Tag: supreme-court

The Postal Service is laying the groundwork to track the vaccination and testing status of its workforce amid the COVID-19 pandemic, or any future public health emergency.

USPS, however, says its only giving notice as it prepares for potential future contingencies, and is not, at this time, updating its COVID-19 vaccine or testing requirements, nor is it seeking to collect data on the vaccination status of its workforce.

A Supreme Court ruling last month struck down the Biden administrations mandate for large employers, including USPS, to ensure their workers are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, or require non-vaccinated employees to wear face masks and be subject to weekly COVID-19 tests.

USPS, however, appears unwilling to rule out the possibility that it could eventually face vaccination or testing requirements.

Federal Register notice published Wednesday, said its looking to modify its system of records to track and record vaccination status or employee attestation in lieu of acceptable proof of vaccination status as applicable, related to an ongoing pathogenic public health crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

USPS said in the notice that its looking to revise its emergency management records to facilitate effective preparedness and response to potential emerging public health crises and other emergency events that may impact Postal Service employees and operations in the working environment.

USPS, in its rationale for the proposed change, said the emergence of COVID-19 in early 2020 identified the need for [a] robust set of policies and practices to ensure operational continuity and employee safety amidst an emergency event, while also protecting individual privacy.

USPS spokeswoman Darlene Casey told Federal News Network on Wednesday that the Postal Service is not updating its COVID-19 vaccine or testing requirements as part of this notice, nor are we seeking to collect information on the vaccination status of our employees.

We have taken steps to update our systems of records to prepare for potential future contingencies and we continue to review and evaluate OSHAs ongoing rulemaking process, Casey said.

The USPS notice is an interesting development for the agency, which was subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations now-defunct Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), and warned that meeting those requirements could potentially result in a dramatic loss of employees.

The Supreme Court last month struck down OSHAS vaccination-and-testing requirements for large companies with more than 100 employees. The court, however, allowed the Biden administration to proceed with a vaccine mandate for most health care workers in the U.S.

USPS isnt covered under the Biden administrations vaccine mandate for the federal workforce, which has also run into some legal challenges. A Texas-based federal judge on Jan. 21. blocked the administration from enforcing that mandate.

More recently, a federal appeals court last week declined, for now, to overturn the federal courts injunction on the vaccine mandate for the federal workforce.

The Biden administration, however, through its Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, has interpreted that the Texas federal courts ruling does not prevent agencies from gathering information on the vaccination status of their employees even if those agencies are currently unable to enforce the mandate.

The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, in updated guidance on Jan. 24, said agencies covered under President Joe Bidens executive order signed last September can continue to require and receive the submission of vaccination information and documentation from federal employees and prospective employees who have received a job offer.

Despite these recent developments, USPS appears to be preparing to be able to collect COVID-19-related information from its employees, on the off chance that it could eventually face vaccination or testing requirements.

The Labor Department, following the Supreme Courts ruling, withdrew OSHAs vaccine-and-testing mandate for large employers as an enforceable emergency temporary standard.

But as GovExec first reported last month, Labor specified that the ETS still remains on the table as a proposed rule thats still active as part of the rule-making process.

Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, the agency wrote in a Jan. 26. Federal Register notice.

Beyond COVID-19 and pathogenic public health crises, USPS is also looking to expand its definition of emergency events, as it pertains to its system of records, to include natural disasters, human-caused disasters, acts of terrorism and cybersecurity incidents.

USPS said these changes to its system of records will give the agency greater flexibility to prepare for and respond to a wide array of emergencies.

But among the categories of individuals affected by this proposed change, USPS said its system of records will cover Postal Service employees who provide the Postal Service with acceptable proof of COVID-19 vaccination status or, in the alternative, weekly COVID-19 testing results (or test results prior to return to physical postal facilities or workplaces).

USPS, in its notice, also proposes gathering, via a software application, information from its employees, including employee identification numbers, vaccination status, vaccine date, images showing proof of vaccine, vaccine exemption status, vaccine exemption reason and the status of COVID-19 test results.

The proposed changes to the USPS system of records would allow an employee to record their COVID-19 vaccination status and COVID-19 testing status through mobile and web-based applications.

USPS is also proposing to disclose COVID-19 vaccine documentation, any test results, or any work-related COVID-19 fatalities and hospitalizations to OSHA.

USPS said it sent the proposed changes to its system of records to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation, adding that it does not expect its amended system of records will have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights.

The 1974 Privacy Act requires agencies to very clearly define any routine use they intend to make with the information in their record-keeping systems about specific individuals. The Privacy Act also requires agencies to give public notice of these changes through the FederalRegister.

Prior to the Supreme Courts ruling on OSHAs vaccination-and-testing requirements for large employers,USPS asked the agency for a 120-day temporary exemption from its vaccine-and-testing requirements.

USPS, in its letter, told OSHA it would be nearly impossible, to meet the deadlines outlined in its ETS under normal circumstances, but found them especially taxing to meet during its peak season, which runs from mid-October through January.

USPS said that complying with the OSHA mandate is likely to result in the loss of many employees, either through workers leaving the agency or facing discipline for non-compliance.

The agency predicted the biggest drop-off in staffing would occur among temporary employees brought on to handle a surge in mail and packages during its peak season.

