Goodbye, Hello

There are many facts of life and one of them is that people change jobs.

There are a few reasons that people change jobs–they move, they get laid off, they get a better job–but there’s one constant to the act of job changing, and that is that people are always sad to leave.

I never watched the final season of “The Office” when it aired but I suppose that’s just as well because over the last two weeks it has been my dinner table companion. If you haven’t seen the final season of “The Office” I won’t spoil too much for you. But I will say that in wrapping up the show that final season, every reason you would ever leave an office happens: some move, others get laid off and still others get a better job. And there’s crying into cake, goodbye dance parties, promises to stay in touch…the usual components that come along with the act of leaving.

We all know that sometimes it is our friends leaving and sometimes it is us who will leave, but when it comes right down to it, it’s part of our shared human experience that transitions will happen.

Taxi Protest
Me, trying to find out why the taxi drivers were protesting by honking and driving around the Capitol in circles. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

So why–when we know this is coming be it tomorrow or next month or next year–why do we struggle to balance the sadness of leaving something behind with the excitement of starting something new?

I’m leaving National Journal. My first real job out of college, where I succeeded and stumbled, figuring out who I was and what I was capable of. I started out on the health care beat, where after a month and a half on the job, HealthCare.gov debuted and crashed and I spent the rest of the fall covering what would become the 2013 AP News Story of the Year.

After former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary, I snapped a photo of Speaker John Boehner. I probably gained 300 Twitter followers that day.
After former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary, I snapped a photo of Speaker John Boehner. I probably gained 300 Twitter followers that day.

From there I transitioned to covering Congress, studying the faces of lawmakers on the long metro commute to Capitol Hill only to realize that they’re all much older now than when their directory photos were taken. I quickly took to the foreign policy beat, writing about the one issue that will keep on going even when the political parties can’t agree on how deal with it. And it’s been a busy summer too; between the advances of ISIS in Iraq, Russia’s encroachment (invasion?) of Ukraine and the spread of the Ebola virus in West Africa, each story that it feels like I was there for from the start will keep on going until it morphs into the next chapter.

You'll always be my ominous House of Cards Capitol but I'll never be your Zoe Barnes.
You’ll always be my ominous House of Cards Capitol but I’ll never be your Zoe Barnes.

It’s been a good run. I walk away having learned who’s the friendliest face in the Senate, why the U.S. can’t keep its boots off the ground in the Middle East, and how to challenge charges from my health insurance company. I’ll miss my friends, my colleagues, my editors, and Rosita, the woman makes sure there’s coffee waiting for our tired souls as we start each day. I won’t miss the never-ending PR emails or the vitriolic commenters.

Waiting for a press conference to begin in the basement of the Capitol after a Pentagon briefing.
Waiting for a press conference to begin in the basement of the Capitol after a Pentagon briefing.

I’m headed to Green Buzz Agency. My second real job and I can’t keep my face from lighting up when people ask me about it. I’m going to be the new Assistant Producer, working on corporate client videos and expanding our film work into original documentaries. I’ll be doing everything from researching to interviewing to script writing to working on set to editing, but I’ll also be writing the blog, public speaking, managing the intern program and planning events. It’s a start-up, so I get to wear a lot of hats, and with such a small team, my input will really shape the direction and the success of our work. And it’s going to be a lot of work. But multimedia storytelling is where my heart has always been, and I’m so thrilled about the chance to build my creative visual skills. I’ll still be in the D.C. area, so despite the fact that I’m leaving, it’s not really goodbye.

It still feels like it though. It’s a strange limbo, knowing you are closing the door, knowing what you’re saying goodbye to, but not having the familiar comfort of knowing what comes next.

In the final season of “The Office,” people who had left come back. They weren’t gone forever, they were just doing something else, having their own adjacent narrative.

A new adventure.

And you can see it in their eyes. They’re really happy.

The Case That Could Save the Contraception Mandate

Anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision?

To help pass the time this weekend, dive down this rabbit hole with me and read about the case that could save the contraception mandate.

The Case: U.S. vs. Lee (1982)amish

The Supreme Court ruled that an Amish employer, Edwin Lee, did not have the right to avoid paying Social Security tax on employees, despite his religious beliefs that is was immoral to do so. The Court agreed that his religious rights had been violated, but ruled that the broad public interest served in maintaining a tax system was so important that the conflict did not afford him a basis for not paying the tax. Furthermore, it ruled that it would impose his religious beliefs on others.

The Precedent: Obamacare is a Tax, and Taxes Serve the Public Interest

At the March hearing on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, Justice Sonia Sottomayor admonished the businesses’ attorney, Paul Clement, for his incorrect classification of the financial responsibility businesses carry if they do not provide health insurance or provide health insurance but exclude contraceptive coverage.

“It’s not called a penalty, it’s called a tax,” she said, met with a round of laughter from the audience, and a note of approval from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Her words hearken back to the first time the Court weighed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act–and it’s no small distinction. That the Supreme Court ruled the financial cost of not insuring, or insuring but excluding contraception, “a tax” means there’s already judicial precedent to save the contraception mandate.

“Does the creation of the exemption relieve me from paying taxes when I have a sincere religious belief that taxes are immoral?” Sottomayor asked Clement.

“I think Lee says that taxes are different, and not all exemptions are created equal, because some exemptions undermine the compelling interest,” Clement replied.

Here’s what that means: Hobby Lobby objects, on religious grounds, to the contraception mandate. In order to get out of the contraception mandate, they would have to pay the tax for not providing health insurance. Hobby Lobby does not want to do this because they say it is expensive and therefore a burden on their religious practice.uterus-property-of-hobby-lobby

Like in U.S. vs. Lee, the justices–and that includes Sottomayor–were very clearly leaning toward a decision that yes, Hobby Lobby’s has a right to the protection of their religious identity.

