Bill Overview
Title: Flint Registry Reauthorization Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2033 the Lead Exposure Registry administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sponsors: Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by lead exposure in Flint
Estimated Size: 80000
- The Flint Registry Reauthorization Act aims to reauthorize the Lead Exposure Registry for individuals affected by lead exposure in Flint.
- Lead exposure in Flint primarily impacted residents of the city, particularly during the Flint water crisis which started around 2014.
- The population of Flint, Michigan, is approximately 80,000 as of recent estimates.
- Historical context indicates that the Flint water crisis led to thousands of residents, possibly tens of thousands, being affected by lead exposure.
- The registry is designed to track and provide support to those impacted by lead exposure, particularly children and vulnerable populations.
Reasoning
- The Flint Registry Reauthorization Act is focused on the residents of Flint, Michigan, primarily those affected by lead exposure during the Flint water crisis. This suggests a high target population concentration in Flint, specifically among individuals who were present during the crisis period.
- Resources are limited and budget constraints mean that not everyone affected will be served immediately, hence it is important to prioritize more vulnerable populations such as children and expectant mothers.
- Given the geographic and demographic concentration in Flint, it's insightful to include perspectives from typical residents, varying from those who anticipate direct benefit to those who feel disconnected from the policy’s impact.
- The wellbeing impact of the registry could differ significantly across sub-populations based on age, reliance on public health resources, and previous lead exposure level, among other factors.
Simulated Interviews
Healthcare Worker (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic about the registry reauthorization. It holds potential for meaningful impact if implemented correctly and transparently.
- From health screenings to support programs, there are many necessary services that can aid affected families like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Teacher (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The registry is a step towards accountability and proper healthcare monitoring. Our community needs consistent follow-up.
- I hope the educational outreach is part of this; our children must be informed about their health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Bank Teller (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see this level of care for Flint even if it doesn't directly impact me.
- The policy might not make a big difference in my life, but I support efforts to make Flint healthier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing I'll have ongoing health checks eases some of the stress from that period.
- It's crucial for young people like me to understand our exposure levels and future risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Engineer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the registry as a necessary data collection tool for future policy advancement and health research.
- Though I moved, I'm concerned for the long-term health outcomes of my family members still living in Flint.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The registry is critical for documenting long-term health impacts; I've experienced these firsthand.
- We need robust support services combined with comprehensive data collection to drive solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Student (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't understand the registry much, but my parents say it will help keep us safe and healthy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Veteran (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy shows the government acknowledges our issues, but extensive efforts are still needed.
- For veterans like me, who also have to navigate other health systems, the recognition here means a lot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Non-Profit Director (Grand Rapids, Michigan)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m pleased to see actions supporting victims. Programs like these are critical for advocacy groups I work with.
- By providing insight into health implications, it enables us to push for adequate resources and policy changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social Worker (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The continuation of health registries is crucial, as they provide a structured approach to identifying patterns and health concerns that need immediate addressing.
- We work with many families, and continuity is key to securing their trust in formal healthcare processes again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $7150000 (Low: $6150000, High: $8150000)
Year 3: $7305000 (Low: $6305000, High: $8305000)
Year 5: $7627915 (Low: $6627915, High: $8627915)
Year 10: $8344992 (Low: $7344992, High: $9344992)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Key Considerations
- Continued funding is crucial to maintain accurate records and communication with the population impacted by lead exposure in Flint.
- The cost includes components such as staffing, outreach, data management, and support services.
- Effective communication and staffing are critical due to the public health implications of lead exposure, especially on children and vulnerable populations.