Full Episode: Should New York Ban Wildlife Killing Contests? And an Eye on Health Insurance in NY
Should New York Ban Wildlife Killing Contests? And an Eye on Health Insurance in NY
Dan Clark: It's the middle of August, which means we're about five months out from next year's legislative session, and if you're not keeping track, we're about two months out from the end of the last one. It was a big one.
Lawmakers from both chambers passed 896 bills this year, though, believe it or not, that's actually less than last year when they passed 1009 bills, which was the most passed in a legislative session in New York in at least two decades. We checked.
In some years, but now all lawmakers will make a special trip to Albany outside session to pass a few bills if they feel they have a good reason. Like last year when lawmakers came back to Albany to pass new gun laws after the US Supreme Court struck down the state's concealed carry statute. But this year that doesn't look likely, at least for right now.
Some have called on the legislature to return to Albany for a whole host of reasons, including the state's migrant crisis. But Speaker Carl Heastie told reporters in Albany this week that there are no plans to return, saying the federal government should be playing a larger role in managing the crisis.
Carl Heastie: I think right now the, you know, the state and particularly the city of New York are just trying to play catch up. As every time I've had an opportunity to be asked the question about this crisis, I think we really do need help from the federal government. There's no way the state is going to be able to financially deal with this migrant crisis without federal intervention.
DC: We'll hear more from Speaker Hastie when he joins us on next week's show.
But for this week we wanted to dive into a few issues we don't usually cover. One of them is health insurance, which we'll get to a little later.
First, we're going to talk about wildlife killing contests in New York. If you live in a city, you probably don't know about this, and honestly a lot of people in rural areas might not either., but every year in New York, there are contests held around the state to kill wildlife. We're not talking about regular hunting where you go out for a day, maybe with a few friends during the regular hunting season, these are contests sometimes with prizes where the goal is often to kill the most animals or a certain kind of animal.
For the past several years lawmakers who oppose these contests have tried to pass a bill that would ban them. This year, that finally happened, and now it's up to Governor Kathy Hochul to either sign the bill and ban the contests or veto it and keep them going.
There's been a lot of misinformation about the bill, with critics saying it targets hunting writ large. It does not, by the way. (S.4099 A.02917)
We wanted to go deeper and explain how the bill would work and what it would actually do. So this week we turned to Brian Shapiro, New York State Director of the Humane Society of the United States, to learn more.
Brian, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate It.
Brian Shapiro: Thanks for having me Dan.
DC: Of course.
So these wildlife killing contests are not new in New York and this bill is also not new in New York. It's been around for at least a few years now, but it passed both chambers this year, meaning it now goes to Governor Kathy Hochul. Was there anything this year that you think prompted the bill to finally gain enough support to pass?
DS: I think there's two factors in it. Seeing this bill passed with bipartisan support in both houses and now, as you mentioned, it will be called by Governor Hochul. The first one is more people have become aware of this. This is not just the Humane Society of the United States focusing on this as many other groups. There's so many different stakeholders that are highlighting this. So, concern by the public, as the public becomes more aware of these cash for wildlife competitions.
I think another turning point was in 2020 when the U.S. released an undercover investigation of the state's largest wildlife killing contest, which occurs in Sullivan County, New York. Very graphic, and our investigators found that the animals were thrown into dumpsters. By getting this information out, I think also elected officials, a lot of the legislators that I spoke with, their first reaction was, I can't believe this is allowed and it is allowed. And I think those are the two main factors as to why we saw this finally move.
I'm going into my 12th year as the state director, and this has always been, you know, on the plate as one of the bills that I've been working on.
DC: Can you kind of lay out what kind of contests this bill is targeting? Because I think there is some misinformation and some confusion that it's targeting, hunting writ large, which it's very much not doing so. Can you lay out what would be banned under this bill if it's signed?
DS: So, yeah, this is not Sunday hunting with the family. This is not traditional hunting that many of us are accustomed to those of us who come from rural areas or have spent time in rural areas. The concept of a wildlife for cash competition or a killing contest is where contestants will register, put money into a pot, and then over a specific amount of time, it could be a 2-to-3-day period, kill the most, the heaviest, and even the smallest wildlife.
Now, this could be Fox, it could be a woodchuck, it could be a coyote, which are often the most targeted victims in these contests, and then at the end of the contest, the animals are either counted or weighed and then discarded as so much trash. This is not a wise use of our wildlife resources.
This does not include bear, deer or turkey, as these species are not included in what we know as wildlife killing contests. They are already highly regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). There are regulations for reporting the number of these animals that are taken
within the hunting seasons. So many of these animals that we see, they do not have bag limits and one can hunt as many as possible. That's why we see so many of these animals used in these fringe competitions.
