Toll in MA Lives and Dollars Remains Terrible Even as Opioid Deaths Drop

Although fewer Massachusetts residents are dying of opioid overdoses, the number of such deaths still exceeds 2,000 a year.

According to preliminary data released this week by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 2,015 persons died of opioid overdoses in 2019, which represented a 4% decrease since the historic peak of 2,102 overdose deaths in 2016.

The downward trend continued during the first quarter of this calendar year.

There were 28 fewer opioid overdose deaths in January, February and March than in the same period of 2019: 467 fatalities versus 495.

Amidst this welcome development there can be no joy.  The size of the continuing problem is just so huge...and hugely depressing.

Two thousand and fifteen persons succumbing to opioid abuse works out to more than 5 deaths in every day of 2019 in Massachusetts.

The deadly toll of the never-ending opioid epidemic  upon Massachusetts families, as well as the suffering of family members and dear friends of those with opioid use disorder, are incalculable.

The fiscal impacts of the epidemic are measured, with results that overwhelm cognitive abilities and shake the soul.

A November, 2018, report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, "The Massachusetts Opioid Epidemic -- An Issue of Substance," pegged the financial burdens of the opioid crisis on the state, in terms of  "lost productivity, increased health costs, and increased expenses for public safety and criminal justice," in the billions of dollars annually.

Here are two of the particulars from that report:

• "The cost of lost productivity from those who are unable to work due to opioids, those who have died from overdoses, and those whose productivity is compromised by having to manage their own opioid addiction while working, reached approximately $9.7 billion in 2017."

• "Health care costs related to the opioid crisis, including excess costs to businesses, MassHealth (Medicaid) and other state programs, and (to) health care providers, reached $4.5 billion in 2017." 

Think how much good could be accomplished with those billions, how much better life in Massachusetts could be, if there were no illegal opioids, and if we humans were not so vulnerable to addiction.

Admit It, Massachusetts, You Love the Legislature Just the Way It Is

More than 60 percent of the members of the Massachusetts legislature are virtually guaranteed re-election this fall because they will have no opponents, or possibly only token opposition.

Last week, the State House News Service reported that "a total of 125 incumbent lawmakers, including members in both parties, were the only major-party candidates in their districts to file nomination papers with Secretary of State William Galvin by Tuesday's (June 2) deadline...."

Referring to these unopposed incumbents, the SHNS said, "They could still receive challenges from write-in campaigns. But the ballots are largely set, and as it stands now, none of those 125 legislators -- representing 62.5 percent of the General Court -- will face a declared Republican or Democratic opponent in either the Sept. 1 primary election or Nov. 3 general election."

With the Democratic Party holding supermajorities in both the House and Senate, Massachusetts is essentially a one-party state.  It's been that way for a long time, so most voters must be satisfied with the situation.

Yes, the state's highest elected office holder, Governor Charlie Baker, is a Republican. But his approach to governing has no ideological tinge.  He's a born manager/problem solver.  Baker never has difficulty finding common ground with centrist Democrats.

Between this year and next, there will be some turnover of the normal kind in the legislature because a number of incumbents have opted not to seek another term.  Fourteen members of the lower branch, for example, fall into that category, including four Dems who embody the truth that incumbency is a highly attractive trait in Massachusetts:

Angelo Scaccia of Boston, first elected in 1973; Ted Speliotis of Danvers, first elected in 1979; Tom Petrolati of Ludlow, first elected in 1987; and Lou Kafka of Stoughton, first elected in 1991.

Familiar faces.  We can't get enough of them in Massachusetts politics.

Advocates for Granting Driver Licenses to Undocumented Point to Pandemic

Because it can take a long time to enact a bill, and because many bills wither and die half-way to the goal of enactment,  advocacy groups often add new wrinkles to their lobbying campaigns in the hope of re-energizing their causes, generating positive publicity, and spurring movement in the legislature.

