

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Mark Almberg, PNHP,
(312) 782-6006,
mark@pnhp.org
Despite the implementation of the Massachusetts health care reform designed to bolster employer-based insurance and to provide no-cost or low-cost insurance to those unable to afford it, the uninsured in Massachusetts remain predominantly the working poor, according to a new study by researchers at Harvard Medical School just published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
The 2006 comprehensive health care reform was designed to achieve "universal coverage" through new laws requiring that employers with more than 10 employees offer insurance and that all state residents obtain insurance or pay a fine. It also provided free or low-cost, subsidized insurance to state residents with low incomes.
Yet, most estimates put the number of uninsured in the state at well above a quarter million. For instance, last week the Census Bureau released its survey which found 370,000 people to be uninsured in Massachusetts -- 5.6 percent of the state's population.
To understand why people remained uninsured after the reform, the study authors surveyed 431 patients, ages 18-64, who were visiting the emergency room of Massachusetts' second largest safety-net hospital.
The researchers found that of the 189 patients without health insurance, two-thirds (65.9 percent) were employed, but only a quarter had access to employer-sponsored insurance. In addition, about one-third (35.2 percent) of uninsured patients reported having lost previous insurance coverage, with the majority of these (51.9 percent) having lost their coverage due to loss of a job or transition from one job to another.
"These findings illustrate that tying insurance to employment can be an unstable mechanism for providing coverage," said the study's lead author, Dr. Rachel Nardin, a neurologist at Cambridge Health Alliance. "We found that employer-based coverage failed the self-employed; those who worked for firms that did not offer insurance, especially small firms exempt from a requirement to offer insurance; and the poor who could not afford employer-sponsored insurance even when it was offered to them. The system of coverage also failed those who lost their job, which is particularly problematic with the current economic downturn."
More than 85 percent of the uninsured patients interviewed had incomes low enough to qualify them for free or low-cost, state-subsidized private insurance. Nonetheless, one-third reported being uninsured because they could not find affordable insurance.
In fact, although the majority of the uninsured were aware of the new legal requirement that they carry health insurance, nearly half reported that it motivated them to try to find insurance but that they had been unable to find insurance they could afford.
Senior author Dr. Danny McCormick, an internist at Cambridge Health Alliance, said: "It appears that for people with very low incomes, even state plans with subsidized insurance premiums may be too costly. Also, under the reform law workers who are offered employer sponsored insurance but decline it due to cost are not eligible for state subsidized insurance, no matter how poor they are."
McCormick added, "If we are serious about the goal of universal coverage, we will need to further reduce or eliminate the financial barriers to getting insurance that still clearly exist in Massachusetts."
The study also found that another common reason for losing previously held insurance was having had it cancelled without notice or because of lapsed paperwork. Only 5.6 percent of the interviewees were uninsured because they didn't think they needed insurance, suggesting there were few seeking a so-called free ride.
"Our study shows the many ways that patients can get left out of a complex system for providing health insurance," said McCormick. "While the reform substantially reduced the number of uninsured in our state, it failed to fully reach the demographic groups it targeted. Our findings emphasize the fragility of a reform requiring voluntary uptake, periodic renewal, dependence on employment and cost-sharing."
The study authors also point out that the Massachusetts health care reform law served as the model for the national health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, and thus may suggest even larger difficulty ahead for national health reform.
Nardin commented: "In Massachusetts, we had about 10 percent uninsured before the reform. In many other states, the uninsured rate is in the 20-25 percent range. If our results are any indicator, the national reform may leave many working poor uncovered.
"Although arguments about political feasibility are a major challenge, our study suggests that a comprehensive reform guaranteeing coverage to all residents without eligibility restrictions -- such as that provided by many single-payer systems -- would be a more effective way to achieve universal coverage than the Massachusetts reform."
"Reasons why patients remain uninsured after Massachusetts' health care reform: A survey of patients at a safety-net hospital," Rachel Nardin, M.D., Assaad Sayah, M.D., Hermione Lokko, B.Sc., Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., and Danny McCormick, M.D., M.P.H. Journal of General Internal Medicine, Sept. 16, 2011.
