On Monday, the Arizona House passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044. The resolution allows voters to decide if students who are in the country illegally but have attended for two years and graduated from an Arizona high school can be eligible for in-state college tuition.
SCR 1044 also exempts post-secondary education from the definition of a state or public benefit. Currently, Arizona residents who do not have legal immigration status do not qualify to receive those benefits.
Last week, Republican State Reps. Michelle Udall and Joel John forced a vote on the resolution by joining all House Democrats. Republicans Rep. David Cook and Rep. Joanne Osborne joined the group later and voted in favor of the matter. The move shifted power away from the Republican Caucus momentarily, but left a deep division.
Speaker Rusty Bowers expressed his disappointment in the tactic employed by Udall and John before casting his vote against the measure:
The measure will now go before the Arizona voters on a ballot in 2022.
The ballot initiative would repeal a 15-year-old ban on in-state tuition for undocumented high school graduates, including about 2,000 Dreamers per year. Voters created that ban in 2006 when they approved Proposition 300, which denies public benefits to those not in the country legally, including reduced cost tuition.
On Monday, Governor Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2596, legislation aimed at expanding broadband access in Arizona. The bill allows private broadband providers to install, operate and maintain telecommunications equipment within the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) rights-of-way.
“Arizona is growing and people are moving here at a record pace — and we need to ensure all parts of our booming state are connected,” said Governor Ducey. “In my January State of the State address, I called to continue expanding access to broadband. House Bill 2596 does that, and it will help Arizonans living in rural and tribal areas gain access to fast, affordable and reliable internet. My thanks goes to Representative Regina Cobb for sponsoring legislation that benefits people in every corner of our growing state.”
House Bill 2596 also allows ADOT to grant access to its own broadband conduit to private telecommunications companies in a non-exclusive and non-discriminatory manner — reducing the cost of installing rural broadband infrastructure
Additionally, the legislation creates the “Smart Highway Trust Fund” to deposit leasing revenues generated from the use of ADOT rights-of-way, which are to be used for operation and maintenance of telecommunications facilities within ADOT’s rights-of-way.
Justin Olson says news reports that he is against getting Arizona’s electric utilities to a carbon-free or net-zero carbon level are incorrect. He whole-heartedly supports that goal, Olson insists, but believes it is more important to ensure Arizonans who pay for that electricity do not end up paying higher rates to reach the goal.
Olson is one of five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission, and one of three Republicans. He was joined last Wednesday by the ACC’s two Democrats in voting down a rules package which urged all electric utilities to a net-zero carbon level by 2050, but not mandate the goal.
The vote came nearly six months after the ACC -with a slightly different contingent of commissioners- voted 4 to 1 on a draft set of rules that included the net-zero by 2050 mandate. It had taken ACC staff and industry representatives about three years to get those rules worked out.
Olson cast the lone nay in that November vote. And he then voted nay last week even after he introduced an amendment to make the whole thing more palatable by switching the mandates to guidelines.
In the end, Olson says he could not get language into the rules to prevent utilities from using the mandates -or guidelines- as a justification for a rate increase to pay for something the company intended to do anyway. And that left customers at risk of paying more.
Olson insists that complaints directed toward any commissioners for “wasting” the time of ACC and industry staff are misplaced.
“The utilities would have undertaken all of that review and study anyway,” as part of determining their own future business plans, Olson told AZ Free News.
In fact, Arizona Public Service (APS) released an Integrated Resource Plan update for shareholders in February which listed its clean energy commitment for 100 percent “clean, carbon-free electricity” by 2050. Olson noted that the company’s plan was made without any regulatory mandate in place.
Olson also pointed out the “overwhelming” voter rejection of Proposition 127 in 2018 which sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require nongovernmental electric utilities to increase the portion of their retail energy sales from certain types of renewable energy resources to 50 percent by 2030.
Refusing to support any type of renewable energy mandate without protecting ratepayers was simply “respecting the will of the voters,” says Olson. And that, he believes, means the ACC should be working to ensure ratepayers are charged lower rates in the future if utility companies benefit from lower costs by their own business decisions to use more renewable sources.
Some opponents of Olson’s position worry the Biden Administration will push Congress to pass legislation which may set net-zero mandates that do not serve the interest of Arizona’s utilities or its electricity users.
Olson says he understand that concern, but to preemptively enact “a bad policy” would be irresponsible given “there is no harm or penalty to Arizona the utilities, or the ratepayers at this time.”
During the first months of the coronavirus pandemic shutdown, the use of telehealth increased significantly. In fact, overall, almost half of the people who were undergoing treatment when the pandemic shutdown began reported using some form of telemedicine.
From a new RAND Corporation study, those findings make the news of Governor Doug Ducey’s decision to sign telemedicine legislation all the more welcome to individuals still hesitant to venture out.
House Bill 2454, sponsored by Rep. Regina Cobb, will make telemedicine services provided to Arizonans through the Governor’s Executive Order last March permanent. The governor’s order required health care insurance companies to expand telemedicine coverage for all services that would normally be covered for an in-person visit.
The bill expands access to telemedicine for patients and ensures that doctors receive equal compensation from insurance companies for telemedicine services and allows out-of-state health care professionals to provide telemedicine in Arizona.
“Telehealth was an extremely valuable tool during the pandemic,” said Cobb. “It’s helped Arizonans get in contact with health care providers, mental health specialists, speech therapists, and more from the safety of their home. HB 2454 will continue those efforts and ensure that those living in Arizona receive medical service in a safe and convenient manner.”
According to findings published in the Journal of General, between mid-March and early May 2020, telehealth was used by more than 40% of patients with a chronic physical health condition and by more than 50% of those with a behavioral health condition, according to findings published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Under the bill, medical examinations in the worker’s compensation space can also be conducted via telehealth if all parties consent. It also prohibits healthcare boards from enforcing any rule that requires a patient to visit in-person before being prescribed most medications.