What happened earlier this month in the project to pass a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain Massachusetts driver licenses is a case in point.

During the current legislative session (and in previous sessions as well), advocates for licensing the undocumented have presented the cause as a commonsensical response to the transportation needs of a vital, hardworking, family-oriented sector of the population and as an evidence-based step toward improving  public safety.  Now, they're adding this argument:

Allowing the undocumented to drive legally would serve to inhibit the spread of the coronavirus and simultaneously boost the state's economic recovery from the COVID-19-related recession.

Here's Natalicia Tracy, executive director of the Brazilian Workers Center and co-chair of the Driving Families Forward campaign:

"This bill -- to license all drivers, regardless of immigration status -- needs to be an essential piece of our public health and economic security policy.  Without driver's licenses, many of our essential workers have to crowd onto buses or subway cars to get to work.  This puts their lives and our community's health at risk."

The above was excerpted from an article published online May 21 by the State House News Service and headlined, "Driver's License Bill Reframed as Public Health Priority."

In that article, the other Driving Families Forward co-chair, Roxana Rivera, an officer in the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), was quoted thusly:

"Before the pandemic, this policy (licensing the undocumented) was common sense.  Now, it is about protecting lives and helping workers put food on the table.  If undocumented workers are better able to access good jobs safely, they will help our economy bounce back more quickly and help the state generate more revenue in the long term."

Last year, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center estimated that 185,000 undocumented immigrants were residing in Massachusetts.  The folks at Driving Families Forward predict that, if these immigrants were permitted to drive, up to 78,000 of them would obtain licenses during the three years following enactment of such a law.

Senate Bill 2641, An Act Relative to Work and Family Mobility, and its identical lower-branch companion, House Bill 3012, would change Chapter 90 of the Massachusetts General Laws by, one, eliminating the portion of it stating that "no license of any type may be issued to any person who does not have a lawful presence in the United States," and, two, adding language to it making persons who cannot provide "proof of lawful presence" eligible for driver licenses "if they meet all other qualifications for licensure and provide satisfactory proof" to the Registry of Motor Vehicles "of identity, date of birth and Massachusetts residency."

SB2641/HB3012 were heard before the Joint Committee on Transportation last September.  On April 21, the committee voted 14 to 4 to send a redrafted version of it, with a favorable report, to the Senate Ways & Means Committee.  No action on it has since been taken.

The bill sent by the Transportation Committee to Senate Ways & Means would, if enacted, require an undocumented immigrant who is seeking a license to furnish two forms of identification, including at least one with a photograph and one with a date of birth.

Rep. Christine Barber, D-Somerville, a co-sponsor of the bill in the House, said in April, "The minute the bill was released favorably, we started hearing directly from colleagues who are really supportive and happy that the bill is moving.  There is support.  We're continuing to build support." [Source: State House News Service]  Rep. Barber also said:

"Undocumented people actually have a lot of documents.  They're not just legal permanent residents of the United States...Most of these folks are people who have lived here for a really long time.  They're members of our community.  They need to drive to either get to work or to take their kids to a doctor.  They are probably driving anyway and we'd rather have people have insurance, have passed a driver's test, pass a vision test, and actually have a license when they get pulled over, than to have them driving and not be insured."

In all, 84 members of the House and Senate have signed onto SB2641/HB3012 as sponsors or co-sponsors.  That number represents 42 percent of the 200-member legislature, which consists of 40 senators and 160 representatives.

Also recorded in favor of the bill are Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, Cambridge Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera, Lynn Mayor Tom McGee and Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone.

Some legislative leaders are reportedly cool to the idea of advancing  An Act Relative to Work and Family Mobility any farther than Senate Ways & Means in this session.  And Governor Charlie Baker is flat-out opposed to the bill.

This past February, explaining his opposition, Baker said, "I've said for many years that I think it's really hard to build the kind of safeguards into that kind of process that would create the kind of security that would be hard to live up to some of the federal and state standards with respect to security and identification.  And, for those reasons, I don't support that legislation."

