Legislative Initiatives

IAPO’s 2018 legislative and administrative advocacy priorities include the following initiatives:

1) Healthy Local Foods Incentive Fund: While the Healthy Local Foods Incentives Fund bill, which provides double-value coupon incentives to SNAP participants to access fresh fruits & vegetables at farmers markets and other direct-to-consumer venues, was passed into law in 2016, no appropriation was made for the fund in the FY 2018 state budget. IAPO’s 2018 priorities are to secure an appropriation of $500,000 in the FY 2019 state budget and eliminate the pilot’s sunset date of June 2019. On the latter, HB 4568, a bill that would make permanent the Healthy Local Food Incentives Fund, has passed both the Illinois House and Senate and has now been sent to the Governor for consideration! Take action! Ask the Governor to sign HB 4568 to support healthy eating and the local farming economy.  

2) Enhanced P.E. Policy: As part of the school funding reform bill passed in August, 2017, the daily P.E. requirement in schools was eliminated. IAPO is interested in strengthening the P.E. policy to promote a minimum minutes-per-week requirement for schools to still allow for local school flexibility in scheduling but to meet best practice recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and SHAPE America (150 minutes per week in elementary school and 225 minutes per week in secondary school). Strengthening the P.E. requirement to meet national best practices will support the other statewide efforts underway to support enhanced P.E., an evidence-based intervention aimed at getting kids engaging in more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity during P.E. class time.

Update: Senate Bill 2572, which would change the current requirement for schools to provide a minimum of 3 days per week of P.E. to a requirement that schools provide students at least 150 minutes per week of P.E., more closely aligning Illinois to national best practices for elementary students, passed both the Illinois House and Senate and has now been sent to the Governor for consideration! Take action: Ask the Governor to sign HB 2572 to support healthy and active kids!

3) Bridging to Preventive Care Medicaid Advocacy: IAPO has long been advocating for Medicaid payment for chronic disease prevention and management programs and worked to develop a Roadmap for Medicaid reimbursement of these programs in 2016. Throughout 2017, IAPO partners have been working to develop pilot programs with a Medicaid managed care organization to pay for the national Diabetes Prevention Program in two regions (Greater Joliet and East St. Louis, IL), as well as the Diabetes Self-Management Program (in greater Chicago area) for Medicaid clients in those areas. A bi-monthly learning collaborative of those participating in the pilot has begun. IAPO will continue to advocate for the expansion of these pilot programs to other Medicaid managed care plans and to other regions of the state in 2018. IAPO will also advocate for pilot programs for Medicaid reimbursement of similar programs for pediatric populations.

Update: As part of the on-going Bridging to Preventive Care Project, the Illinois Public Health Institute (IPHI) and IAPO, in partnership with the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors and Leavitt Partners, LLC., are pleased to release a new concept paper: “Advancing Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Programs: Building a Third-Party Organization to Support Managed Care Coverage of Services in Community-Based Organizations in Illinois.” Read more.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Prior legislative priorities have included:

Improving the Safe Routes to Schools Program
Every day in Illinois, five kids are hit by cars while walking or biking within one block of a school. The Safe Routes for Healthy Kids is a statewide campaign led by Active Transportation Alliance to make our streets safer places for kids to walk and bike to school. The campaign is looking to strengthen Illinois’s Safe Routes to Schools program by boosting funding for the program, making it easier for low-income communities to participate, and improving the administrative practices of the program to align with national best practices.

Supporting Implementation of the Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax

IAPO supported the passage and implementation of Cook County’s sweetened beverage tax. Cook County’s sweetened beverage tax went into effect August 2, 2017, saving hundreds of public safety and healthcare jobs and services, and improving the health, wellness and safety of our communities. However, the tax was repealed in November of 2017.

Read an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times in support of the tax by IAPO’s Executive Director, Elissa Bassler.

Read myths & facts about the sweetened beverage tax.

View an infographic about the tax- what’s included, what’s not

View the infographic about the programs and services supported by the County’s sweetened beverage tax.

Supporting Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) proposal as part of state budget
IAPO has advocated for the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) proposal as a healthy source of revenue for Illinois. The HEAL proposal would raise more than $600 million to invest in Medicaid and opportunities for children and families to live healthier lives through a penny-per-ounce excise tax on high-sugar drinks. Investments made with the revenue would include funding for increased access to affordable local foods, more safe places for children to play, nutrition and physical education in schools, and more walking and biking paths in communities. Learn more at healthebudget.org.