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
"We will continue this fight in both immigration and federal courts for as long as it takes, not only for Leqaa but for the freedom of all people facing unjust retaliation for speaking out against genocide," said one lawyer.
Leqaa Kordia, along with her family and legal team, celebrated on Monday when the 33-year-old Palestinian was released from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement after over a year in detention—but they also pointed to the battles ahead as President Donald Trump's administration continues to crack down on immigrants and critics.
"We are elated and relieved that Leqaa can finally return home to her family in New Jersey after a long year in ICE detention," said Sarah Sherman-Stokes, supervising attorney with the Boston University School of Law Immigrants Rights Clinic, in a statement.
"This is an important step in restoring Leqaa's rights as she continues to be unlawfully targeted by the government for her advocacy for Palestinian rights," Sherman-Stokes said. "We will continue this fight in both immigration and federal courts for as long as it takes, not only for Leqaa but for the freedom of all people facing unjust retaliation for speaking out against genocide."
Kordia is one of several immigrant advocates of Palestinian rights targeted by the Trump administration. The New Jersey resident was arrested during an ICE check-in last March and swiftly transferred to Prairieland Detention Center in Texas.
An immigration judge ordered Kordia's release a third time last Friday, on the one-year mark of her detention, as various advocacy groups including Amnesty International USA and Defending Rights & Dissent renewed calls for her freedom.
"We are overwhelmed with relief and gratitude at the release of our beloved Leqaa Kordia," her cousin Hamzah Abushaban said Monday. "This past year has taken an unimaginable toll on Leqaa and our entire family. We are grateful to our community that stood beside us every step of the way, and for the countless prayers offered during this past Ramadan—those moments of sincerity and hope carried us through some of our darkest days."
"While today marks a powerful and emotional milestone, we recognize that this is only the beginning," Abushaban continued. "Leqaa's voice, her resilience, and her story will continue to echo as we push for justice in a system that too often relies on unjust tactics, separating families, and inflicting lasting harm, as they have done to ours for over a year. We remain committed to advocating for every person who has been unjustly detained. No family should have to endure what ours has experienced. Today, we celebrate Leqaa's return home. Tomorrow, we continue the fight for justice."
Amal Thabateh, staff attorney with Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR), one of the organizations representing Kordia, stressed that "Leqaa should not have spent a single moment in ICE detention, let alone an entire year."
"Leqaa, like others, was punished for speaking out in defense of Palestinians, including her own family," Thabateh said. "While it took too many months and too many bond hearings for Leqaa to be released, a just result is finally here. We will continue to defend Leqaa's and others' rights to speak out for Palestinian liberation."
According to her Kordia's legal team, she lost nearly 200 relatives in the US-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which has continued to kill Palestinians in the territory despite an October ceasefire deal.
"It is an enormous relief that Leqaa is finally liberated from surviving one year of retaliatory and arbitrary immigration confinement for daring to speak her truth and protest against the genocide in Gaza," said Sadaf Hasan, staff attorney at Muslim Advocates. "It's outrageous that it took the government this long to comply with an immigration judge's repeated orders to release her."
While Kordia can now return to her family, the Trump administration may continue to target her. The Associated Press reported Monday that "an attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, Anastasia Norcross, said the government opposed the release of Kordia, regardless of the bond. She did not say at the time whether it would appeal for a third time."
Hasan said that Kordia walking free, at least for now, "is a long-overdue reminder that the government can't silence the movement for Palestinian liberation," but also is "about calling for an end to an immigration system that profits daily by subjecting tens of thousands of people to the abuses and indignities that Leqaa suffered."
As Trump has aimed to round up immigrants across various US cities, often by sending in hordes of masked federal agents, the number of people in ICE detention has climbed to nearly 70,000, as of last month. Despite the administration's claims that it is working to deport "the worst of the worst," data have repeatedly shown that most detainees lack criminal convictions.
Agents roaming streets in cities including Chicago and Minneapolis have also openly violated the rights of protesters and legal observers, even fatally shooting US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti in the latter city earlier this year.
Travis Fife, staff attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said Monday that "Leqaa going home today is the bare minimum. We must continue to assert the fundamental First Amendment principle that the government cannot abuse power to punish people for using their voice."