While the impact to our service could be devastating any time of year, requiring the Postal Service to absorb what could inevitably be a dramatic loss of employees at a time when the labor market is extremely tight and in the middle of the Postal Services peak season would have a potentially catastrophic impact on our ability to provide service to the American public when demand is at its highest, USPS wrote.

View post:

USPS seeks ability to gather COVID-19 vaccination, testing data from workforce - Federal News Network

Protestors opposed to Covid-19 vaccine mandates and vaccine passports by the government rally at ... [+] City Hall in New York City.

In 2021, then-Mayor Bill de Blasioenacted a series of coronavirus vaccine mandates. In July 2021, heannounced a vaccine mandate for city workers. And in December 2021, heexpanded the vaccine mandate to private-sector workers, too.

But starting January 1, 2022, New York City gota new mayor, Eric Adams. Mayor Adams has decided to keep in place former Mayor de Blasios vaccine mandate for city workers. This includes the February 11, 2022deadline to getinoculated.

Most of New Yorks city workers have gotten vaccinated, but a few thousand have not and risk losing their jobs.

New York Citys Authority to Impose the Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate

When it comes to a state or citys legal authority to impose vaccination requirements, the law is fairly well settled. Going back more than a hundred years, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the authority of local governments to require its citizens to get vaccinated.

The two key casesestablishing this precedentareJacobson v. Massachusetts(from 1905) andZucht v. King(from 1922). And although the legal theories have changed somewhat since then, the overall premise of local government authority to enforce vaccine mandates is still solid law. Morerecent caseshave cometosimilar legal conclusions.However, one of the current legal questions still up to debate is the implementation ofreligious exemptions.

How Religious Exemptions Work

TheFirst Amendmentto the United States Constitution prohibits governments fromenacting laws that wouldestablish a religion or infringeon an individualsfree exercise of religion. Its this latter right that applies to religious exemptions to vaccine mandates.

The premise of someone requesting a religious exemption to a vaccine requirement is that it goes against their religious beliefs. The vast majority of religions commonly practiced in the United Statesdo not have religious tenets thatare against vaccines. Despite this, the sincerity of someones religious beliefs as theyrelate to getting vaccinated isnt usually the primary issue of contention in court.

Instead, the focus is more often on the applicability of a particular legal argument, such as whether the vaccine requirement is universally applied. Why does this matter? Because it can change how the court will approach the legality of the vaccination law.

Courts referred to these approaches as levels of judicial review. The basic idea is that the more compelling the reason the government has for a law that could restrict someones religious beliefs,and the more tailored that law is to limitingany infringement on someones religious rights, the more likely a court will uphold the law.

So if a law is universally applied to all individuals (regardless of their religious beliefs),and the government has a really good reason for enacting that law,a court will use a level of judicial review that makes it more likely the law stands.

But if a law only focuses on a particular religion or religious practice,and/or the governments reasonsfor the law arent very important,then courts will use a level of judicial review that makes it more likely the law gets struck down.

So how does this apply to vaccine mandates?Based onprior case law, its possible that a vaccine mandate that only offers a medical exemption willnotbe considered a law of universal applicability. This is because those with medical reasons can get an exemption while thosewithreligious reasonscannot. So unless thegovernment cangive a good reason forthis discrepancy, then courts will use a higher level of judicial review making iteasier to strike down the law on First Amendment grounds.

Fortunately for Mayor Adams, the NYC vaccine mandate for city workers offers both medical and religious exemptions.Therefore, itll be difficult to oppose the New York City vaccine mandate for city workers based on this universal applicability argument.

According to theNew York Times, roughly13,000 exemptions requestsfrom New York City workershave been submitted.About 2,000 have been approved, about 5,000 have beendenied and the rest are still being processed.

Another Legal Optionfor City Workers Who Refuse the Vaccine

Several New York City unionsfiled a lawsuitearlier this week challenging the potential firingsof their members. Specifically, they argue that summarily firing employees for not complying with the vaccine requirement would be a violation of theirdue process rightsbecause theyre being terminated without following the properprocedures.

However, the city argues that getting fired for not getting vaccinated is not a form of workplacediscipline and is instead a condition of employment.As a result,the summary dismissals would not be a violation of the workers due process rights.

Bottom Line

A citys right to require its workers to get vaccinated is well-settled law. Most legal challenges to worker vaccine mandates at the local level have been unsuccessful.

Two potential legal arguments against New York Citys vaccine mandate for workers could attack the law based on religious freedom and due process grounds. Butbecausethevaccinelaw has been set up so that the vaccine requirement is a condition of employment and provides both medical and religious exemptions, its unclear how successful these arguments will be.

View post:

Thousands Of NY City Workers Could Lose Their Jobs For Refusing To Get The Coronavirus Vaccine - Forbes

In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling blocking the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine and testing mandatefor private companies, the electronic health record vendor athenahealth has sought to clarify its own rules for employees.

"Our current policy includes testing options and requirement for vaccination for some employees, based on job function," athenahealth representatives told Healthcare IT News this week.

That policy is not based on office location.

In response to follow-up inquiries about how many employees, and which job functions, were subject to the mandatory vaccination policy, the representatives characterized the group as "a limited number of employees including those who travel to interact with clients or prospects."

"The vast majority of our employees are vaccinated," said the representatives.

WHY IT MATTERS

The company's worker vaccination policy has been the subject of some recent confusion, according to local reporting.

The Republican Journal in Waldo County, Maine, where the company has a campus in Belfast, said that some employees had been under the impression that vaccination by April 1 was mandatory.

