Fwd: California Newborn Hearing Screening: Please Forward

[Guest guest]

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

Subject: California Newborn Hearing Screening: Please Forward

" Nash, " KNash@...> wrote:

Subject: California Newborn Hearing Screening: Please Forward

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:29:45 -0400

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } TO:

Advocacy Volunteers

FROM: Nash, State Director of Public Affairs

SUBJECT: Newborn Hearing Screening in California

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

Yesterday, State Senator Abel Maldonado, Senator Dave , and Senator Sam

Aanestad of the Senate Health Committee voted against the March of Dimes

sponsored legislation to screen all newborns in California for hearing loss.

California is the only state not to offer this basic service to all babies at

birth. When detected and treated before 6 months of age, a child with hearing

loss can make significant improvement in speech and hearing development. Three

in 1000 babies are born with hearing loss and among premature babies the risk

increases to 3 in 100 babies.

Having these three senators change their vote from no to a yes when the bill

is voted on by the full Senate is critical to having the bill become law. The

March of Dimes needs your help. Please call or write Senators Maldonado, and

Aanestad and urge them to support this bill. Below is a sample text to use for a

phone message or e-mail. If you call the office, ask the receptionist to take a

message for the Senator. Please feel free to add any personal experience or

expertise to this message.

Senator _________, please consider changing your vote opposing the Expanded

Newborn Hearing Screening Bill (AB 2651 – ) heard in the Senate Health

Committee on Wednesday. California is the only state not offering screening for

hearing loss to all newborns. When detected and treated before 6 months there is

a significant impact on the development of these babies. Special education

savings alone make this program expansion worthwhile not to mention the quality

of life issues these children and their families face. Without this expansion to

screen all babies for hearing loss at birth, an estimated 140,000 babies go

untested each year for a screening test most parents expect their child is

receiving because every other baby in every other part of this country receives

it as a standard of care.

I would hope you reconsider your vote and support this bill when heard on

the Senate Floor.

Sincerely,

SEND TO:

The Honorable Able Maldonado

OFFICE:

FAX:

EMAIL: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/15/feed.asp

The Honorable Dave

OFFICE:

FAX:

EMAIL: senator.cox@...

The Honorable Sam Aanestad – phone calls only

OFFICE:

Thank you. I appreciate your effort to help get this important legislation

signed into law.

L. Nash

State Director of Public Affairs

March of Dimes California Chapter

Office of Public Affairs

1755 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 130

Sacramento, CA 95833

The mission of the March of Dimes is to improve the health of babies by

preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality.

www.marchofdimes.com/ca

Cora Shahid

IMPACT Board Member

Consider Joining today!

Membership Application

Rabianay@...

Home & VP

Cell

[Guest guest]

I was under the impression that this was law?! Wow. I will be sending a

letter.

Thanks for passing on the info!

Tawnya

Newborn Hearing Screening in California

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

Yesterday, State Senator Abel Maldonado, Senator Dave , and Senator Sam

Aanestad of the Senate Health Committee voted against the March of Dimes

sponsored legislation to screen all newborns in California for hearing loss.

California is the only state not to offer this basic service to all babies at

birth. When detected and treated before 6 months of age, a child with hearing

loss can make significant improvement in speech and hearing development. Three

in 1000 babies are born with hearing loss and among premature babies the risk

increases to 3 in 100 babies.

Having these three senators change their vote from no to a yes when the bill

is voted on by the full Senate is critical to having the bill become law. The

March of Dimes needs your help. Please call or write Senators Maldonado, and

Aanestad and urge them to support this bill. Below is a sample text to use for a

phone message or e-mail. If you call the office, ask the receptionist to take a

message for the Senator. Please feel free to add any personal experience or

expertise to this message.

Senator _________, please consider changing your vote opposing the Expanded

Newborn Hearing Screening Bill (AB 2651 - ) heard in the Senate Health

Committee on Wednesday. California is the only state not offering screening for

hearing loss to all newborns. When detected and treated before 6 months there is

a significant impact on the development of these babies. Special education

savings alone make this program expansion worthwhile not to mention the quality

of life issues these children and their families face. Without this expansion to

screen all babies for hearing loss at birth, an estimated 140,000 babies go

untested each year for a screening test most parents expect their child is

receiving because every other baby in every other part of this country receives

it as a standard of care.

I would hope you reconsider your vote and support this bill when heard on the

Senate Floor.

Sincerely,

SEND TO:

The Honorable Able Maldonado

OFFICE:

FAX:

EMAIL: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/15/feed.asp

The Honorable Dave

OFFICE:

FAX:

EMAIL: senator.cox@...

The Honorable Sam Aanestad - phone calls only

OFFICE:

Thank you. I appreciate your effort to help get this important legislation

signed into law.