One physician and public health expert called the ruling "a much-needed victory for a sane approach to federal vaccine policy that relies on science, not misinformation and conspiracy theories."
In what advocates called a major victory for public health, a federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from implementing a series of moves that critics have warned would weaken childhood immunization efforts and increase the likelihood of serious disease outbreaks.
US District Judge Brian E. Murphy of Massachusetts, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, invalidated Kennedy's reorganized Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) panel, which was set to meet later this week.
Kennedy—who was confirmed by the Senate last year over the objections of tens of thousands experts and despite being a purveyor of vaccine misinformation—replaced ACIP members with several people with ties to the anti-vaccine movement.
Murphy also blocked the committee's unprecedented changes to US immunization recommendations, writing that the "arbitrary and capricious" move stands in stark contrast with the long established decision-making process he called "a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements."
“Unfortunately, the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions," the judge said.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Kennedy revised the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) childhood immunization schedule so that fewer vaccines are now universally recommended for all children. The agency also reclassified vaccines that were previously endorsed for all children into categories in which vaccination depends on designated risk groups and consultations with medical professionals, among other changes.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have announced that they would not follow the new CDC immunization recommendations.
Lookie Here! As of now, 29 states + DC, have announced that they are no longer going to follow CDC's recommendations for some or all childhood vaccines.Kennedy is not restoring public trust in science as he said he would. 🧪 www.kff.org/other-health...
[image or embed]
— Princess Vimentin PhD | Cancer Biologist (@princess-vimentin.bsky.social) March 12, 2026 at 11:47 AM
Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Huges IV said in a statement that "this ruling is a momentous step toward restoring science-based vaccine policymaking."
"The judge recognized that the actions of Secretary Kennedy and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are not grounded in science and that they are destructive," he added. "We are thrilled that the court has discarded the baseless vaccine schedule changes made by Secretary Kennedy and is blocking the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices from doing further damage to vaccine policy."
Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Health Research Group director at Public Citizen, said in response to the ruling that "Judge Murphy’s decision is a much-needed victory for a sane approach to federal vaccine policy that relies on science, not misinformation and conspiracy theories."
"Kennedy’s hand-picked ACIP has been a national embarrassment, thoroughly lacking in the ability to make careful fact-based decisions," he added. "The judge’s ruling offers a responsible path forward for public health and evidence-based federal vaccine policy.”
RFK Jr. fired all of the legitimate scientific experts on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replaced them with unqualified political appointees.A judge just ruled that the new members were not appropriately appointed, so ACIP cannot meet this week to spread more misinformation.
— Elizabeth Jacobs, PhD (@elizabethjacobs.bsky.social) March 16, 2026 at 1:38 PM
Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA, said in a statement: "When politics override science, our children pay the price. Today’s decision helps ensure that medical evidence—not ideology—guides how we protect kids from preventable diseases."
Wright continued:
Secretary Kennedy’s attempt to remove universal recommendations for routine vaccinations only increased confusion among medical providers and families. The routine vaccines being questioned by HHS are the product of centuries of rigorous science and medicine and are why children today don’t die from measles or suffer the lifelong consequences of diseases we long ago learned to prevent. For a country as large, diverse, and mobile as ours, universal vaccine recommendations are the safest and most effective way to stop outbreaks before they start.
Amid several recent outbreaks, public health officials warned late last year that the United States is close to following Canada in losing its measles elimination status, a deadly and preventable setback many experts attribute to HHS' vaccine-averse policies and practices under Kennedy.
"We commend the court for this ruling, but families should not have to depend on litigation to ensure their child can receive a routine vaccine," Wright said. "Evidence-based medicine keeps children alive and in school. Preventing disease should be the foundation of any healthcare system serious about confronting the next disease outbreak or finding the next cure."
The group Protect Our Care called the decision "a major step in the right direction for children’s health after many setbacks under this administration."