Additional Information on the Healthy Eating + Active Living Act:

HEAL_Fact_Sheet

 

 

Healthy Eating + Active Living Fact Sheet

 

 

 

HEAL_FAQs

 

 

Healthy Eating + Active Living Frequently Asked Questions

 

 

 

Endorse IAPO’s legislative proposal to fund wellness programs through a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages

To download the endorsement form to fax, email, or mail in, click here.

Learn more at HealtheBudget.org

 


Fact Sheet Citations

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Illinois’s response to obesity. Retrieved July 18, 2013 from
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/stateprograms/fundedstates/illinois.html#ref-brfss
2 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2013). National Data Hub: Prevalence of Obesity (BMI > 30) among adults. Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://www.rwjf.org/en/research- publications/research-features/rwjf-datahub/national.html#q/scope/national/ind/37/dist/19/char/58/time/3/viz/map/cmp/brkdwn.
3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Illinois’s response to obesity. Retrieved July 18, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/stateprograms/fundedstates/illinois html#ref-brfss.
4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Heart disease facts. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm.
5 Illinois Department of Public Health (2007). Heart disease and stroke in Illinois: 2007-2012 state plan. Retrieved July 31, 2014 from http://www.idph.state.il.us/heartstroke/
state_plan_book2.pdf.
6 Illinois Department of Public Health (2012). The burden of diabetes in Illinois: Prevalence, mortality and risk factors. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.idph.state.il.us/iabetes/pdf/8-27- 12_Diabetes_Burden.pdf.
7 Illinois Department of Public Health (2014). Diabetes: Are Hispanics/Latinos at greater risk? Retrieved July 31, 2014 from http://www.idph.state.il.us/idhp/
idhp_HispanicRiskForDiabetes.htm.
8 The University of Chicago Medicine (2014). General diabetes statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2014 from http://www.uchospitals.edu/online-library/content=P00353.
9 Trogdon, J. G., Finkelstein, E. A., Feagan, C. W. and Cohen, J. W. (2012), State- and Payer-Specific Estimates of Annual Medical Expenditures Attributable to Obesity. Obesity, 20:
214–220. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.169. Retreived July 31, 2014 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.169/full
10 Trust for America’s Health (2012). F as in fat: How obesity threatens America’s future 2012. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/ TFAH2012FasInFat18.pdf.
11 Harvard School of Public Health (2014). Sugary drinks and obesity factsheet. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
sugary%20-drinks-fact-sheet/.
12 Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. Lancet. 2001;357:505-8.
13 Harvard School of Public Health (2014). Sugary drinks and obesity factsheet. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
sugary%20-drinks-fact-sheet/.
14 United States Department of Agriculture (2010). Dietary guidelines for Americans, Chapter 3. Retrieved September 25, 2013 from http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/ dietaryguidelines/2010/ policydoc/chapter3.pdf.
15 Chaloupka, Frank J., Wang, Y. Claire, Powell, Lisa M., Andreyeva, Tatiana, Chriqui, Jamie F., Rimkus, Leah M. (2011). Estimating the potential impact of sugar-sweetened and other beverage excise taxes in Illinois. Retrieved 11/6/13 from http://www.cookcountypublichealth.org/files/pdf/Chaloupka_Report_PRF.pdf.
16 Chaloupka, Frank J., Wang, Y. Claire, Powell, Lisa M., Andreyeva, Tatiana, Chriqui, Jamie F., Rimkus, Leah M. (2011). Estimating the potential impact of sugar-sweetened and other beverage excise taxes in Illinois. Retrieved 11/6/13 from http://www.cookcountypublichealth.org/files/pdf/Chaloupka_Report_PRF.pdf.
17 Powell, Lisa M., Roy Wada, Joseph J. Persky, and Frank J. Chaloupka (2014). Employment Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes. American Journal of Public Health.
Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301630.


 

For more information about these priorities, please contact Elissa Bassler at elissa.bassler@iphionline.org.

*Members of IAPO are those that have endorsed the eight objectives listed in the IAPO Roadmap. While IAPO as a whole supports the above agenda, members do not necessarily individually endorse specific legislative priorities.