This does not affect any bag limit or hunting season. This legislation, the focus is on one thing, and that is to stop the use of our shared natural resources, our wildlife resources held in public trust for all the people of the state, simply for cash and prizes. That is the only thing it would do in New York would be the ninth state to put this prohibition in place.
DC: You know, there are some people that will be watching this right now and ask, why is this a bad thing? Why are these contests banned? Why should we ban them? What would you say to them?
DS: I would share a number of things. The first one, as I mentioned earlier, wildlife is held in public trust for all the people of the state. So, when we hold extreme competitions, to see who could kill the most wildlife or the heaviest wildlife, beyond the ecological impacts of that, you know that kind of flies in the face of the public trust doctrine. I'll give you an example.
Having been in this field for many years, I worked very closely with a number of wildlife rehabilitator across the state. Now, when one is licensed by the state as a wildlife rehabilitator, someone who, they are unsung heroes, people who will get called. I found an injured squirrel.
DC: I called two weeks ago about a bird in my yard, and they gave me excellent advice.
DS: That individual during their licensing process was clearly told wildlife belongs to this state. The people of the state of New York and cannot be kept and sold. So, there is a precedent for that. Also New York does not allow bounties. It's in our laws, our environmental conservation (ENCON) laws, that state entities cannot offer bounties. So, you know, these are a number of the reasons why there's a focus on this.
And, you know, the other part of this is honestly the basic cruelty of this. To have contests where there is not a use, it's a wanton waste of these animals. One contest in Greene County is referred to as the crow down. And we come across these contests, they are not widely advertised, they're often in chat rooms, and we find them online, people will send us posters, you know, for this particular crow down money from the pot is being offered for animals. The poster says dead or alive. So, you know, this is something that is not keeping with fair chase and the ethics and the norms of traditional hunting. And that's why we have strong support from members of the hunting community, wildlife rehabilitators, veterinarians, farmers, and the list goes on.
DC: Who are the people that will be enforcing these laws, As I hear you say where you find these events, they might be organized in a Facebook group or through a text message chain. So, a lot of people just may not know that they're going on. Who are the people who are going to be tasked with enforcing it?
Are they local police, is it the DEC?
DS: Excellent question. What we've seen in other states where this bill has passed, this is not something where we have ENCON police out marching through the woods. We've seen when it's prohibited, the contests stop. Because if someone wants to go out and let's say there's a species, fox or coyotes, where there's no bag limit within season one can hunt. That is their tradition to hunt these animals according to what the bag limit is. But as far as the contests themselves go, you know, they're taking these animals, and this is not a wise use of our shared resources.
DC: You know, some people who are opposed to this bill in the legislature when they were speaking on the floor, really seemed to single out coyotes specifically saying, well, if we can't hunt as many coyotes, then perhaps, oops, they may kill more sheep or more chickens on people's property. For some people, that's their livelihood. What would you say to those people?
DS: So you know, these are emotional arguments. And I understand until someone knows and understands this. What a lot of the contestants have been doing is saying this will end hunting, that there that there is a slippery slope, but as far as predation goes, according to the Department of Environmental Conservation, the random removal of coyotes will not decrease population numbers. It will not increase protection for livestock, and it will not increase deer densities.
Additionally, the agency had said that the large scale removal, if we're focusing on coyotes, will not reduce populations and is not warranted and it is not practical. It's worth noting that the DEC does not condone or sponsor these events.
DC: This is a very narrow bill and oftentimes when we have a narrow bill that's focused on something kind of cultural in the state cultural divide between upstate and downstate, a lot of the time politics really inserts itself into there. So, while this bill will not directly impact most New Yorkers, it's a political issue that makes people think that it's going to affect them more than it actually is.
With that being said, it now heads to Governor Kathy Hochul. She's not up for reelection next year, but every member of the legislature is, and every member of Congress is as well, meaning that if people are mad at Democrats or Republicans next year, it might reflect that way in the polls. So as the governor is getting ready to make a decision on it, are you concerned at all that politics gets in the way of this, and she says, I don't want to do this? And behind the scenes it's I don't want to do this because it might be bad for my party.
DS: You know, this bill has gained bipartisan support. You know, there's all the different committees that any bill has to go through. It went through ENCON, it went through codes, in the Senate Environmental
Conservation Committee there wasn't debate. It just passed without any opposition. So far, as you know, the politics of this, we feel this is a popular piece of legislation. It has public support. Humane Society of the United States partner organizations such as the Adirondack Council, New York State Wildlife Rehabilitation Council and other groups.
We feel it's actually a popular piece of legislation and that it is something the governor should look forward to signing and supporting as soon as possible.
DC: It's a bill that we will certainly be watching in the next couple of months as the governor considers it. Brian Shapiro, New York State Director of the Humane Society of the United States, thank you so much.
DS: Thanks for having me Dan.
