Proposed bill in Michigan targets medical guardianship

A new bipartisan bill package hopes to streamline the process for Michigan families making medical guardianship decisions, also known as next of kin.
"If they only have a few days to live, you don't want — and I didn't want — to spend those last three days trying to fight in court," said State Rep. Jamie Thompson, R-Brownstown Township. "Things can happen. There's plenty of emergencies that can happen, whether it be car accidents or strokes or things with patients that can turn really quickly when they become confused and can't make their own decisions."
Thompson knows how difficult making end-of-life decisions can be. A few years ago, her father faced a terminal diagnosis and only had days to live.
Wanting to bring him home from Kentucky, Thompson says she had everything in place.
"But as soon as we got him to Michigan, everything changed," said Thompson.
Under current Michigan law, when a person becomes incapacitated without a medical power of attorney in place, families have to go through the court system before they can make any time-sensitive medical decisions.
While next of kin traditionally means a closest living blood relative, Michigan requires a longer legal process to make that determination, which Thompson says can make an already difficult situation even tougher.
"Michigan law requires you to go to a court and get guardianship with your loved one in order to make those decisions for them, and that's something I don't feel the court should have involvement in," said Thompson.
Thompson teamed up with Democratic Rep. Angela Witwer, a fellow healthcare provider, to create the bill package.
"Death happens, not when you're prepared for it most of the time, and so this is a way to help people and help those in the most vulnerable state be taken care of," said Witwer, D-Delta Township.
Both representatives say they wanted to get involved because Michigan is one of the few states in the country without this in its laws.
"If the parties both look at what is important to the people of Michigan, then we'll always be right in how we move things forward," said Witwer.
"To me, it's whatever medications you take, your list of allergies, your diagnosis is everything that's part of your medical record, your final wishes should be a part of that as well," said Thompson.
The bills have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration and are expected to be introduced in the chamber later this summer.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

31 minutes ago

• CBS News

Judge orders Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release before trial, but he will likely be detained by ICE

A Tennessee judge on Sunday ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Trump's immigration crackdown, while he awaits a federal trial on human smuggling charges. But he is not expected to be allowed to go free. At his June 13 detention hearing, prosecutors said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would take Abrego Garcia into custody if he were released on the criminal charges, and he could be deported before he has a chance to stand trial. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of Abrego Garcia's release. The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge's release order. Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is "little more than an academic exercise" because ICE will likely detain him. But the judge wrote that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and "a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial." Holmes wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released. "Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego's release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community," the judge wrote. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify the deportation mistake after the fact. The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to try to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail. But Holmes said then that she had no intention of "getting in the middle of any ICE hold." "If I elect to release Mr. Abrego, I will impose conditions of release, and the U.S. Marshal will release him." If he is released into ICE custody, that is "above my pay grade," she said. The judge suggested that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government's priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial. Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing Abrego Garcia at the detention hearing, told Holmes that "it's not necessarily accurate that he would be immediately deported." A 2019 immigration judge's order prevents Abrego Garcia, who had been living in Maryland, from being deported to his home country of El Salvador, Allensworth said in court. That's because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to court papers. The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that third country was willing to keep him and not simply deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said. The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go on his way with only a warning. At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed Abrego Garcia to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have characterized the smuggling case as a desperate attempt to justify the mistaken deportation. The investigation was launched weeks after the U.S. government deported Abrego Garcia and the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return amid mounting public pressure. Chris Newman, an attorney who represents Abrego Garcia's family, previously told CBS News, "The Trump administration is very invested in making this a referendum on the immigration debate, which, as you know, has become coarsened and polarized." "And that is one way to look at it. And I think certainly a lot of people view it that way. I don't view it that way. I view this as a core constitutional order case, a core due process case," Newman said. "And it just so happens that a Salvadoran immigrant is defending bedrock constitutional protections for all of us." Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández said. The U.S. will likely try to deport Abrego Garcia quickly without going before an immigration judge, the professor said. The government would not need a conviction to deport him because Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. illegally. "The legal standard is laxer," García Hernández said. "The government's argument is on stronger legal footing." However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board's ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.

Yahoo

37 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Oil hits five-month high after US hits key Iranian nuclear sites

SINGAPORE (Reuters) -Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as Washington's weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71. Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, five-month highs, before giving up some gains. The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows. Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move. "The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh. Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volumes that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added. Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%. The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruptions, analysts said. Meanwhile, the unwinding of some of the long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.

Forbes

40 minutes ago

• Forbes

Price Controls On Doctors Are Costing Patients Dearly

Market Manipulation Just like the December 2024 continuing resolution, the current budget reconciliation bill fails to address the problem of Medicare reimbursing physicians at below market rates. Without a fix, the inevitable consequences will be worsening doctor shortages, declining healthcare quality, higher overall healthcare spending, and the accelerated loss of independent practices. Of course, how do we know that Medicare's payments to doctors are below their economic value? To start, Medicare's reimbursement rates have declined relative to both the cost of running a medical practice and inflation. Doctors consistently report that they lose money treating Medicare patients. A survey of doctors found that Medicare's low reimbursement rates (68%) are a primary threat to independent practices. As for inflation, it has grown 34.5% overall since January 2016 while the prices received by doctors have grown less than half as much - just 15.1%. This is not due to demand for healthcare declining – remember the huge number of aging Baby Boomers seeking health care – or a huge surge in the number of qualified doctors serving patients. In fact, the level of doctors serving patients today - 25.4 active physicians per 10,000 residents - is down from 2019 and has fallen back to 2009 levels. The problem is government setting prices at below market levels. And setting prices below market rates cause adverse consequences to our health, such as fewer doctors available to serve patients. This creates serious health risks for patients including longer wait times for appointments, less access to specialty care, shorter doctor visits, larger numbers of medical errors, and more misdiagnoses or missed diagnoses. These risks are more acute for people living in rural areas, who have a higher chance of living in areas deemed 'medical deserts' or regions that lack sufficient access to pharmacies, primary care providers, and hospitals. Medicare's uneconomical reimbursement system is also changing how patient care is delivered. For example, under the current reimbursement system, Medicare compensates hospitals more than independent physician offices for performing the same service. This incentivizes independent practices to merge with hospitals. Consolidating lower-cost physician practices into higher-cost hospital systems is driving up overall healthcare costs for patients and taxpayers and is reducing patient choice. Congress has acknowledged that there are serious consequences from government price controls, enacting legislation to raise provider payments by 2.9% for most of 2024. But these payments went back down on January 1, and the problem continues to plague the healthcare system. Fixing Medicare's flawed reimbursement policy should be a top priority for Congress. The more efficient reform comprehensively addresses Medicare's broader deficiencies by turning Medicare into a cash-based benefit system that funds health savings accounts (HSAs) for seniors. This direct payment option allows beneficiaries to receive their Medicare benefits in the same manner that they receive their Social Security benefits. At current spending levels, Medicare could give each beneficiary $15,150 annually to cover their insurance and healthcare costs. Under this system, patients and physicians, not bureaucrats, would take change and prices would reflect value. Providers would have to compete and would be incentivized to find new and better ways to expand value and reducing costs for patients. Fundamental reforms that establish well-functioning healthcare and health insurance markets will take time. Given this, Congress could act more immediately to index government payments to medical inflation and stop paying different reimbursement rates for the same services depending on where care is delivered. With more people aging, taxpayers will be spending more and more for Medicare and Medicaid. Unless Congress acts soon to stop Medicare's underpayment of physicians, it is patients who will ultimately pay the highest price with less access to doctors and specialists and longer wait times for life-saving care.