Bill Overview
Title: RECA Extension Act of 2022
Description: This bill extends a program that compensates individuals who were exposed to radiation from atomic weapons testing or uranium mining or processing and who subsequently developed specified cancers or other medical conditions. The bill terminates the program two years after the bill's enactment.
Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who were exposed to radiation from atomic weapons testing or uranium mining and developed health conditions
Estimated Size: 85000
- RECA compensates individuals exposed to radiation from atomic weapons testing or uranium activities.
- These individuals might have developed specific cancers or health conditions due to this exposure.
Reasoning
- The RECA Extension Act of 2022 is aimed at compensating individuals in the U.S. who were exposed to radiation. Specifically, this affects those near nuclear test sites like Nevada and Utah, or uranium miners predominantly from southwestern states where such activities were prominent.
- The policy's budget suggests that not all eligible individuals will benefit immediately or at maximum capacity due to funding limits, creating a variance in impact.
- We will include people from affected regions and those involved in uranium mining or nuclear test site areas. Some may have already benefited or might not have qualifying conditions, indicating varied impacts.
- Given logistical constraints and healthcare considerations, the policy's impact varies between high and low, with only a subset of the eligible population significantly benefiting due to processing delays and application success rates.
- A diverse set of interviews captures the range from heavily impacted to those unaffected, allowing policy makers to see both the success and limitations of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
retired miner (Utah)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the compensation is necessary and overdue.
- I've seen many colleagues suffer without aid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
homemaker (Nevada)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm grateful for the proposed financial aid, but the process seems long.
- The healthcare expenses have been overwhelming.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
retired teacher (Nevada)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My family deserves compensation for what happened.
- I worry the program won't last long enough for everyone to get help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
nurse (New Mexico)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect much from the policy since my health issues are quite mild.
- It feels more targeted toward serious cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
construction worker (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I sympathize with those affected, but my health hasn't been impacted yet.
- I will monitor my health, though.
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 |
retail manager (Colorado)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is important for others, but doesn't directly affect me.
- I support it for those in 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 |
retired (Nevada)
Age: 80 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every bit of compensation helps for my ongoing treatments.
- Time might run out for many of us waiting for claims.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
retired bank clerk (Arizona)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I applied for compensation, hoping it'll help with medical bills.
- I wish it covered more people.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
retired miner (Wyoming)
Age: 78 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The compensation could really help manage my treatments.
- I hope they process claims faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
retired teacher (Utah)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The aid might help my family with some expenses.
- We need more awareness about the application process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $425000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $440000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $460000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The program’s cost depends heavily on the exact number of eligible claimants who successfully file within the extension period.
- Inflation rates can affect real payout values if not adjusted long-term, though this program is short-lived.
- Political and public sentiment may influence future legislative reviews and potential further extensions.
- Healthcare advances and changes might affect the pool of eligible individuals and types of conditions covered.