Who picks (and how) the things in OGVP's Resource Bank? Rep deGruy Kennedy drops most of his Primary Care Doc bill. CO Assembly: rules for thee but not for me!
How does CDPHE's Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) decide on what kinds of resources do, and do not, make it into the "resource bank"?
The law that created the OGVP in CDPHE, also required the creation of an Resource Bank, a collection of materials that researchers, lawmakers, and the public could use to help prevent gun violence. CDPHE's landing page for the resource bank is linked first below.
One of the concerns I've had about this resource bank is what went in and what didn't, and also who it was that got to make that decision. After all, as I've written about more than once, the conclusions of the research in this library will almost certainly be used in the future to justify policy and thus what goes in there, who does the deciding, and how they do it are important.
I won't go into the details of each resource, but now that the library is up and running, I am able to share with you an answer to my questions.
Let's start with the "who". OGVP farmed out the creation and decision on the resource bank to the Injury and Violence Prevention Center, a division of the Colorado School of Public Health. I contacted the people at the Center and was given what you see in the second link below in answer to my question of who decides what is in the resource bank.
Now the "how". In answer to my question of what kind of process or rubric was used to decide what went into the resource bank, I was given the Excel file linked third below. The rubric is pretty easy to navigate and I will leave it to you to do so. I will also leave it to you to look at individual resources and come to your own decisions as to whether or not their decision criteria are relevant, fair, and etc.
I will leave it at that save for one last detail. One topic in this resource bank is notable for its absence. As you can see in the screenshot, when I try to find anything in this rubric that mentions self defense (good or bad), I come up empty handed.
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/colorado-gun-violence-prevention-resource-bank/external-resource-library
https://coloradosph.cuanschutz.edu/research-and-practice/centers-programs/ivpc/about-us/our-team
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ki0wH9NCE_EaSiw-IcDqnjJ5MY7f1W_J/edit#gid=881203166
Related:
I have written in the past about how Colorado Ceasefire (a gun control organization) received grants from the OGVP to help reduce gun violence. I put a link to that post first below if you want to go back and read up.
As part of that writeup, I contacted Colorado Ceasefire about their grant oversight and what they spent the money on and was told that "OGVP required regular invoices and evaluation reports throughout the grant cycle."
That didn't really match with the non-response I got about invoices and auditing from CDPHE, so I followed up with them to ask AGAIN about invoices/audits and this time did it specifically for Colorado Ceasefire.
I did get a response to that inquiry and it's linked second below. It's a copy of one of the regular invoices (reports) that Colorado Ceasefire submitted to OGVP. If you were wondering at the how and what of OGVP providing oversight into their grantees, wonder no more.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/a-climate-lever-to-move-your-recalcitrant?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DEsKigInUVy5lY1_AOLB1ttuNGw4btwT/view?usp=sharing
An update to Rep deGruy Kennedy's bill forcing all insurers to accept all primary care docs.
The short answer is that, quoting the article about deGruy Kennedy's HB1005,
"...deGruy Kennedy tossed the plan to require all insurers to bring all primary-care providers in-network and abandoned efforts to allow any provider credentialed by Medicaid to be credentialed automatically by private insurance plans. Instead, the fourth-term legislator who’s authored several major health-care reforms focused on making it easier for providers to leave employers and still be able to practice by limiting the noncompete agreements that physician groups can impose on doctors who choose to leave them."
I was glad to see it. I lost track of this bill after emailing in opposition and am glad to see it watered down.
There is still some concern about the remaining provisions' effects on rural areas (see the article linked below for more details), but some of that feels speculative to me. I'll leave it to you to read.
In the meantime, again leaning on the article, there is still the single-payer, gov't run healthcare "study" bill (linked second below) in the offing. It passed its committee on a party line vote but is cooling its heels awaiting the next hearing which is House Appropriations.
If not having gov't run healthcare is an issue for you (as it was for me--I advocated against this one), add it to your watchlist and speak up.
https://tsscolorado.com/legislator-ends-effort-to-require-insurance-networks-to-include-all-colorado-primary-care-docs/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1075
Rules for thee, but not for me! Oh, and why does it matter what it costs, you're the one who gets to pay!
The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition article below details how a bill requiring livestreaming and virtual public testimony at local government meetings (as well as state boards) advanced past its first committee hearing.
According to the article (in the lengthy quote):
"HB 24-1168 now requires [after some amendments to lower the cost burden on smaller governmental units], beginning July 1, 2025, the real-time video or audio streaming of state and local public body meetings for which notice is required by the open meetings law 'and at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action will occur.' Meetings at which public comment or testimony will be heard would also be livestreamed. Also beginning July 1, 2025: Public bodies must offer a remote public comment option at meetings where public comment is heard, and they must post meeting materials at least 24 hours before a meeting or 'as soon as practicable.' The requirements are less stringent for small communities, defined in the bill as any authority, district or political subdivision of the state with fewer than 1,000 eligible electors at the time of the last election. For those public bodies, remote access and remote testimony must be provided 'upon receipt of a timely request.' Livestreaming and remote testimony would not be mandatory for public body meetings held in areas without broadband access."
Let me preface the below by noting that I am for transparency. I am also for increased access to public meetings and testimony for those that may not be able to physically get to a meeting. Virtual attendance and being able to watch meetings of boards has been a boon to me and has allowed me to participate and help bring the voice of the far-East Plains to other parts of the state.
The issue I have here is twofold.
First, this effort comes straight on the heels of the Democrats in the legislature exempting themselves from many parts of the open meetings law. In other words, the legislators here have no issue telling locals what to do, but feel no compunction about exempting themselves from things they find difficult. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Second, I want to give you another quote from the bottom of the article: “'In terms of a price tag, I would just simply say that sometimes things cost money,' said Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, D-Fort Collins. 'What price would you put on accessibility?'”
To be fair the bill was amended to remove some of the more financially burdensome requirements, a good thing. But look at the attitude of Rep Boesenecker here. Sometimes things do cost money.
Your money.
And his cavalier attitude about spending it here speaks volumes about what he (and I think you can lump many other politicians in on this too) thinks about spending money that he didn't earn and won't miss.
Oh, and answer to his question, I'd say that the price I'd put on INCREASING (a word he conveniently omitted) accessibility is the price that means I have yet more sacrifices to make at home in order to have it happen. In other words, I'm for transparency and increasing access, but I'm also in favor of sane balances of what the government takes from my wallet.
https://coloradofoic.org/colorado-lawmakers-advance-bill-to-livestream-many-government-meetings-and-require-remote-public-comment/