massachusetts’s new paid family and medical leave program, which took effect January 1, allows workers with serious medical problems as a result of COVID-19 to receive partial wage replacement if they take time off from work to recover. However, the new program has a one-week waiting period to receive wage replacement benefits, which means it will not help lower-income workers who cannot afford to miss an entire week of pay to isolate or quarantine.

The new state law will fill this gap and ensure that workers do not feel pressure to go to work when they may be infectious.

Between the state and federal governments, all businesses will be eligible for either state reimbursement or the federal tax credit.

- See the full MassLive article. Additional material from Raise Up MA, https://senatorjasonlewis.com/2021/04/01/epst/ and https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-legislation-delivers-relief-to-6526409/.

The recently passed American Rescue Plan includes almost $50 million in aid for service providers who assist survivors of domestic abuse. It also includes hundreds of millions of dollars in housing assistance for survivors who have been trapped during the pandemic with their abusers. That pool of money will be drawn from $5 billion in housing vouchers for several at-risk demographic groups, including those fleeing abuse, assault, dating violence and human trafficking. The vouchers will help address the fact that the vast financial burden of leaving an abusive relationship often begins with housing. And the aid is long-term — resources in the rescue plan for emergency housing assistance are to remain available until 2030. 

Advocates hailed passage of the American Rescue Plan. 

“A year into the pandemic, many survivors are navigating more severe abuse with fewer resources,” said Deborah J. Vagins, President and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV).

According to NNEDV, the American Rescue Plan provides: 

• $180 million in Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) funds for desperately-needed emergency shelter, housing, and other emergency supports in every state and territory. 
• $18 million for tribes to support domestic violence survivors as they face  disparate impacts from   COVID-19. 
• Almost $50 million for culturally specific services for domestic violence and sexual assault survivors in order to address the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color. 

• $198 million for rape crisis centers, the first federal relief funding targeted specifically to respond to sexual violence. 
• $1 million each for the National Domestic Violence Hotline and StrongHearts Native Helpline, both crucial lifelines during the COVID-19 crisis. 

Advocates are particularly pleased with the almost $50 million aimed at addressing domestic abuse and sexual assault within communities of color.

Abuse is a broad problem that affects one in four women in the U.S., one in seven men, and countless children, according to the National Domestic Abuse Hotline. And experts say incidents of domestic abuse spiked worldwide just weeks into the shutdowns caused by the pandemic last April. 

Those who advocate on behalf of survivors of domestic abuse say there has been a cultural shift in the way the Biden Administration views the issue, compared with the previous Administration. Many advocates believe former President Trump’s policies were overtly hostile toward domestic violence concerns. A prime example: for the first time ever, under Trump’s watch, Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which Biden himself sponsored as a member of the U.S. Senate decades ago. (The House voted 244-172 to renew VAWA earlier this month.) 

- See the full Coalition on Human Needs story.