The driver licenses envisaged by SB2641/HB3012 would not be compliant with the new federally-tailored REAL-ID program; licensees could not use them, for example, to board a plane or gain entry to a federal building.

In matters of prognostication, I am as accurate as a chimp tossing darts at a board.  Something there is about the métier of blogging, however, that rather foolishly invites/encourages predictions.  I'll rush in then to predict An Act Relative to Work and Family Mobility will pass the Senate but never come to a vote in the House this year.

If I'm wrong, and if the House does take up the bill and enact it, and if the governor vetoes it, I predict there will be enough votes in the Senate, 27, to override the veto, but not enough in the House, 107, to effect a successful override, meaning the long, hard-fought campaign to provide qualified undocumented immigrants with the opportunity to legally drive a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have expired tantalizingly short of victory.

Fast, Welcome Medicine but No Cure: $4 Billion from Feds to MA Citizens

The feds have opened the money spigot and literally billions of dollars have flowed directly to  citizens of Massachusetts.

How much money are we talking?  Four billion -- as in $4,000,000,000!

That's the number the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service put out earlier this month in a joint announcement.

To be precise, there were 2,503,206 individual federal economic stimulus/ pandemic relief checks sent to Massachusetts, as of Friday, May 8, those agencies reported...and all those checks added up to $4,008,005,049.

The average payment to Massachusetts individuals was $1,200.

According to the IRS, during the first four weeks of the stimulus program, roughly 130 million persons nationwide  received federal checks with a cumulative value of $200 billion.

IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said, "We are working hard to continue delivering these payments to Americans who need them.  The vast majority of payments have been delivered in record time, and millions more are on the way every week."

Four billion dollars suddenly finding its way into the pockets of two-and-a-half million Bay Staters is a big deal. Obviously, it is helping us weather the COVID-19 economic depression, especially the million or so who have lost their jobs.

But it is no panacea.  It cannot make everyone whole.  It cannot begin to banish every fear about money and the future.  One reason why is the enormity and complexity of the Massachusetts economy.

According to a 24/7 Wall Street analysis, our state's gross domestic product in 2019 approached $500 billion!

The precise Massachusetts GDP for that year was $490,200,000,000.

Our annual economic output was about the same as that of the country of Norway, the 24/7 Wall Street analysis indicated.  On the stage of the world economy, we'd be considered a little giant, pre-pandemic.

Now, the little giant's in the ICU with multiple, compound fractures.

It's going to take many months for it just to walk, and maybe years before it can run again.

New Bill Would Revolutionize Absentee Voting as a COVID-19 Work-Around

With wary eyes on the pandemic, more than a third of the members of the legislature have signed on to a newly-filed bill that would  allow anyone and everyone who wanted to vote by absentee ballot this fall do so.

There's a lot to like about, House Docket #5075,  An Act Ensuring Safe and Participatory 2020 State Elections in Response to COVID-19.

But one of the big questions it raises is: Are we ready to wait 10 days after the election this November to know all of the results?

Before getting to that issue, let me describe three aspects of HD5075:

• It proposes to create a new definition of who'd be eligible for an absentee ballot by reason of  disability. For the purposes of the law, you'd be considered disabled if you did not want to go to a polling place for fear of catching the coronavirus.  Section 2 of the bill says "that all voters who are ill, are confined to their homes to avoid transmission of illness, or wish to avoid polling places as a precautionary measure related to COVID-19, are unable by reason of physical disability to cast their votes in person at the polling places [underlining added]."  
• Nineteen days before both the September 1, 2020, state primaries and the November 3, 2020, biennial state election, it would require Secretary of State William Galvin to mail to every registered voter "an absent voting ballot and accompanying papers."  Every voter this fall would get an absentee ballot without applying for one!  The choice to vote that way would then be up to them.
• As a COVID-19-centric measure, it applies only to the September 1, 2020, and November 3, 2020, elections.  This bill would have to be amended, or another bill would have to enacted by a subsequent legislature, to institute permanent universal access to absentee voting.

