Bill Overview
Title: Flint Registry Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2033 the Lead Exposure Registry administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sponsors: Sen. Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People exposed to lead contamination in at-risk areas
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill relates to the reauthorization of the Lead Exposure Registry, which is managed by the CDC, specifically for tracking lead exposure cases.
- The registry's primary focus is initially on the residents of Flint, Michigan, due to the well-documented public health crisis concerning lead exposure in their water supply.
- Lead exposure affects public health, especially among vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and other at-risk groups.
- Flint, Michigan, has received substantial attention and support due to the severe public health implications of the water crisis.
- While the registry initially focuses on Flint, it may provide data and methodologies that could benefit broader populations dealing with similar issues in other regions if expanded.
Reasoning
- The Flint Registry Reauthorization Act of 2022 primarily impacts individuals in Flint, Michigan, but also sets precedents for tackling lead exposure in other affected regions.
- Primary beneficiaries will include families with young children, as they are at higher risk of health issues from lead exposure.
- The budget allocations and the policy's timeframe suggest a gradual improvement in infrastructure and potential expansion beyond Flint.
- The registry will guide future actions, ensuring timely assistance and healthcare support.
- Individuals from other lead-exposed areas might experience indirect benefits through shared methodologies and data.
- Considering Flint’s demographic, both direct and indirect socioeconomic aspects must be factored in—the impact is equally important for low-income households.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for the registry to continue. We need to know who needs help and how to allocate resources properly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Construction Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the registry helps figure out what's next after Flint. There are other places facing similar issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data from Flint will be vital for cities like Chicago facing their own environmental problems.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Auto Worker (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The registry should focus on helping those of us already affected. We need medical support and compensation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Student (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic. The more we do now, the better for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Public Health Official (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data from Flint can help shape broader national policies, which we desperately need.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been tough, but ongoing support from initiatives like this can help revive our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Policy Analyst (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Flint registry sets an important benchmark for other cities and policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Plumber (St. Louis, Missouri)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tracking exposure is just the first step. We need to focus on fixing root causes and infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Community Organizer (Newark, New Jersey)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Awareness and data can drive change but actions speak louder. We need more immediate solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $13000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $13000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $13000000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $13000000)
Key Considerations
- The burden of lead exposure has significant public health implications, particularly for vulnerable communities.
- Funding ensures the continuation of data collection critical for understanding and mitigating lead exposure risks.
- Community trust and engagement are crucial for the registry's success due to historical distrust related to the Flint water crisis.