DC: Hochul has until the end of the year to make a decision on that bill. We’ll let you know when she does.
Dan Clark: Turning now to health insurance in New York. It's about this time every year that the state decides how much health insurance companies can increase their rates. This happens every year, like last year when the state approved an average increase of about 10%, which was about half of what they asked for.
This year, insurance companies are asking for a similar increase, but they say that's not their fault, and point instead to the rising cost of health care in New York and across the country.
At the same time, progressives in Albany are making a fresh push for a health care overhaul with a new version of the New York Health Act. That's a bill that would enact single payer health care, meaning the state would take the place of insurance companies who are against the bill.
Something we've never done is talk to the actual insurance companies about these issues and others before the legislature. So, this week we spoke with Eric Windsor from New York Health Plan Association, which represents insurance companies in New York.
Eric, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate it.
Eric Linzer: Thanks for having me, Dan.
DC: Of course. We don't really talk about health insurance that much on this show, so I'm thrilled to have you.
I want to talk about a few bills that you were watching during watching during the session this year that deal with your industry. One bill that I found really interesting would require drug manufacturers to give at least 60 days’ notice if they're going to raise the price of a drug more than 16%.
I don't really pay attention that much to the price of the medication that I pick up at the pharmacy, because usually it's pretty close to what I bought it for the last time. How common is it for these drug manufacturers to change these prices so abruptly?
EL: Well, each year you see pretty significant price increases. This past year alone in January manufacturers increased the prices of drugs on about a thousand different drugs, in some instances by more than double and double digits. Last year in 2020 to about 850 medications got increased, again some by double digits. These are pretty common drugs that treat, cancer, hypertension, ADHD, you know, things that most individuals need.
The real challenge with this is that while these drugs may provide tremendous clinical benefits, they shouldn't be a blank check that consumers have to pick up the tab. Really what this would do would provide employers, consumers, health plans and providers some advance notice that you can plan appropriately before you're dealing with a significant increase at the pharmacy counter.
DC: With the bill deal, would it allow any kind of state entity or anything like that to push back on that proposed price increase, or is this just giving you a heads up?
EL: This is this is a notice requirement. Back in the 2021 state budget, the state gave the Department of Financial Services the ability to investigate price increases on drug manufacturers over 50%, but it didn't require any kind of pre-notification. This is a good consumer protection bill. Giving them an advance notice is a good way to help consumers think about, what are my potential out-of-pocket costs?
You think about just several years ago when you saw increases for EpiPens, anybody who has a kid with a nut allergy has three or four EpiPens. If the price goes up, you want to at least have some advance notice to maybe update your prescription beforehand so you provide a little bit of cost certainty for yourself.
DC: Oh, yeah. Especially when we're talking about things like allergies and things like that. Those are life or death things, and it's not like my allergy medication that I maybe don't need sometimes.
EL: Unfortunately, we've seen significant increases from pharmaceutical manufacturers. There needs to be some accountability from big and big pharma. You know, this is really providing notice.
As I said, it's passed in a number of states. Our hope is that New York would follow suit and do something similar.
DC: So that kind of leads me to my next question for you about the cost of health care. You're going through something right now, not you individually, but your members are going through your requests every year from the Department of Financial Services rate hikes so that you can charge consumers more. You say that that's because the cost of health care is going up.
Talk to me about what that looks like from your perspective. Where do we see those changes? Why have a rate increase?
EL: So health insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. You know, the underlying factors driving health insurance premiums are the costs that doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical manufacturers are charging for services, which we've seen significant increases over the last several years. In addition to that, New York has particularly high health care, health insurance costs because of some of the factors that have been decided around mandated benefits, as well as taxes that are imposed on health insurance. About $6 billion a year gets imposed on the cost of health insurance to pick through various taxes, fees and assessments. That adds about $1,000 in the cost of coverage to a family policy.
What we're seeing this year is, you know, last year's rate increases were about eight, 8 to 9%. The rates that got put forward in May to the Department of Financial Services were somewhere between 15 and 20%, depending upon where you are in the state, what type of coverage, whether it's individual or employer sponsored coverage, and what that really reflects is those underlying costs.
Over a five-year period from 2017 to 2021, we saw a nationally, we saw prices for health care services go up about 14%. In New York, they went up about 18%, and there's no indication that there's been a slowdown in those costs. In fact, with inflation and other cost pressures that providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers are putting on, you know, those costs are going up even higher.
DC: Why are they going up so much? 18% is not a small number.
Do you have any indication is it just inflation? That's how bad inflation is that it's trickling into the health care industry or are there other costs that are being?
EL: Some of it will be factors. I think we're seeing in other parts of the economy, inflation certainly is affecting the cost of health care, but there's also push on by providers to increase that are charging higher prices for the services. Same thing with pharmaceutical manufacturers. As I mentioned, it started this year. You know, seeing some manufacturers charge double digit price increases for their drugs. That's, you know, even higher than inflation.