However, the employees told the outlet that the company revised this stance via a statement in late January, saying vaccinations were not mandatory for those who don't interact with clients.

As of Tuesday, 70.13% of Waldo County residents were considered fully vaccinated lower than the state rate of 76.48%, but higher than the national percentage.

athenahealth representatives told Healthcare IT News that the current plan is to return to in-person work in June.

For employees who dont wish to work in person because of the vaccine policy, athenahealth said that it "will provide reasonable accommodations on a case-by-case basis."

THE LARGER TREND

Other EHR vendors in the industry have taken differing approaches to employee vaccinations and work-from-home options.

In August 2021, Epic announced that all U.S. employees would be required to be fully vaccinated by October 1. Around the same time, it said that employees would need to return to the office nearly full time.

Meanwhile, Cerner announced its own vaccine mandate this past October, along with a hybrid in-person and virtual model for workers. It's unclear as of yet if the company's recently announced acquisition by Oracle will affect either policy.

ON THE RECORD

"We continue to evaluate our policy and make decisions based on evolving public health guidance, and legal and business considerations," said athenahealth representatives.

Kat Jercich is senior editor of Healthcare IT News.Twitter: @kjercichEmail: kjercich@himss.orgHealthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication.

The rest is here:

athenahealth says COVID-19 vaccination required for limited number of employees - Healthcare IT News

02 February 2022

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Updated: 2.1.2022

Original Post Date: 1.26.2022

Executive Order No. 283, requires workers incertain health care settings, identified below, and employees athigh-risk congregate settings to be fully vaccinated againstCOVID-19, including a booster shot, or have their employmentterminated. Those workers will no longer be able to opt to undergoweekly testing instead of vaccination.

Health care facility covered employees, who are unvaccinated,and are subject to the Biden Administration's vaccine mandate(the CMS portion that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court) andwork in health care settings had until January 27,2022, to receive their first dose of the primary series ofa vaccine and until February 28, 2022, to submitproof that they are up-to-date with their vaccination. According tothe state, which includes "having completed their primaryseries and any booster shots for which they are eligible."Similarly, covered workers, who are not subject to theBiden Administration's vaccine mandate, and work in health caresettings identified below, or in high-risk congregate settings haveuntil February 16, 2022, to receive the first doseof the primary series of a vaccine and submit proof of vaccinationcompletion by March 30, 2022.

Importantly, Executive Order No. 283 provides thataccommodations must be provided to employees who request andreceive an exemption because of a disability, medical condition, orsincerely held religious belief. If an employee doesreceive such exemption, they must submit to weekly or twice weeklytesting in accordance with Executive Order No. 252.

Takeaway: Employers under the covered settingswill have to move quickly to comply with the executive order.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and HR from United States

Visit link:

Employment Law Update: New Jersey Executive Order To Require COVID-19 Vaccination & Booster For Workers In Certain Health Care Settings And...

Saved on the Siuslaw

On Dec. 31, 2021, I was thrown into a very cold Siuslaw River when my drift boat flipped over on me while attempting to land a steelhead.

The outpouring of kindness from people, many of whom I didn't know, has been overwhelming and humbling.

I would like to thank the young man who helped me onto shore and up the steep bank to the road. Unfortunately, I was unable to get his name, but won't forget what he did for me.

Also, I would like to thank the state trooper from Florence and the Veneta EMS for administering first aid to my injuries.

This experience has reinforced to me how lucky we are in this country to have so many caring and helpful people.

One last comment wear your life jacket. It helped save me.

Steve Tenhaeff, Springfield

One hears over and over how unhappy Oregonians are with the economy, COVID-19 restrictions, forest fires, crime and issue after issue. And yet as an old adage goes, the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Voters elected John Kitzhaber, then Kate Brown and then re-elected Brown. In 2022, its time to elect a governor again. Maybe its time to try something different. Just saying.

Stan Kluth, Eugene

Nick Kristof is barking up the wrong tree.

Since he feels rules don't apply to him, instead of trying to hoodwink Oregon folks he needs to apply for a job in the Trump organization. That way the two of them can deceive, fool, connive, pretend, promise but not deliver and in other ways carry on the tradition of Donald Trump. What a great team they would make.

Barry C. Smith, Eugene

The other night my husband and I watched the old movie Silverado. In it, when Danny Glovers character is refused a drink in the saloon because hes Black, he says, It aint right. All the white guys sit quietly and watch him get beat up and thrown out. It aint right, but it works for white people.

We know it aint right that an overwhelmingly white and male mob sought to take back by force what they could not accomplish in a peaceful and democratically conducted election.

We know it aint right to refuse to turn over records to a deadly riot.

We also know that when you cast a ballot in another state you are no longer a resident of Oregon.

Democrats in red states are fighting tooth and nail for the right to vote. Meanwhile, Democrats in Oregon live in a blue bubble. Bending the rules in Oregon muddies the water. You cant claim to live in one state, then vote in another. Isnt that voter fraud? If Nicholas Kristof wants to run for governor of Oregon, he wont get my vote because it aint right. I wont compromise the argument for voting rights elsewhere. Plain and simple.

Margaret Moore, Eugene

Its ironic that in this era when Republicans are doing all they can to restrict voting access and transform elections to selections, Oregons Democratic secretary of state chose to deny voters the opportunity to vote for Oregon native Nick Kristof.Her decision, if allowed to stand, removes the biggest obstacle to electoral success for other career Democrats who work alongside her in the Capitol Building.