“HB 2454 is a win for physicians and patients alike,” said Arizona Medical Association President Dr. Miriam Anand. “Every patient deserves access to the appropriate care needed to treat their medical conditions. HB 2454 will break down unnecessary barriers to telehealth and help facilitate the delivery of high-quality care to patients across Arizona.”
HB 2454 also requires medical insurers to provide payment parity for telehealth services using audio and visual features and allows health care providers who are licensed in other states to provide telehealth services into Arizona under certain conditions.
According to the JLBC, “the bill establishes the Telehealth Advisory Committee on Telehealth Best Practices which would be tasked with recommending other health care service that may be appropriately provided through an audio-only telehealth format. These services would be covered services starting January 1, 2022 but would not require payment parity.”
The bill does not apply to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) but does require health insurers to cover audio-only health care services if those services are covered by AHCCCS or Medicare.
As the finger-pointing continues as to why April’s job growth fell far below expectation, business organizations in Arizona are drawing attention once again to what they see as a worrisome obstacle to pro-growth — whether the U.S. Senate will approve the H.R. 842, also known as the PRO Act.
The PRO Act, which stands for Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, passed the U.S. House of Representatives in March but has not yet had a committee debate in the Senate. Arizona Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly are among only three Democrats who did not co-sponsor the bill, which would enact sweeping changes to the National Labor Relations Act and other labor laws, including an override to Arizona’s longstanding “right-to-work” laws.
Arizona is one of 27 states governed by labor laws which ensure workers can choose whether or not to join a union and pay for representation. Employees in states without right-to-work laws can be required to pay union dues and fees in order to secure employment.
Millions of workers in Arizona and 26 other states would lose their right to work legal protections if Congress passes the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021.
“Senators Sinema and Kelly have not co-sponsored this bill,” Glenn Spencer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said last week in an interview with Chamber Business News.. “That’s a good thing. People in Arizona should thank them for standing up for workers and right-to-work and employers.”
Major labor unions such as the AFL-CIO back the Pro Act, which President Joe Biden has already signaled he will sign. The possibility of severe changes to labor laws if the Pro Act is enacted is a cause of uncertainty for owners of all sizes of businesses at a time when the Biden Administration is desperate to follow through on promises of new jobs.
“The PRO Act would, for all practical purposes, eviscerate Arizona’s right-to-work law, which would mean that workers in the state who happen to be in a union work setting would have to pay dues or they would be at risk of losing their jobs,” Spencer said. “Their employers may well be forced to terminate them if they don’t wish to pay dues in that setting.”
And according to Spencer, research by the U.S. Chamber demonstrates that states with right-to-work laws usually have higher rates of economic growth, along with higher rates of job creation and lower rates of unemployment.
But concerns about Arizona’s right-to-work laws being tossed aside is not the only provision of the Pro Act many opponents, including workers, find objectionable.
As written, the PRO Act redefines the long-used criteria to determine who is an independent contractor. It will also restrict the ability of freelancers to have autonomy over their business activities. This could force many workers to be classified as employees, and in many instances those workers would be obligated to choose between paying for union representation or looking for another job.
In addition, the Pro Act’s language does not allow Arizona employees to opt out of having their personal information provided to unions. And the bill will prohibit employee / employer disputes from being addressed via cost-effective arbitration programs. Instead, time-consuming and lengthy litigation, often in the form of class action lawsuits, would be an employee’s only option.
“Employers have concerns about this move, because it is likely to increase the number of class action lawsuits, which are expensive and time consuming for employers and employees alike,” according to a review of the bill by the Snell & Wilmer Law Firm. “Employers with questions or concerns about the effects of the PRO Act should consult with legal counsel for a fuller understanding of its potential impact on their organization.”
On March 5, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and 19 local chambers issued a letter to Arizona’s Congressional delegation explaining why H.R. 842 would not be good for Arizona. The same concerns were shared by Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Debbie Lesko, and David Schweikert who voted no.
The bill is currently assigned to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. There has been no activity reported by the committee since March 11.
The Arizona Department of Health Services is reporting that more than 3 million people in Arizona have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. This number is well more than half of the population age 16 and older.
As of Friday morning, 5,233,507 doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to 3,007,184 individuals, including 2,416,859 who are fully vaccinated. Nearly 1.5 million of those doses have been administered at state mass-vaccination sites in the greater Phoenix area, Tucson, Yuma, and Flagstaff, all of which accommodate walk-ins but continue to offer the convenience of appointments.
“We know through rigorous trials and federal reviews that each COVID-19 vaccine is safe and extremely effective at preventing serious cases and deaths,” said Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) Director Dr. Cara Christ. “What we are still learning is the long-term health effects on those among those who recover from severe cases of COVID-19, including young people. It’s a mistake to assume you are safe just because the percentages show you at lower risk of severe outcomes from coronavirus.”
Many sites across Arizona now offer COVID-19 vaccines, including grocery store pharmacies and standalone pharmacies. This week, doctors’ offices and other neighborhood healthcare providers were able to start directly ordering vaccine from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As early as next week, the federal government is expected to approve use of the Pfizer vaccine for those 12 and older, expanding from 16 and older. State-run sites offer the Pfizer vaccine, as do some pharmacies. ADHS offers a map of vaccination sites at azdhs.gov/FindVaccine that lists which vaccine types are offered at each.
Appointments for state sites and many others are available at podvaccine.azdhs.gov. Those without computer access or needing extra help registering can call 1-844-542-8201 to be connected with someone who can assist in English or Spanish. Appointments aren’t required at state sites, but can reduce the duration of your visit because registration is completed in advance.