As for vote-counting, Section 6 of HD5075 stipulates that, if a voter mailed in his/her absentee ballot "not later than November 3," and if that mailed-in ballot were received by the city or town clerk in that voter's community "not later than November 13," the clerk would have to count it.

That's quite a change from the existing situation in Massachusetts.

Currently, for an absentee ballot to be counted, it must be received by the voter's local election office no later than the time the polls close on election day.  That vote is then added to, and counted among, all the ballots cast that day.

The bill was filed only five days ago, on May 5.  The lead bill sponsors in the House are Rep. John J. Lawn, Jr., D-Watertown, and Rep. Michael J. Moran, D-Boston.  The lead in the Senate is Eric Lesser, D-Longmeadow. There are 60 co-sponsors of the bill in the House and 7 co-sponsors in the Senate.

An Act Ensuring Safe and Participatory 2020 State Elections in Response to COVID-19 is so new it doesn't yet have a bill number.  It has not yet been assigned to a committee or scheduled for a hearing.

That is not to say the bill is so late as to have no chance.  The COVID-19 pandemic has entirely upended our lives and changed so many of our behaviors and attitudes.  When the fall elections heave into view, voters could begin clamoring for universal access to absentee balloting.

I only hope that the legislature, if it embraces this bill, will set earlier deadlines for submission of absentee ballots so that we'll have the traditional satisfaction of knowing who's won or lost on the night of an election, or before breakfast on the morning after.

 

Ideal Stimulus Would Lift Economy While Addressing Global Warming

Yes, the coronavirus is bad for the entire world, but there's something equally bad, if not much worse, waiting for us behind the pandemic, and we have to deal with it, similarly, on a planetary scale: climate change.  I've been reading and hearing that fairly often in the media.

Scientists, public health experts, elected officials and pundits-for-hire are arguing that the first real pandemic in a century -- and humanity's response to it -- should serve as a reminder of how seriously we are threatened by global warming and as an example of how our species, when it has no choice, is capable of confronting and slowly overcoming a horribly large and deadly threat.

We've had no choice but to turn our lives inside-out to defeat the coronavirus, they are saying, and we have no choice now but to do the same against climate change.  Our future and our grandchildren's future depend upon that choice.  Everyone's children.  Everyone's grandchildren.  Everywhere.

Today, the boldest voices on this subject make a connection between the engineering of an economic recovery, post-pandemic, and the construction of the massive infrastructure projects needed to reduce warming and cope with its effects.

I went searching for information on the scope of our infrastructure needs and came across an excellent article in the MIT Technology Review, "Climate change means the US must start building big things again."  It was written by James Temple, the Review's senior editor for energy, and published Jan. 15, 2020, well before COVID-19 took over our lives.  Here are two key excerpts from the article:

1.

"Major portions of the nation's highways, bridges, water pipes, ports, railways, and electric transmission lines were constructed more than half a century ago, and in many cases they are falling apart.  The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated a $1.4 trillion gap between the funding available and the amount needed to maintain, rebuild, or develop US infrastructure between 2016 and 2025.  That figure swells to $5 trillion through 2040.

"That all bodes terribly for our ability to grapple with the coming dangers of climate change, because it is fundamentally an infrastructure problem. [Bold facing added] Reducing US greenhouse-gas emissions in line with global efforts to prevent 2 degrees Celsius of warming will require annual investments in clean technologies like renewables and a modern grid to increase tenfold by 2030, from $100 billion to $1 trillion, according to a 2015 study by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project.