Kristof happens to be a political outsider, the kind that Oregon could really use now. Fortunately, the Oregon Supreme Court recognizes that determinations of ballot eligibility fall squarely within the domain of the judicial branch of government.

Retired Supreme Court Justice William Riggs wrote a legal opinion two weeks ago on this topic and concluded that Kristof is indeed an Oregon resident, even though his job required him to live in other places around the world during his lengthy, brilliant career as an acclaimed journalist and humanitarian.Three former Oregon secretaries of state agree with Riggs.

I attended law school with current and former members of the Oregon Supreme Court, and unlike the U.S. Supreme Court (and our secretary of state), I know they will decide Kristofs eligibility based on the facts and the law.

Dan Neal, Eugene

I watched the videos of the people attacking the U.S. Capitol as they shoved and stole and yelled. I know them. They are my neighbors, townspeople, sports fans. Many are my age raised to revere democracy and freedom. I want to shout at them, "Knock it off!" If you want to be owned by Trump, be owned by Trump.

If you want to serve him and adore him, then serve him and adore him. Give up your freedom if you want. This is America. But don't try to force me to give up mine. I love my freedom from dictatorship. This is America for me, too. Go serve your false god, but leave me alone.

Candy Neville, Eugene

I was in a local market today and there were three customers not wearing masks. I was shocked to see this as I believe that mask wearing indoors is a state mandate.

I asked an employee about it and was told they offer masks to customers, but if they refuse, the customers are allowed to shop unmasked. Apparently, weve entered a new phase where the people claiming their individual rights for going unmasked have acted in such threatening and violent ways that store owners have given up.

How dare these self-centered individuals put others in peril not just by threatening someone who asks them to follow the rules but also by subjecting every stranger they come in contact with? Then I thought about how my individual rights are curtailed by other laws protecting our community. For instance, sometimes Im in a hurry but have to stop for a stop sign. That silly law infringes on my right to drive down the road unimpeded. Why should I have to inconvenience myself for the safety of others?

Wearing a mask to protect yourself and others is so easy to do why make such a big deal out of it?

Teresa Dobles, Eugene

Steve Mozena is right. We must demand return to normal life, as urged back in October 2020 in theGreat Barrington Declarationby three distinguished Harvard, Stanford and Oxford epidemiologists, signed by 61,678 health professionals and scientists worldwide.

Yet seemingly entranced, media-terrorized citizens mask themselves in open air and their own cars, oblivious toCOVID-19 case recovery rates over 99% for age groups under 55, with almost all fatalitiesinvolving serious co-morbiditiesmaking cause-of-death uncertain. TheNuremberg Coderequires informed consent for all medical procedures, including risk-benefit comparison. With little fatality risk there is little benefit and no legal justification underFDA regulationsforexperimental lipid-mRNAinjections with adverse events documented in CDCsOpen VAERS*including 21,382 deaths, 36,758 permanent disabilities and 39,678 heart and vascular emergenciesthrough December 2021 that havent spared the young.

Moreover, case identifications arehighly questionableand effective early treatments have beensuppressedby public health bureaucrats, causing thousands of needless deaths among co-morbid elderly. Lockdown measures have caused appallingdestruction of Main Street economiesand publicwealth transferto billionaires and multi-national corporations.Preventing normal human interactions causes severesocial, psychologicalandhealthimpacts.SCOTUS has rightlystayed vaccine mandates.

This begs criminal investigation.

Jack Dresser, Springfield

*Editor's note:Should you visit openvaers.com/covid-data, read the CDC Disclaimer.

It looks to me the Eugene Police Department is learning from past fatal mistakes when responding to the mentally ill.

I recently called 911 when a friend threatened suicide with a knife. Instead of sending CAHOOTS, EPD sent about a half-dozen armed policemen, so I feared the worst. However, EPD also sent a negotiator, who was able to talk my friend into dropping the knife and letting them take him to the hospital.

I was impressed with the kindness and compassion shown by the whole group. Kudos to the EPD.

Joella Ewing, Eugene

How can we move forward with such division in our country and government?What do we all have in common?

We all love this country and worry about the future.Some fear oppressed minorities will win control and treat white Americans as badly as they have been treated.Others fear a future in which armed, ultra-right extremists, like those that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will overturn our democracy and terrorize any who oppose them.But we all worry about the future of this wonderful country.

Rage at the other side might feel good, but we must stop fearing, hating and loathing each other.We must turn off Fox and Friends, put away our guns and listen to and respect each other.There is no path back to the America made great by the shared suffering and sacrifice of our parents and grandparents.Anyone who tells you so is lying and trying to make a fool out of you.

We can only make America great by overcoming fear. We must listen to andwork with those different than ourselves regardless of income level, race, religion, creed, gender identification, sexual orientation or place of national origin.

Donald M. Brasted-Maki, Eugene

I read with sadness The Register-Guard'sdecision to stop publication of its print newspaper on Saturdaybeginning on March 24. I don't know if this is just the beginning of an overall halt in delivery services.

First, newspaper size was reduced, then delivery was halted on importantholidays, and now once a week there will be no print newspaper. As we all know, print publications have been facing a multitude of challenges, including higher operating costs, competition from online media and decreased readership.