L. Nash

State Director of Public Affairs

March of Dimes California Chapter

Office of Public Affairs

1755 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 130

Sacramento, CA 95833

The mission of the March of Dimes is to improve the health of babies by

preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality.

www.marchofdimes.com/ca

Cora Shahid

IMPACT Board Member

Consider Joining today!

Membership Application

Rabianay@...

Home & VP

Cell

[Guest guest]

I was under the impression that this was law?! Wow. I will be sending a

letter.

Thanks for passing on the info!

Tawnya

Newborn Hearing Screening in California

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

Yesterday, State Senator Abel Maldonado, Senator Dave , and Senator Sam

Aanestad of the Senate Health Committee voted against the March of Dimes

sponsored legislation to screen all newborns in California for hearing loss.

California is the only state not to offer this basic service to all babies at

birth. When detected and treated before 6 months of age, a child with hearing

loss can make significant improvement in speech and hearing development. Three

in 1000 babies are born with hearing loss and among premature babies the risk

increases to 3 in 100 babies.

Having these three senators change their vote from no to a yes when the bill

is voted on by the full Senate is critical to having the bill become law. The

March of Dimes needs your help. Please call or write Senators Maldonado, and

Aanestad and urge them to support this bill. Below is a sample text to use for a

phone message or e-mail. If you call the office, ask the receptionist to take a

message for the Senator. Please feel free to add any personal experience or

expertise to this message.

Senator _________, please consider changing your vote opposing the Expanded

Newborn Hearing Screening Bill (AB 2651 - ) heard in the Senate Health

Committee on Wednesday. California is the only state not offering screening for

hearing loss to all newborns. When detected and treated before 6 months there is

a significant impact on the development of these babies. Special education

savings alone make this program expansion worthwhile not to mention the quality

of life issues these children and their families face. Without this expansion to

screen all babies for hearing loss at birth, an estimated 140,000 babies go

untested each year for a screening test most parents expect their child is

receiving because every other baby in every other part of this country receives

it as a standard of care.

I would hope you reconsider your vote and support this bill when heard on the

Senate Floor.

Sincerely,

SEND TO:

The Honorable Able Maldonado

OFFICE:

FAX:

EMAIL: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/15/feed.asp

The Honorable Dave

OFFICE:

FAX:

EMAIL: senator.cox@...

The Honorable Sam Aanestad - phone calls only

OFFICE:

Thank you. I appreciate your effort to help get this important legislation

signed into law.

L. Nash

State Director of Public Affairs

March of Dimes California Chapter

Office of Public Affairs

1755 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 130

Sacramento, CA 95833

The mission of the March of Dimes is to improve the health of babies by

preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality.

www.marchofdimes.com/ca

Cora Shahid

IMPACT Board Member

Consider Joining today!

Membership Application

Rabianay@...

Home & VP

Cell

[Guest guest]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newborn hearing screening. But this letter

is a little misleading, it makes it sound like California has no newborn

hearing screening legislation at all, and even when I support a particular

political position, it bugs the heck out of me when people leave out some

major facts to try to make their cause look more compelling. In fact, NBHS

is mandated in California at all hospitals who receive CCS funding, which

covers 70 % of the children born in California, including all county

hospitals where people with no insurance go. The people with infants who

don't get screened are the ones that are born outside of those CCS

hospitals, i.e. home births, birthing centers, and non-CCS facilities.

The biggest problem in CA in my opinion is that the quality of followup when

the child fails NBHS ranges from OK to absolutely abyssmal depending on the

EI personnel in the county the child lives in. Loss to follow-up in CA is

40 %, meaning that 40 % of children who fail NBHS in CA get lost in the

tracking system and no one knows if they have been properly followed-up with

or not. Materials are not consistent, and frequently only in

English/Spanish, despite their being dozens of other languages spoken at

home by California residents. Some counties still don't even discuss CIs,

we just had one 4 year old child come to our clinic last year with a

profound bilateral loss and extreme communication and behavior problems and

his well-educated English-speaking parents were never told he was a CI

candidate. He got a CI, and a year later, he is a totally different kid.

Sweetness and light behavior-wise, and speaking in full sentences.

The March of Dimes, IMHO, should make fixing THAT problem their top

priority. When the state of California put out the NBHS program to bid last

year (our facility bid on it and lost, that's why I know so much about the

statistics) they were offering to spend a maximum of a whopping 74 cents per

newborn child in California on the program. That's not even enough to send

two first class letters.

We can't properly track and make recommendations for the kids that we are

identifying as having failed NBHS, adding more kids into that population by

screening the 30 % who aren't getting mandated screening is not going to

solve the problem.