"To prepare for the climate dangers we now can't avoid, we'll also need to bolster coastal protections, reengineer waste and water systems, reinforce our transportation infrastructure, and relocate homes and businesses away from expanding flood and fire zones.  Depending on how rapidly or slowly the world cuts emissions, climate adaptation costs could run tens or hundreds of billions of dollars per year by midcentury, according to the latest National Climate Assessment."

2.

"When I asked Costa Samaras, director of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Engineering and Resilience for Climate Adaptation, what parts of our infrastructure we need to renovate or rebuild for coming climate dangers, he recited a list: 'Water systems, power systems, stormwater systems, reservoirs, dams, pipelines, airports, train tracks.  It's everything.' "


Metropolitan Boston is the economic driver of Massachusetts and much of New England.  That is why, pre-pandemic, the highways into the city were always congested and officials from Worcester, Springfield and New Bedford were always focused on getting high-speed passenger rail service from their cities to Boston.  Boston was where the jobs were.  That's where they'll be again.

Yet Boston, with its 46-plus miles of shoreline and marvelous economy, is exceptionally vulnerable to ocean flooding caused by global warming.  Boston has more filled-in land than most major cities in the U.S.  And that land is lying barely above sea level in many spots, such as the Seaport District and parts of the North End, East Boston and Charlestown.

According to the World Bank, there are only four cities in the U.S. that would sustain higher damages from rising sea levels than Boston, as measured in dollars.  They are Miami, New York City, New Orleans and Tampa.  That's not a list you want to be on.

According to climate scientists, over the last one hundred years, the level of the water in Boston Harbor has risen by about 11 inches.  Conservative estimates hold that the harbor will be 6 inches higher by 2030, 13 inches higher by 2050, and 59 inches higher by 2050.

The coronavirus pandemic and the warming of our planet are separate and distinct phenomena. Now, however, we need nothing so much as the imagination to see them as a single monstrosity and the will to take them on simultaneously.

Blogster's Miscellany: Insulted Mitt, Hurt Newspapers, Vanished Jobs & More...

TRUMP STICKS IT TO ROMNEY: Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and current U.S. senator from Utah, was the only one of 53 Senate Republicans not invited by President Trump to join a congressional task force that will be studying the pros and cons of re-opening different parts of the country amidst the ongoing pandemic.  Will one of Romney's colleagues in the Republican caucus ever speak up against Trump's shabby treatment of him?  I'm thinking of you, Lamar Alexander. You're not running for re-election and have nothing to lose. A man of decency and integrity is being mistreated by a bully. Come on.

BIG NEWSPAPERS RETRENCHING: Newspapers have been shrinking or disappearing altogether for 20 years because of the shift of paid advertising to the Internet.  Despite the wonders and obvious benefits of the worldwide web, this trend has been nothing but bad for communities long dependent on their newspapers for local information and for keeping local governments open and honest. Now, the sudden  pandemic depression is making things even worse for this industry.  This week, two venerable Massachusetts dailies announced significant cutbacks. The Lawrence-based Eagle-Tribune will no longer publish print editions on Tuesdays and Saturdays, starting this week. And the owner of the Springfield Republican/MassLive informed employees that furloughs and pay cuts are coming.

HARD-TO-FATHOM JOB LOSSES: More than half a million citizens of Massachusetts have filed for unemployment benefits since the coronavirus pandemic began impacting the state.  This past week saw another big jump in claims, with 102,828 more filing for benefits.

CASINOS SUPPORTING WORKERS: The state's slots parlor and its two casinos were ordered closed on March 15 because of the pandemic.  That order will remain in effect at least until May 4.  Meantime, the Encore Boston Harbor casino in Everett is committed to paying employees through the middle of May and Springfield's MGM casino gave employees two weeks of furlough pay and is keeping up their health insurance coverage through June.