Even though The Register-Guard claims to have ample online offerings, not everyone, including myself, wants the eye strain or sleep disruption that comes from constant exposure to bright screens and prefer tangible print instead. This is not to mention potentially alienating a large customer base for print publications, the elderly, some of whom may struggle with accessing the online version. The R-G needs to focus on retaining its existing customer base, not further driving them away in what already appears to be a downwarddeath-spiral.

Erica Lyon, Eugene

Somebody sent me a free sample copy of The Epoch Times. After paging through it, I noticed that there are no advertisers, except for ads for other reading materials produced by The Epoch Times. It made me wonder how it can afford to pay its workers without advertising revenue. The stories sound like they were written my brother in Ohio or my brother-in-law in Nevada.

Does it actually hire reporters who go into the field, or do its writers just read what other newspapers report, then make up their own stories?

I would have written to The Epoch Times, but there is no letters-to-the-editor section in The Epoch Times.

Thank you, Register-Guard, for your quality journalism. I dont always agree with the opinions, but at least I can trust the stories.

Margaret Moore, Eugene

Read this article:

Letters to the editor: Nicholas Kristof, the COVID-19 vaccine and a river rescue - The Register-Guard

Amid a COVID-19 surge fueled by the omicron variant, hospitals and health systems in Florida must navigate conflicting positions at federal and state levels when it comes to vaccination mandates.

On Jan. 13, the Supreme Court upheld the CMS mandate for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare facilities, setting aside challenges that blocked enforcement of the mandate in 24 states. This means CMS may implement andenforce the rule in every state but Texas, where a preliminary injunction remains in place. The rule requires healthcare facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to establish a policy ensuring eligible workers are fully vaccinated, with exemptions allowed based on religious beliefs or recognized medical conditions.

On the same day of the Supreme Court decision, the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the statewill not enforce the federal mandate. Mr. DeSantis also signed a law Nov. 18 designed to counter mandates. The Florida legislation prohibits vaccination mandates for private employers unless also providing various exemptions, which include medical or religious concerns; pregnancy or anticipated future pregnancy; and past COVID-19 infection.The legislation also imposes a fine of up to $50,000 per employee violation.

A spokesperson for Mr. DeSantis said the state's prohibition on vaccine mandates "remains in effect for all industries, [and] we will be evaluating next steps for enforcement in the coming days," according to a statement shared with ABC affiliate WFTS.

Meanwhile, Florida hospitals must navigate conflicting state and federal positions.

Mary Mayhew, Florida Hospital Association president and CEO, toldNPR hospitals "don't want to be caught between the state government and the federal government," and they are working on addressing the situation.

"You can't be in compliance with both based upon the breadth of exemptions that exist within the state law," she said. "So, hospitals are working very closely with their staff, first of all, to encourage them to get vaccinated, but then to identify where there are exemptions that fit within the Medicare rule. Where we become potentially at odds with the state requirement is if an employee fails to fit."

Hospitals and health systems in Florida told Becker's via written statements Jan. 18 and 19 that they are working on compliance.

Orlando Health said the health system "continues to review the guidelines regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirements for healthcare organizations and will take appropriate steps. As a healthcare organization, we continue to strongly encourage vaccinations for all team members and physicians at Orlando Health."

Altamonte Springs-based AdventHealth emphasized the health system's support of vaccines.

"As part of our commitment to protecting the health and well-being of our team members, patients and communities, we strongly encourage all of our team members to receive the COVID-19 vaccine," the health system's statement said.

As of Jan. 18, about 96 percent of AdventHealth employees were in compliance with the CMS vaccination mandate.

The health system plans to "be in compliance with the legal requirements and continue to monitor developments impacting its enforcement," according to the organization's statement.

Jacksonville-based Baptist Health said the organization also continues to keep tabs on the evolving law and regulatory guidance regarding vaccination requirements.

As of Jan. 19, more than 99 percent of Baptist Health employees had met the COVID-19 vaccination or exemption requirement.

Additionally, "we recently extended the date for compliance by 30 days to allow time for our team members to submit exemptions utilizing the new state of Florida approved exemption forms, which we are currently honoring," the health system said.

Read the original here:

How Florida hospitals are juggling plans over COVID-19 vaccination mandates - Becker's Hospital Review

Chains such as Starbucks Corp. and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. said they are temporarily limiting operations at individual stores or regions as they face labor shortages and a rise in Covid-19 cases.

Apple Inc will require retail and corporate employees to provide proof of a COVID-19 booster shot

After a year of strong retail sales, consumers are starting to feel the impact of inflation and real income as it materializes across the economy.

Hundreds of students in Boston and Chicago walked out of classes Friday in protests demanding a switch to remote learning as a surge in COVID-19 cases fueled by the omicron variant disrupted efforts at returning to in-person education around the United States.

The antiviral covid-19 pills developed by U.S. firms are the next step in the pandemic battle.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., weighs in on the Biden administrations use of the COVID relief funds on Maria Bartiromos Wall Street

Gubernatorial candidate Dr. Neil Shah tells 'FOX Business Tonight' why he launched his bid for public office.

Austin City Council member Mackenzie Kelly reacts to the new orders on 'Varney & Co

Survest CEO Rob Luna and Kadina Group president Gary B. Smith reveal their investing rules on 'Making Money.'

Dr. Claudia Cohn, Association for Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies CMO, provides insight into why the U.S. is facing the worst blood shortage in over a decade.

