Lawmakers in Michigan have introduced a package of bills designed to lower costs and expand health care access.

Senate Bill 3 would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, made up of experts in economics, health care, supply chain management and academia, with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Its aim would be to cut costs and protect people's health and finances, by keeping prescription drug prices fair and transparent.

Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield, cosponsored the legislation.

"When I talk to people across my district -- and I spend a lot of time going door-to-door talking to people, asking them what's important to them, what kind of issues are they facing -- 'being able to afford health care' is the most common question I get," Shink reported.

As far back as 2017, it is estimated about one-third of Michigan residents ages 19-64 stopped taking their medications as prescribed because of cost concerns. The new legislation is in the Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection Committee.

Research shows more than 100 brand-name drugs won't have a money-saving generic available any time soon, and for some, not even for another five years. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. has already topped $603 billion, rising 16% between 2016 and 2021.

Shink argued the proposal would help hold pharmaceutical companies accountable.

"Sometimes the drug companies are just charging too much because they can," Shink asserted. "This board is going to take a look at drug prices, find the outliers and then help resolve the situation."

If the legislation is passed, Michigan would become the seventh state to tackle rising prescription drug costs with a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. Companion bills would ensure doctors and insurance companies abide by the board's decisions.


get more stories like this via email

Federal workers in the Commonwealth are part of a national labor union lawsuit filed against President Donald Trump's executive order to strip collective bargaining rights from nearly one million federal employees.

The Trump administration had already ended collective bargaining agreements with Transportation Security Administration employees.

Scott Robinson, president of AFGE Local 448 in Virginia, said federal workers like himself are not the enemy, adding that these actions threaten protections from unfair disciplinary actions or firings without cause.

"There's a huge effort to portray federal employees as guys in gray suits, who make hundreds of thousands of dollars and work in a fancy office in D.C. That's not the case," Robinson explained. "The federal employees that you interact with are park rangers. They're TSA officers. They're the SSA clerks. They are the VA nurses."

The Trump administration has said the order is needed to protect America's national security interests and defend the president's agenda.

The order revokes the collective bargaining rights of federal workers involved in national security issues. That spans federal employees at nearly two dozen agencies, including the Defense Department and Justice Department.

Federal employee unions have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the administration from shrinking the federal workforce and shuttering government agencies. These employees have also used their union rights to file grievances over certain policy decisions by Trump.

Robinson pointed out those collective bargaining agreements protect employees trying to serve their country - and provide continuity long after a president is out of office.

"There's no reason to oppose the concept of working people working towards a common goal, whether that's better pay, better working conditions or societal change," Robinson said. "Working people know what's best for them, and they don't need to be told what's best for them by an administration or by biased media."

Trump is taking action as labor unions experience a surge of public popularity. A Gallup poll found 70% of Americans have a favorable view of unions - one of the highest approval ratings since 1965.

As President Donald Trump dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, advocates of the agency warn that veterans and military service members in the Commonwealth will suffer.

The bureau partly enforces the Military Lending Act, which protects service members and their families from predatory lending and financial practices. The bureau has issued regulations that include limits on overdraft fees and restrictions on considering medical debt in credit reports.

Brian Johns, executive director of Virginia Organizing, said military members are often targets of predatory financial practices - many times right outside their bases.

"There were just dozens of payday-lending places, check-cashing places, car-title lending places," he said. "It became apparent that many of those who were living on base were definitely the targets to get cash quick, but without being made fully aware of all of the negative implications, including, like, 400% interest."

In a speech in February, Trump called the bureau "out of control" and questioned whether employees at the agency received kickbacks from money they return to consumers.

The House originally planned to vote to end overdraft fee protections enacted by the bureau this week. But disagreements among Republicans on other legislation ground votes in the lower chamber to a halt.

Christine Chen Zinner, chief policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, said service members have been described as the canary in the coal mine for abusive practices by financial institutions. The bureau, she said, helps protect service members, especially younger enlistees with less financial literacy.

"It is truly an agency where the government's working for the people," she said. "They vigorously protect consumers and their families. They protect service members, veterans and their families. They reduce junk fees, and they hold companies accountable when they engage in unfair and illegal conduct."

Since its inception, the bureau has returned more than $360 million to veterans and service members.

Maryland state employees are rallying behind a bill that would provide binding arbitration when unions and employers bargain.

Current Maryland law prohibits state workers from striking if their contract negotiations reach an impasse. A neutral party could make recommendations, but with no legal authority.

House Bill 159 would change that, allowing a neutral arbitrator to step in, with legally binding recommendations.

Patrick Moran - president of American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees' Council 3, which represents 30,000 state employees - said the bill would create a process that gives equal weight to unions and management.

"We want a process that's fair," said Moran. "And what I mean by that is, if we can't come to an agreement, then an arbitrator will get us both at the table and look at the evidence, and say, 'This side is asking for this. The other side is asking for that, and I think I can split the decision down the middle.'"

Opponents of the bill have said binding arbitration doesn't incentivize unions or management to compromise - an act they view as a vital pillar of union negotiations.

The legislation has been filed each year since 2022, but had never passed in either the House of Delegates or Senate until this session. Now, all eyes are on the Senate.

Moran said the need for an arbitrator depends on management's buy-in to the bargaining process.

"We didn't have an impasse procedure - so we were stuck with whatever the employer at the end, if we couldn't come to an agreement, decided we should take," said Moran. "That's not true bargaining. When we're dealing with rational people across the table, it's easier to come to a mutual conclusion."

If passed, the legislation would go before the Maryland voters as a ballot question.




get more stories like this via email