EX-TREASURER IN JAM WITH ETHICS COMMISSION: Former Peabody City Treasurer Jean Carnevale has admitted using her position to help set up sales of three tax-delinquent properties to family members and associates.  For that civil offense, she has paid a $50,000 penalty to the Massachusetts Ethics Commission.  Carnevale, who served as treasurer from 2012 to 2017, is a daughter of the late Peter Torigian, the longest serving mayor (1979-2002) in Peabody history.  The unfortunate details of her case may be found in the Ethics Commission section of the state website, www.mass.gov; in that section, click on "News" and up will come a press release headlined, "Former Peabody City Treasurer Jeanne Carnevale Pays $50,000 Civil Penalty for Violating the Conflict of Interest Law."

HYDE PARK EQUALS LONGEVITY: Former Boston City Councilor Rob Consalvo is a strong contender in the burgeoning race to succeed retiring state representative Angelo Scaccia, the longest serving member of the lower branch of the legislature and thus entitled to be called Dean of the House.  Scaccia's district, the 14th Suffolk, consists mainly of the Hyde Park section of Boston.  Consalvo represented Hyde Park on the Council from 2002 to 2014 and is currently employed as an aide to Boston School Superintendent Brenda Cassellius  Also in the race (so far) is Gretchen Van Ness, who ran unsuccessfully against Scaccia in 2018.  If the past is a reliable guide, whoever wins the 14th Suffolk race is likely to hold the job a long time.  Scaccia has been in the House for 46 years, with only a two-year interruption (1979-80).  The man Scaccia succeeded, way back in 1973, Michael Paul Feeney, was in the House for 41 years.  And don't forget that other remarkably successful politician from Hyde Park, the late Tom Menino, who was elected to five consecutive  four-year terms as mayor of Boston, making him the longest-serving Boston mayor in history.

AIRLINE MUST HOLD THE FORT IN CENTRAL MA: This past Thursday, the U.S Department of Transportation denied a request by JetBlue to suspend service to and from the Worcester Regional Airport during the pandemic.  The denial was based on the airline having accepted financial assistance under the federal Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which gave the department the leverage to compel JetBlue to keep serving the region.  After Boston, Worcester is the largest city in New England, followed by Providence, RI; Springfield, MA; and Bridgeport, CT.

HOARDERS BEWARE: Rep. Alan Silvia, D-Fall River, has a newly filed bill aimed at discouraging hoarding during the pandemic.  An Act Relative to Anti-Hoarding and Return of Bulk-Purchased Items During the COVID-19 Outbreak states that "No person or retail food store shall accept the bulk return of any groceries and other household goods purchased by a consumer during, and for 30 days following, a declared state of emergency resulting from a pandemic or other public health emergency."  In a press release, Silvia said, "While we see people come together in a profound spirit of generosity and community spirit during this time of crisis, shortages of certain products have still been reported...this bill would discourage those who may try to make money off a vulnerable population's need for basic necessities by hoarding and/or selling them at exorbitant prices."  Before being elected to the legislature in 2012, Silvia had a 21-year career as an officer and detective on the Fall River police force.  The bill has three co-sponsors: Rep. RoseLee Vincent, D-Revere; Rep. Peter Capano, D-Lynn; and Rep. Paul A. Schmid, III, D-Westport.

OUR $60-BILLION HEALTH CARE TAB: The day of Wednesday, March 11, seems like the distant past because of the enormous changes that have taken place in our lives since then on account of COVID-19, but it is worth revisiting that date if only because of what the legislature's Joint Committee on Health Care Financing heard then from the state's Health Policy Commission.  As reported by the State House News Service in an articled headlined, "Fewer Hospital Stays Not Leading to Overall Cost Savings," total health care spending in Massachusetts increased in 2018 at a rate of 3.1 percent to a total sum of $60.9 billion.  Health Policy Commission Research Director David Auerbach noted that, between 2013 and 2018, spending on inpatient hospital care grew at a rate of 11 percent even though the number of hospital stays declined by 14 percent during that period.  "We have not reaped the savings from moving people out of the hospital or (from) fewer hospital stays," he said.