Eugene Scalia says the Supreme Court's decision to block President Biden's OSHA vaccine mandate is a major setback for the Labor Department, shrinking their authority.

Ashley Moody reacts to the Supreme Court's "spot on" decision to block Biden's federal vaccine mandate.

The Supreme Court confirmed what we have long argued: OSHA does not have the authority to implement this sweeping regulation that will burden American businesses.

Trucking companies and manufacturers say new Covid-19 vaccine mandates set to take effect at the U.S.-Canada border could upend an already fragile logistics network.

Citigroup plans to meet a Friday vaccination deadline, despite the Supreme Court ruling blocking the Biden administration's enforcement of a COVID-19 mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees.

Charlie LeDuff criticizes Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for undercounting nursing home deaths due to COVID on Kennedy.

Cato Institutes constitutional studies director Ilya Shapiro dissects the meaning of the SCOTUS ruling on the OSHA and CMS mandates on Kennedy.

Dr. Marty Makary discusses the recent California study on omicron showing the mildness of the illness and the role of natural immunity on Fox Business Tonight.

Business groups are celebrating the Supreme Court's decision to block a COVID-19 vaccine and testing mandate for employers with 100 or more employees

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued mixed rulings in a pair of cases challenging the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

See the original post:

Coronavirus | Category | Fox Business

On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published regulations that established the first ever federal vaccination requirements for health care provider staff. Drawing on its authority to establish patient health and safety standards, CMSs regulations require health care providers that participate in the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs to ensure that their staff are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The new rule applies to staff who provide any care, treatment, or other services for providers or patients, including contractors and volunteers. The first phase of the new regulations was to take effect on December 6, 2021, with staff required to have received their first vaccine dose or requested an exemption by that date. However, the new regulations have been put on hold by federal courts, and the pending lawsuits create uncertainty about whether the new requirements ultimately will be implemented. This issue brief examines the new regulations, explains the status of the pending litigation, and identifies issues to watch.

CMS says it decided to require health care staff to be vaccinated because its earlier efforts to simply encourage vaccination have been insufficient to protect patient health and safety. For example, CMS cites data showing that COVID-19 cases in nursing homes surged with the rise of the Delta variant. The nursing home staff vaccination rate is nearly 76% nationally as of November 2021, with substantial variation by region. CMS concluded that standard federal requirements across provider types are needed because the existing patchwork of state and employer requirements has not been enough to bring the pandemic under control in health care settings. CMS notes that the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death, and unvaccinated staff can strain the health care system by transmitting COVID-19 to patients and having to miss work if they are recovering from COVID-19 or quarantining after exposure. CMS acknowledges that some staff may leave their jobs because they do not want to receive the vaccine but cites examples of vaccine mandates adopted by health systems in Texas and Detroit and a long-term care parent corporation with 250 facilities as well as the New York state health care worker mandate, all of which resulted in high rates of compliance and few employee resignations.

In response to the new regulations, 26 states led by Republican officials filed four federal lawsuits challenging the new rules (Table 1). While the specific legal claims vary somewhat among the different cases, the states essentially raise four major arguments. First, the states challenge the process that CMS used to adopt the new rules, arguing that CMS did not have good cause to forgo public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The states also argue that CMSs authority to establish health and safety regulations for Medicare and Medicaid providers does not allow it to adopt a broad vaccine requirement. And, they assert that CMSs new rule is arbitrary and capricious under the APA because CMS did not appropriately consider factors such as potential staffing disruptions, the limitations of vaccines, and the benefits of natural immunity. Finally, the states contend that the new rules violate Constitutional principles about the appropriate balance between federal and state government power. For example, the states argue that the rules place new conditions on state receipt of federal funds in violation of the Constitutions Spending Clause. The states also argue that the new rules improperly force states to administer federal regulations and unconstitutionally infringe on the states police powers to regulate for public health and safety.

On 12/13/21, the 8th Circuit in a 2:1 order denied CMSs motion to lift the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

On 12/6/21, the 11th Circuit in a 2:1 decision denied FLs motion for an injunction pending appeal.

Currently, CMS is unable to enforce the new rules nationwide, as a result of court orders, though circumstances may change as cases are appealed. To date, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Missouri federal courts decision preventing CMS from enforcing the new rules should remain in place while the appeal in that case is pending. Additionally, a federal court in Louisiana has blocked the new rules, while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a Florida federal courts decision that the new regulations can be implemented while litigation is pending. (A fourth case in Texas federal court is on hold, pending further court action in the Louisiana case.) The Missouri courts preliminary injunction blocking the new rules applies in the 10 states that brought that case. However, the Louisiana court went further, applying its preliminary injunction not only to the 14 states in the case before it but also to all other states (except the 10 states in the Missouri case). This means that the new rules are now on hold even in states that did not challenge them. The Louisiana decision also put the new rules on hold in Florida, despite the Florida courts decision that the new rules should go into effect. However, as the 11th Circuit points out in its review of the Florida decision, the Louisiana decision could be changed when it is reviewed by the 5th Circuit on appeal. Specifically, the 11th Circuit found that it is reasonably likely that the 5th Circuit will conclude that the Louisiana court should not have applied its decision nationwide, even if the 5th Circuit ultimately upholds the Louisiana courts decision to block the new rules in the 14 states that brought the Louisiana case.