Sheri

[Guest guest]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newborn hearing screening. But this letter

is a little misleading, it makes it sound like California has no newborn

hearing screening legislation at all, and even when I support a particular

political position, it bugs the heck out of me when people leave out some

major facts to try to make their cause look more compelling. In fact, NBHS

is mandated in California at all hospitals who receive CCS funding, which

covers 70 % of the children born in California, including all county

hospitals where people with no insurance go. The people with infants who

don't get screened are the ones that are born outside of those CCS

hospitals, i.e. home births, birthing centers, and non-CCS facilities.

The biggest problem in CA in my opinion is that the quality of followup when

the child fails NBHS ranges from OK to absolutely abyssmal depending on the

EI personnel in the county the child lives in. Loss to follow-up in CA is

40 %, meaning that 40 % of children who fail NBHS in CA get lost in the

tracking system and no one knows if they have been properly followed-up with

or not. Materials are not consistent, and frequently only in

English/Spanish, despite their being dozens of other languages spoken at

home by California residents. Some counties still don't even discuss CIs,

we just had one 4 year old child come to our clinic last year with a

profound bilateral loss and extreme communication and behavior problems and

his well-educated English-speaking parents were never told he was a CI

candidate. He got a CI, and a year later, he is a totally different kid.

Sweetness and light behavior-wise, and speaking in full sentences.

The March of Dimes, IMHO, should make fixing THAT problem their top

priority. When the state of California put out the NBHS program to bid last

year (our facility bid on it and lost, that's why I know so much about the

statistics) they were offering to spend a maximum of a whopping 74 cents per

newborn child in California on the program. That's not even enough to send

two first class letters.

We can't properly track and make recommendations for the kids that we are

identifying as having failed NBHS, adding more kids into that population by

screening the 30 % who aren't getting mandated screening is not going to

solve the problem.

Sheri

[Guest guest]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newborn hearing screening. But this letter

is a little misleading, it makes it sound like California has no newborn

hearing screening legislation at all, and even when I support a particular

political position, it bugs the heck out of me when people leave out some

major facts to try to make their cause look more compelling. In fact, NBHS

is mandated in California at all hospitals who receive CCS funding, which

covers 70 % of the children born in California, including all county

hospitals where people with no insurance go. The people with infants who

don't get screened are the ones that are born outside of those CCS

hospitals, i.e. home births, birthing centers, and non-CCS facilities.

The biggest problem in CA in my opinion is that the quality of followup when

the child fails NBHS ranges from OK to absolutely abyssmal depending on the

EI personnel in the county the child lives in. Loss to follow-up in CA is

40 %, meaning that 40 % of children who fail NBHS in CA get lost in the

tracking system and no one knows if they have been properly followed-up with

or not. Materials are not consistent, and frequently only in

English/Spanish, despite their being dozens of other languages spoken at

home by California residents. Some counties still don't even discuss CIs,

we just had one 4 year old child come to our clinic last year with a

profound bilateral loss and extreme communication and behavior problems and

his well-educated English-speaking parents were never told he was a CI

candidate. He got a CI, and a year later, he is a totally different kid.

Sweetness and light behavior-wise, and speaking in full sentences.

The March of Dimes, IMHO, should make fixing THAT problem their top

priority. When the state of California put out the NBHS program to bid last

year (our facility bid on it and lost, that's why I know so much about the

statistics) they were offering to spend a maximum of a whopping 74 cents per

newborn child in California on the program. That's not even enough to send

two first class letters.

We can't properly track and make recommendations for the kids that we are

identifying as having failed NBHS, adding more kids into that population by

screening the 30 % who aren't getting mandated screening is not going to

solve the problem.

Sheri

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info!!

Tawnya

Re: Fwd: California Newborn Hearing Screening: Please

Forward

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newborn hearing screening. But this letter

is a little misleading, it makes it sound like California has no newborn

hearing screening legislation at all, and even when I support a particular

political position, it bugs the heck out of me when people leave out some

major facts to try to make their cause look more compelling. In fact, NBHS

is mandated in California at all hospitals who receive CCS funding, which

covers 70 % of the children born in California, including all county

hospitals where people with no insurance go. The people with infants who

don't get screened are the ones that are born outside of those CCS

hospitals, i.e. home births, birthing centers, and non-CCS facilities.

The biggest problem in CA in my opinion is that the quality of followup when

the child fails NBHS ranges from OK to absolutely abyssmal depending on the

EI personnel in the county the child lives in. Loss to follow-up in CA is

40 %, meaning that 40 % of children who fail NBHS in CA get lost in the

tracking system and no one knows if they have been properly followed-up with

or not. Materials are not consistent, and frequently only in

English/Spanish, despite their being dozens of other languages spoken at

home by California residents. Some counties still don't even discuss CIs,

we just had one 4 year old child come to our clinic last year with a

profound bilateral loss and extreme communication and behavior problems and

his well-educated English-speaking parents were never told he was a CI

candidate. He got a CI, and a year later, he is a totally different kid.