“Most Americans, most states, and now a federal court have rejected the [President Donald] Trump-RFK Jr. scheme to make preventable disease great again among American children while exploding health costs across the country," Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse said. "While this ruling is a reprieve from harmful anti-vaccine policy based on nothing but junk science and discredited conspiracies, it’s clear the Trump administration is determined to resuscitate their agenda in a higher court because they care more about their anti-science agenda than keeping kids healthy.”
Indeed, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency "looks forward to this judge’s decision being overturned just like his other attempts to keep the Trump administration from governing.”
Public health advocates noted the limitations of judicial rulings.
"The courts can only do so much without Congress, which must fulfill its oversight responsibility and rein in an executive branch that is taking an axe to core public health protections," Wright said. "Transparency and scientific integrity are not optional, especially when children’s lives are at stake. Families deserve vaccine policy grounded in evidence and expert guidance—not ideology or personal bias—with the goal of making sure every child in America can grow up healthy.”
"While we're busy destroying the Gulf, our side project is implementing a total siege on the island of Cuba," said one progressive critic. "Unbelievably cruel."
Cuba faced an island-wide blackout on Monday amid an energy crisis resulting from President Donald Trump's decision to ramp up the United States' decadeslong and legally contested blockade of the Caribbean country by cutting off shipments of Venezuelan oil.
"A total disconnection" of the island's electrical system had occurred, but "the causes are being investigated, and protocols for restoration are beginning to be activated," the Cuban Ministry of Energy and Mines said on social media. It later added that "no faults" were reported in the units operating when the grid collapsed, and "the restoration process continues."
While Cuba has endured power outages in recent years that officials and experts have blamed on both the condition of the country's system and US sanctions, there have been multiple major blackouts in recent months, since Trump sent soldiers to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and seized control of Venezuela's nationalized oil industry.
"Officials in the US [government] must be feeling very happy by the harm caused to every Cuban family," Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío told CNN of the latest outage. The network noted that it had reached out to the White House for comment.
Blasting the blackout as "a direct consequence of Trump's economic warfare," Manolo De Los Santos of The People's Forum in New York City said on social media Monday that "the US has deliberately cut off fuel, spare parts, and equipment, crippling an already fragile grid. It's a genocidal siege, designed to starve and break the Cuban people into submission."
Similarly highlighting how "decades of US sanctions have made it harder for Cuba to access the fuel, equipment, and financing needed to maintain its energy grid," New York state Sen. Jabari Brisport (D-25), a democratic socialist, declared that "it's time to end the blockade and pursue diplomacy."
The blackout on the island of nearly 11 million people came after Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly confirmed on Friday that his government recently held "sensitive" talks with the Trump administration "to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries."
Specifically, according to The Associated Press, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change on the island—and top aides met with Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro on the sidelines of a Caribbean Community leaders meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis last month.
During his Friday remarks to reporters, Díaz-Canel also emphasized the impacts of Cuba not receiving oil shipments for over three months, including disruptions to communications, education, healthcare, and transportation across the island.
While Trump was speaking with reporters on Monday, he called Cuba a "failed nation," and claimed that "Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon, either make a deal or do whatever we have to do." He also signaled that any such action would come after the illegal war his administration and Israel are waging on Iran.
Although Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently helped Senate Republicans block Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) war powers resolution intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran, Kaine has now partnered with Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) for a similar measure on Cuba.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) took to social media on Monday to weigh in on the grid collapse: "Cuba has gone dark. Trump's vindictive oil embargo—along with a sanctions regime that has starved Cuba of opportunities to develop its solar and wind—is depriving innocent Cuban citizens of basic necessities and creating a humanitarian crisis. Trump must end the embargo."
Markey and two other Massachusetts Democrats, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jim McGovern, had previously written to Trump in February to call for an end to the oil embargo, stressing that "Cuba poses no credible national security threat to the United States," and "the overt strategy of choking off oil imports to the island is inflicting severe hardship on the Cuban people, who rely on imported fuel for electricity, transportation, healthcare, and clean water."
"Taking action that sparks a humanitarian crisis as a means of leverage is not a strategy that results in long-term success or reflects who we are as Americans," they argued. "Policies that intensify fuel shortages, cripple essential services, and deepen economic desperation risk destabilizing not only Cuba, but the broader Caribbean region."