Court decisions in the lawsuits to date demonstrate opposing views about the scope of CMSs authority to respond to the pandemic and what constitutes the publics interest (Table 2). The 11th Circuits decision defers to the agencys expertise in the face of an unprecedented pandemic and notes that accepting Floridas arguments in opposition would amount to substituting the states views on epidemiology for the Secretarys judgment about the best way to protect the public from infection. By contrast, the Missouri and Louisiana courts fault the agency for not giving more credence to the arguments advanced by states that oppose CMSs rule. When articulating the publics interest in these issues, the 11th Circuit emphasizes the publics interest in slowing COVID-19 spread and protecting patients from preventable infection, while the Missouri and Louisiana decisions emphasize the publics interest in being free from vaccine requirements. The Louisiana courts characterization of the public interest is notable in light of its ultimate decision to block the rule in states that are not part of the litigation. The Louisiana court says that it entered a nationwide ruling because there are unvaccinated healthcare workers in other states who also need protection, though it does not discuss other aspects of the public interest, which may favor the rule.

The fate of CMSs new rules may ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court. The preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the rules issued by Missouri and Louisiana courts currently are awaiting review on appeal by the 8th and 5th Circuits, respectively. If one or both appeals courts affirms the preliminary injunction, that decision would conflict with the 11th Circuits conclusion that the rule should not be blocked. A conflict among different appeals courts could increase the likelihood of the Supreme Court stepping in. As litigation to determine CMSs authority to mandate health care provider vaccines as part of its pandemic response continues to play out, the emergence of the Omicron variant is raising new questions about the pandemics future course. This development likely will further challenge CMS as it seeks to adopt policies to bring the pandemic under control which ultimately could prove successful but may never be implemented if courts decide to limit the agencys authority.

MO* and LA courts(granting preliminary injunction)

(A) Did CMS have good cause to issue the rule as interim final and bypass public notice and comment?

(B) Is CMSs rule within its authority to regulate Medicare and Medicaid as delegated by Congress?

(C) Is CMSs rule arbitrary and capricious?

(D) Does the new rule inappropriately infringe on state power?

(B) No. Though Congress has given CMS general authority to issue regulations about Medicare and Medicaid patient health and safety, CMS needs clear authorization to adopt a vaccine mandate because this involves powers of vast economic and political significance.

(C) Yes. CMS acknowledges that the extent to which vaccines prevent COVID-19 spread and their long-term effectiveness are unknown. CMS should not have used evidence about COVID-19s impact on long-term care facilities to extrapolate about effects on other providers that do not care for vulnerable patients. CMSs rule is too broad because it acknowledges that children are less affected by COVID-19 but subjects pediatric facilities to the new rule. CMS did not appropriately consider alternatives such as testing or natural immunity or the harm the rule will cause by exacerbating worker shortages.

(D) The preliminary injunction decisions do separately analyze this issue in detail, though the LA court notes that the rule infringes on state power because it specifically preempts state law.

(B) Yes. Federal law expressly authorizes CMS to establish Medicare and Medicaid provider health and safety standards. Congress did not need to be more specific because until now, vaccination has not been a political issue and instead has been regarded as a common-sense measure designed to prevent healthcare workers, whose job it is to improve patients health, from making them sicker.

(C) No. The court should defer to CMSs decision about how to best protect patients, which is supported by ample evidence. CMS cites evidence showing that health care workers respond to mandates by getting vaccinated instead of leaving their jobs.

(D) While not separately analyzed by the 11th Circuit, the court notes that federal law preempts conflicting state law.

Read more here:

Explaining the New COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Health Care Provider Staff - Kaiser Family Foundation

The Fifth Circuits aggressive behavior in the vaccine case almost pales in comparison to what the court has done with abortion. In September the court rejected pleas from abortion providers in Texas to put the vigilante law Senate Bill 8 on hold to enable the clinics to litigate their case against it. The clinics emergency motion came before the same three judges who later ruled in the OSHA vaccine case.

The panels 19-page unsigned opinion in the case, Whole Womans Health v. Jackson, analyzed the obstacles the private plaintiffs faced in finding someone to sue over a law that purports to insulate all state officials from responsibility for administering a flagrantly unconstitutional ban on abortion after only six weeks of pregnancy. In rejecting the clinics motion, the panel declared primly that we must respect the limits of our jurisdiction. The clinics claims against a Texas state court judge and court clerk were specious, the court said.

The federal government then brought its own suit against Texas on the completely different theory that S.B. 8 was an affront to the sovereign interests of the United States and to the supremacy of federal law. A federal district judge, Robert Pitman, granted the preliminary injunction the federal government sought in a 113-page opinion that meticulously dismantled all of the states objections to the courts jurisdiction.

A different Fifth Circuit three-judge panel, by a vote of 2 to 1, promptly blocked Judge Pitmans order, explaining in a single sentence of a single paragraph that it was granting the states request for the stay for the reasons stated in Whole Womans Health v. Jackson. How could this be? The reasons stated in rejecting the private plaintiffs case had nothing to do with the federal governments suit, as the Solicitor Generals Office told the Supreme Court in its application to vacate the Fifth Circuits stay.