Really the question comes down to, you know, why are those costs, you know, going up? That's part of the reason I think some of the bills that we've advocated for this past session around transparency to help answer some of those questions.
But at the same time, you know, health insurance premiums are inextricably linked. When health care costs go up, premiums reflect those costs.
DC: Do you see a real list realistic scenario ever where health care costs could go down? So then maybe your members could request lower rates? I don't think that that may happen.
EL: Well I think you know certainly if things were done to address underlying health care costs, I mean, you move beyond some of the bills we talked about are around price transparency. But if you were to take some of the steps to address some of the, you know, challenges in the marketplace, for example there's legislation that we've pushed for and we hope gets taken up next year that would address some of the anti-competitive contracting practices in hospitals undertake where they require things like all-or-nothing provisions in their contract so that where a health plan may want to contract with one particular facility, you have to take them all on. That adds to cost, that creates dysfunctions in the market.
You know, those types of things I think would help to address some of the challenges in the market, deal with some of those pricing pressures. We may not see a reduction in premiums, but certainly if you deal with the underlying cost, that should eventually be reflected in premiums.
DC: So progressive lawmakers in Albany have been pushing for a number of years a bill called the New York Health Act, which they see as the solution to all of these problems we've been talking about. This is
a bill that would create single payer health care in New York, so all of your members would disappear. You wouldn't exist anymore, and the state would be managing the health care system for everybody.
They have recently come out with a revised version of the New York Health Act, which they say addresses some concerns from retired public employees, saying basically you will get your benefits as you were promised under this bill. Don't worry about it.
You have been against the bill, and I know you're against the revised version as well. Tell me why.
EL: Well we believe that all New Yorkers deserve high quality, affordable health care, but they also should have the power to choose the options that are that best meet their needs. What the New York Health Act does is moves 20 million New Yorkers into a one size fits all government run health care system. That would be an untested program and it would lead to longer wait times for, you know, individual individuals and take options away from seniors.
You know that all said, there are ways to get there. We've got to get to universal coverage. We've got more than 95, 96% of New Yorkers who are covered. There are steps, including expanding the state's essential plan to enable those individuals who aren't able to participate now because of their immigration status. That's something that we'd support, and we hope that gets taken up in next year.
And on your point about the changes to the New York Health Act and public retirees, the bill would actually require the public retirees to pay a pretty significant tax to help fund this thing. For many of those individuals who are getting, you know, you know, their coverage for free right now, that would be an increase. So it actually adversely affects a lot of public retirees in addition to many, many millions of New Yorkers.
DC: It has been talked about before that the jobs that would be lost from your members could be kind of changed in a way where the state oversees the program. But insurance companies administer it. So, it would be kind of a state run program administered by your members. I've heard that talked about before. What do you think about that?
EL: Yeah, you know, you're still dealing with a one size fits all government run program. That takes options and choices away from individuals. On the job loss, well about a third of that 161,000 would come from the insurance industry. The remainder of that would come from other areas that were somewhat resistant to the economic downturn as a result of the pandemic, you know, finance and other industries being some of them.
So, you're still talking about a pretty significant job loss as a result of the New York Health Act. It's really the wrong prescription.
I think what New Yorkers want is for policymakers to focus on what's working, fix what's not and we think that taking the steps around, expanding coverage, particularly for those individuals who can't access it today. Individuals who are shut out because their immigration status is really the last big batch of individuals to get us to universal coverage.
That's a better approach than upending the system for 20 million New Yorkers.
DC: All right. It's something that we'll be watching. I'm curious to see if the new health chair in the assembly makes a much a major push for it next year with the Senate health chair.
It's something we've been talking about for a few years now, and it doesn't seem to have made a lot of progress, but I think some lawmakers see an opportunity in the years ahead. So, we'll be watching that. Eric Linzer, president and CEO of the New York Health Plan Association, thank you so much.
EL: Thanks for having me again.
DC: As we mentioned, the state is currently considering new rate hikes for health insurance. We'll let you know what they decide when that happens.
On This Week's Edition
Catch this week's show on your local PBS member station, or watch on YouTube, Facebook, or using the free PBS app anytime after Friday. A podcast version is available wherever you normally get podcasts.
On This Week's Edition of New York NOW:
- The state Legislature in New York has passed a bill that would ban wildlife killing contests in the state, sparking some controversy and misinformation. We'll break down the bill with Brian Shapiro, the New York state director at the Humane Society of the United States.
- Lawmakers also considered legislation related to health insurance and health care this year, while insurance companies propose higher rates for consumers. We'll discuss that and more with Eric Linzer, president and CEO of the New York Health Plan Association.