But U.S. vs. Lee resolved that paying taxes is different. And the same arguments can be made for the contraception mandate. There’s a broad public interest in maintaining the tax for not providing health insurance and the tax for not providing contraceptive coverage, to get businesses to provide the full range of benefits or allow workers to obtain those benefits, with subsidies on the exchange.

One Hang-Up: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

After Lee, Congress introduced the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which added to the “compelling government interest” standard set down by Lee a new standard: “the least-restrictive means test.”

There’s not a clear case that there’s a less-restrictive means of getting women access to contraception. Clement and his clients disagree, but the science is very clear.

“This is not about access to contraception,” Clement said. “It’s about who’s going to pay for the government’s preferred subsidy.”hobbylobby

But the reason the government mandated free access was because of the number of studies presented to the Health and Human Services Department in advance of the rule showing that the cost of contraception was a barrier to access for women.

Granted, the two businesses don’t object to covering all forms of contraception. But the Court can’t grant Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood exemptions from certain types of contraception without opening the door to all contraceptives being exempt, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out during the oral arguments (and Clement agreed). That’s because the argument Clement and his clients have presented to the Court is that whatever the religious employer objects to, in this case, would be a substantial burden.

And to grant Hobby Lobby an exemption, as federal attorney General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued, could violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by prioritizing the employers’ religion over the employees’.

The least restrictive means test certainly muddies the waters. But I think that if the court wanted, it could rule that there isn’t a less-restrictive means of getting women access to contraceptives. And that would mean the case rests on the precedent of U.S. vs. Lee–the case that could save the contraception mandate.

Obamacare and Mental Health

A version of this article appeared in National Journal Daily on Wednesday, October 15, 2013.

In the last year, the shootings at Aurora, Newtown, and the Navy Yard have fueled a conversation about what the country should do to keep people who suffer from mental illnesses from becoming a danger to society.

But when unarmed Miriam Carey was killed after leading police on a car chase to the U.S. Capitol—which ended with officers firing multiple shots at her vehicle—it highlighted the fact that people battling mental illness are more than just the perpetrators of tragic shootings.

Two U.S. Capitol police officers were put on modified duty following the death of Miriam Carey. Carey -- who struggled with depression -- was shot in her vehicle after leading police on a chase to the Capitol complex.
Two U.S. Capitol police officers were put on modified duty following the death of Miriam Carey. Carey — who struggled with depression — was shot in her vehicle after leading police on a chase to the Capitol complex.

A discussion about limiting access to guns for people with mental illnesses wouldn’t have changed Carey’s fate. But policy action to improve patients’ access to insurance and reduce the cost of treatment options could have filled a void for Carey and the other Americans whose inner struggles ended in moments of national pain.

To be sure, not all mentally ill patients are violent. Dr. Eliot Sorel, a clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said that while the news stories illustrate a problem in health care, they also create a stigma around mental illness. He said that not all people who commit violent acts are mentally ill, and those of them who are are typically not seeking medical help.

“The severely mentally ill who are not in treatment are the ones who are potentially violent, and we need to attend to this,” Sorel said.

Increased access to mental health services is one component of the Affordable Care Act, and insurance coverage in the health law’s exchanges begins Jan. 1 for those who sign up by Dec. 15. The full implementation of the ACA, according to a February 2013 Health and Human Services report, will provide first-time access to mental health services for 32.1 million Americans.

The new health law requires all insurance plans in the exchange and in the individual and small group markets to treat mental health services equally with other forms of care in terms of copays and deductibles. Traditionally, insurance companies did not cover—or required higher out-of-pocket costs for—mental health services. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., proposed the parity requirement as an amendment, which was passed and added to the ACA, reflecting the existing requirement for mental health care parity in large employer-sponsored plans.

“After each one of these tragedies, everyone talks about improving mental health services in America,” said Stabenow, who is working now on legislation to heighten the quality of care for uninsured patients seeking mental health treatment in community centers. “It’s time to finally take action to do that.”

Lack of insurance and high costs of care are the biggest reasons mental health patients don’t seek treatment, according to a study released in this month’s Health Affairs, a top health policy journal.

“People with mental illnesses are more likely to have lower incomes,” said Kathleen Rowan, a doctoral student at the University of Minnesota and the primary author of the study. “That’s because mental illness might be limiting in terms of the work they are able to do or the hours they are able to work. And so many people face cost barriers in terms of access to care.”

The law will open the doors to affordable care for many of these individuals, Rowan said, through the subsidies on the exchange and the expansion of Medicaid.

Stabenow’s communications director, Cullen Schwarz, said that had the Navy Yard shooter had access to treatment, there could have been a different outcome. People who go without treatment after experiencing their first psychotic episode are 15 times more likely to commit acts of violence than those who do receive treatment, he said, citing a study in Schizophrenia Bulletin, a psychiatric journal.

“It’s not that we’ll always stop these tragedies from happening,” Schwarz said, “but we can certainly strengthen mental health services and reduce the number.”

The next obstacle, Rowan said, will be whether the scope of services and the number of doctors are able to meet the increased demand for mental health care.

For lawmakers, one solution might be adding incentives for physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, and other health care providers to adopt an integrated, team-based approach. Sorel said collaborative care restructures the system in a way that meets the total needs of mental health patients and creates communication between providers who could potentially stop the patients from taking violent action.

“You know what our biggest provider of mental health services is?” Sorel said. “U.S. jails and prisons. That’s the result of us not attending to this need.”