Part of the Bay Area News Group

Advocates urge Pete Stark on Elder Justice Act

By Josh Richman
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 at 3:30 pm in healthcare reform, Pete Stark, U.S. House.

Advocates for the Elder Justice Act – legislation seeking to better fund Adult Protective Services, require increased reporting of nursing home abuse and support and train investigators, ombudsmen, police, and prosecutors – have undertaken a national video campaign that’s targeting, among others, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.

Organizations and activists have been pursuing this legislation for at least since 2003; the latest versions, S.795 and H.R. 2006, were introduced last April. Now advocates are looking to Stark – who chairs the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee – for help in ensuring some or all of the legislation’s provisions get folded into the House-Senate compromise on health-care reform.

They note that America has had federal child abuse laws since 1974 and federal domestic violence laws protecting women since 1994, but no good equivalent dealing with elder abuse. They’ve mounted an “Elder Justice Now!” online campaign, co-sponsored by the National Council on Aging and WITNESS, to raise awareness.

Among the campaign’s video offerings are the tale of an elderly Hayward woman beset by her wayward grandson’s thuggish doings…

…and testimonials from Robin Sanow and Jill Nielsen of Alameda County Adult Protective Services

Stark isn’t among the House version’s 67 cosponsors, but Barbara Lee of Oakland, Mike Honda and Zoe Lofgren of San Jose and Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma are; neither Dianne Feinstein nor Barbara Boxer are among the Senate version’s 16 cosponsors.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    Ain’t Pete a senior-ite himself? He should act in his own interests.

  • CAHC

    Californians can’t afford Washington’s healthcare reform. One study estimates that the average health insurance premium for a healthy young Californian would grow by more than $1,200. For a family of four in Los Angeles, premiums would increase by more than $9,150 a year.

    And there’s a special interest “carve-out” (read: back-room deal) that will raise Californians’ insurance premiums even higher. Remember all of those special deals the Senate made to pass the bill? One of them would exempt an insurance company in Michigan and an insurance company in Nebraska from paying a tax that the bill would charge to every other insurance company. It was authored by Senator Levin from Michigan. His largest campaign contributor is that same insurance company. And remember that the key vote to pass the bill was the senator from Nebraska.

    Guess what happens if those companies are exempt from paying the tax? Consumers in other states – like California – would have to pay more. In fact, more consumers in California than in any other state would pay higher premiums as a result.

    Let’s tell our Members of Congress to do reform the right way and get rid of special deals like the Levin Amendment.