Sweetness and light behavior-wise, and speaking in full sentences.

The March of Dimes, IMHO, should make fixing THAT problem their top

priority. When the state of California put out the NBHS program to bid last

year (our facility bid on it and lost, that's why I know so much about the

statistics) they were offering to spend a maximum of a whopping 74 cents per

newborn child in California on the program. That's not even enough to send

two first class letters.

We can't properly track and make recommendations for the kids that we are

identifying as having failed NBHS, adding more kids into that population by

screening the 30 % who aren't getting mandated screening is not going to

solve the problem.

Sheri

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info!!

Tawnya

Re: Fwd: California Newborn Hearing Screening: Please

Forward

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newborn hearing screening. But this letter

is a little misleading, it makes it sound like California has no newborn

hearing screening legislation at all, and even when I support a particular

political position, it bugs the heck out of me when people leave out some

major facts to try to make their cause look more compelling. In fact, NBHS

is mandated in California at all hospitals who receive CCS funding, which

covers 70 % of the children born in California, including all county

hospitals where people with no insurance go. The people with infants who

don't get screened are the ones that are born outside of those CCS

hospitals, i.e. home births, birthing centers, and non-CCS facilities.

The biggest problem in CA in my opinion is that the quality of followup when

the child fails NBHS ranges from OK to absolutely abyssmal depending on the

EI personnel in the county the child lives in. Loss to follow-up in CA is

40 %, meaning that 40 % of children who fail NBHS in CA get lost in the

tracking system and no one knows if they have been properly followed-up with

or not. Materials are not consistent, and frequently only in

English/Spanish, despite their being dozens of other languages spoken at

home by California residents. Some counties still don't even discuss CIs,

we just had one 4 year old child come to our clinic last year with a

profound bilateral loss and extreme communication and behavior problems and

his well-educated English-speaking parents were never told he was a CI

candidate. He got a CI, and a year later, he is a totally different kid.

Sweetness and light behavior-wise, and speaking in full sentences.

The March of Dimes, IMHO, should make fixing THAT problem their top

priority. When the state of California put out the NBHS program to bid last

year (our facility bid on it and lost, that's why I know so much about the

statistics) they were offering to spend a maximum of a whopping 74 cents per

newborn child in California on the program. That's not even enough to send

two first class letters.

We can't properly track and make recommendations for the kids that we are

identifying as having failed NBHS, adding more kids into that population by

screening the 30 % who aren't getting mandated screening is not going to

solve the problem.

Sheri

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info!!

Tawnya

Re: Fwd: California Newborn Hearing Screening: Please

Forward

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newborn hearing screening. But this letter

is a little misleading, it makes it sound like California has no newborn

hearing screening legislation at all, and even when I support a particular

political position, it bugs the heck out of me when people leave out some

major facts to try to make their cause look more compelling. In fact, NBHS

is mandated in California at all hospitals who receive CCS funding, which

covers 70 % of the children born in California, including all county

hospitals where people with no insurance go. The people with infants who

don't get screened are the ones that are born outside of those CCS

hospitals, i.e. home births, birthing centers, and non-CCS facilities.

The biggest problem in CA in my opinion is that the quality of followup when

the child fails NBHS ranges from OK to absolutely abyssmal depending on the

EI personnel in the county the child lives in. Loss to follow-up in CA is

40 %, meaning that 40 % of children who fail NBHS in CA get lost in the

tracking system and no one knows if they have been properly followed-up with

or not. Materials are not consistent, and frequently only in

English/Spanish, despite their being dozens of other languages spoken at

home by California residents. Some counties still don't even discuss CIs,

we just had one 4 year old child come to our clinic last year with a

profound bilateral loss and extreme communication and behavior problems and

his well-educated English-speaking parents were never told he was a CI

candidate. He got a CI, and a year later, he is a totally different kid.

Sweetness and light behavior-wise, and speaking in full sentences.

The March of Dimes, IMHO, should make fixing THAT problem their top

priority. When the state of California put out the NBHS program to bid last

year (our facility bid on it and lost, that's why I know so much about the

statistics) they were offering to spend a maximum of a whopping 74 cents per

newborn child in California on the program. That's not even enough to send

two first class letters.

We can't properly track and make recommendations for the kids that we are

identifying as having failed NBHS, adding more kids into that population by

screening the 30 % who aren't getting mandated screening is not going to

solve the problem.

Sheri