Those reasons do not apply to this very different suit, the acting solicitor general, Brian Fletcher, explained to the justices. Sovereign immunity forced the private plaintiffs in Whole Womans Health to sue individual state officers, and this court and the Fifth Circuit questioned whether those officers were proper defendants. This suit does not raise those questions because it was brought against the state of Texas itself, and the state has no immunity from suits by the United States. The Fifth Circuit ignored that distinction, which refutes the courts only justification for the stay. When the justices refused to lift the stay, instead setting the case for the argument that took place on Nov. 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed the solicitor generals point in a powerful dissenting opinion.

There is no conceivable excuse for the Fifth Circuits failure to explain itself or for the Supreme Courts failure to call the court to account for its dereliction of duty. But so far, the Fifth Circuit is winning. S.B. 8 is still in effect.

Lets not forget that this is the same court that in 2018, in a challenge brought by an abortion provider, June Medical Services, upheld the Louisiana law that required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It was bad enough that this was a requirement that, in the political and religious climate in Louisiana, doctors could not meet. What was really wrong with the Fifth Circuits decision was that two years earlier, in Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court invalidated an identical law from Texas. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned a Fifth Circuit decision concluding that the admitting privileges requirement, despite having resulted in the closing of nearly half the abortion clinics in Texas, did not impose an undue burden on womens access to abortion.

Visit link:

Opinion | On Abortion and Covid-19, a Court Goes Rogue - The New York Times

Many Republican governors reacted furiously after President Joe Biden said he would require employees at large businesses to either get vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. But Republican- and Democratic-led states alike already require hundreds of thousands of their citizens infants, toddlers and schoolchildren, mostly to be vaccinated against a panoply of diseases. In fact, mandatory childhood immunizations have been a feature of American society since the 19th century.

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine vaccination against 16 diseases from birth through age 18. The CDC recommendations, in turn, inform individual states vaccine mandates: Typically, children who havent received the required shots for their age cant attend school (public, private or parochial) or enroll in child care programs, though there are exemptionsfor religious, medical or other reasons.

President Bidens new COVID-19 vaccine mandate ignited a political controversy. At the time, several news accounts pointed out that vaccine mandates were common at the state level, including in Republican-governed states. We wanted to know just how common such mandates were and how they differed from state to state.

To find out, we searched state statutes and rules governing immunizations required for entry to schools and child care centers, by far the most widespread state vaccine mandates. We also consulted the websites of each states health department and, when details were still unclear, news reports and other non-official sources.

Our information about recommended vaccines for infants, children and teens came directly from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For the history of vaccine development, approval and recommendations, we consulted the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as histories maintained by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia and the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia.

Under Bidens plan, all companies with more than 100 workers will have to either require their employees be immunized or undergo weekly testing. Biden also acted to mandate shots for federal contractors and most federal workers, and expanded a previously announced vaccine mandate for nursing-home workers to cover virtually all health care workers.

Some states already mandate certain vaccinations for specific categories of adults. New York, for example, requires that all workers in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities be immunized against measles and rubella. Rhode Island requires child care workers to not only be immunized against several common childhood diseases, but to get an annual flu shot, too. Several states have specific vaccination mandates for college students.

But in the main, most vaccine mandates apply to children and teens. We studied state laws, regulations and information from state health departments to assess how widely mandated the CDCs vaccine recommendations are.

Of the 16 immunizations the CDC recommends for children and teens, all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) mandate diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, measles, rubella and chickenpox. In addition, every state except Iowa mandates immunization against mumps. (The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines usually are given as a single combined shot, as are the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.) Except for the chickenpox vaccine, which became available in the United States in 1995, all those vaccines have been around for 50 years or more.

Among newer childhood vaccines, though, state mandates are something of a mixed bag. Only two states (Alabama and South Dakota) dont require vaccination against hepatitis B at some point in a childs life, but about half (24) dont require it for hepatitis A. Just six states five of them in the Northeast require annual flu vaccines for child care or preschool enrollment, and none do so for K-12 students.

Three vaccines against rotavirus, pneumococcal disease and Haemophilus influenzae type b, or Hib typically are recommended for children younger than 5 years old. (Hib, despite what its name might imply, doesnt cause the flu, but it can cause a range of other ailments, from mild ear infections to potentially deadly meningitis and blood infections.) However, while all but four states mandate the Hib vaccine for day care or pre-K, 10 dont require the pneumococcal shot, and only eight require immunization against rotavirus.

The remaining two vaccines, against human papillomavirus (HPV) and meningococcal disease, are recommended for teens and older children around age 11 or 12. A majority of states (33, as well as D.C.) require the meningococcal vaccine, although Massachusetts is phasing in its requirement and Vermont only requires it for students living on campus. But only D.C., Hawaii, Rhode Island and Virginia require the HPV shot, which protects against cervical and other cancers but has been controversial because HPV is transmitted sexually.

Vaccination mandates in the U.S. date back to the 19th century, when many cities and states started requiring children to be immunized against smallpox; the Supreme Court upheld such mandates in a landmark 1905 decision. A combination vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis became available in 1948, and it was quickly added as a routinely recommended shot.

In 1977, the World Health Organizations Expanded Program on Immunization set a goal of giving every child in the world access to immunization against six diseases by 1990: dipththeria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles and tuberculosis, or TB. (Infants and small children are commonlyvaccinated against TBin countries where the disease is prevalent. In the U.S., however, only children who are specifically at risk for contracting TB or adults in high-exposure settings, such as health care workers are offered the shot.)

Read more:

Long before COVID-19, states have been mandating vaccinations - Pew Research Center