Word Games vs. Reality as Police Reform Dies in Worcester

Vice Chair of the Worcester City Council Khrystian King and City Manager Eric Batista traded barbs in statements released this week related to the end of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the Worcester Police Department.

On Friday, Aug. 7, Batista’s office released a statement announcing the DOJ closed its investigation. The first paragraph of that statement:

“The U.S. Department of Justice informed the City of Worcester Thursday that it has chosen to close its investigation into the Worcester Police Department without further action and without sustaining any allegations from its 2024 report.”

On Tuesday, Aug 11, King released a statement which said, in part:

“The City Manager’s mischaracterization of the DOJ’s latest letter demands a response. Nowhere does the letter conclude that community concerns were unfounded or unsubstantiated, nor does it retract the DOJ’s findings. Worcester residents deserve honesty from their government, particularly on matters of public safety, police accountability, and community trust.”

On Friday, Aug. 14, Batista’s office released a statement which did not mention King by name, but said, in part:

“It’s unfortunate that our announcement has been mischaracterized, which distracts from the collective improvements and progress made since the 2024 report was released.”

Batista’s Aug. 14 statement went on to say:

“The municipality’s announcement did not state that the DOJ retracted its findings, nor did it imply that the 2024 allegations were unfounded. To state otherwise only serves to further divide us.”

The Batista Administration has not been forthcoming in releasing the text of the DOJ letter. This Week in Worcester sent a request to Batista’s office after business hours on Tuesday, Aug. 11. Since the start of business on Wednesday, Aug. 12, that request received no response.

However, screenshots of the letter from the DOJ have circulated online. This Week in Worcester converted that image to text. Find the full text at the bottom of this page.

The letter does not include any language that shows the DOJ claims it closed its investigation “without sustaining any allegations from its 2024 report.”

The DOJ doesn’t sustain or not sustain allegations raised in its pattern and practice allegations. These investigations use a standard of reasonable cause to believe, which is equivalent to probable cause. It issued its findings in its findings report in December 2024. The purpose is to identify systemic issues, not issues of specific officers.

This is dishonest gamesmanship by Batista. King used the terms unfounded, unsubstantiated, and retract. Rather than address King’s point, he played word games.

Touché to you, Eric. Great game of gotcha. Now where did “without sustaining” come from? Because it wasn’t the DOJ.

I have a theory. Wag the dog.

New England Police Benevolent Association statement on Facebook, about 1 hour and 22 minutes after the city released its statement about the closing of the DOJ investigation.

DOJ Pattern or Practice Investigation Process

When the DOJ opens a pattern or practice investigation, a civil investigation conducted by its Civil Rights Division, it uses three major phases.

1. Investigation, Fact Finding and Evaluation
2. Findings and Public Report
3. Remediation and Reform

The process never entered the third step in Worcester.

Prior to the Trump Administration the third step included a negotiation process between the DOJ and the investigated to agree on reforms the municipality would undertake. The DOJ would frequently either issue a memoranda of agreement, outlining the agreement with the municipality, or take the negotiated agreement to a federal court as a consent decree. A consent decree enabled the court to enforce the agreement on the municipality.

The Trump Administration has largely abandoned these investigations. On May 21, 2025, the DOJ announced it would dismiss ongoing consent decrees with the Louisville, Kentucky Metro Police and the Minneapolis Police Department. The same announcement also said that it would retract findings reached during the Biden Administration in the following cities:

• Phoenix, Arizona
• Trenton, New Jersey
• Memphis, Tennessee
• Mount Vernon, New York
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
• Louisiana State Police

Notably, DOJ released its finding report on the Mount Vernon, New York Police department just three days after it released the report on the WPD.

Yet even the Trump Administration’s DOJ waited nearly 15 months before closing the investigation in Worcester, after it claims it did minimal, but some, due diligence. Even with its embarrassingly low standards, it did more in Worcester than nearly any other city.

If Worcester was Serious About Police Reform

Although the Trump Administration dropped the consent decree with Minneapolis, the mayor and chief of police there have publicly committed to fully implementing that agreement. Even though they are under no obligation to do so. That is leadership serious about police reform.

The Trump DOJ never engaged in the negotiation process with the City of Worcester. Yet city officials, if they were serious, have plenty of appropriate guidance.

According to a Worcester Regional Research Bureau report issued in January 2023, around three months after the DOJ announced its investigation of the Worcester Police Department, the DOJ had issued 21 consent decrees. A serious effort at reform would thoroughly review those agreements and draw from those policy prescriptions as appropriate.

Look at the dashboard the City of Chicago built to track its progress toward the goals outlined in its concent decree.

Then look at this embarrassment that is the information hub for the City of Worcester’s response to the DOJ report.

Which one is serious? The Chicago Police Department has received substantial criticism for its reform efforts, yet it remains miles ahead of Worcester’s incrementalism.

As Batista said in his Aug. 14 statement, “to state otherwise only serves to further divide us.”

The Big Lie – 19 Recommendations

City officials, including Batista and Mayor Joe Petty, have continually promoted the WPD’s compliance with the 19 recommendations included in the DOJ’s findings report.

Those recommendations mean very little. The actual work happens in the negotiation process between the DOJ and the municipality.

For example:

• Seattle Police Department
  • Findings Report Issued: Dec. 16, 2011
  • Findings report recommendations: six
  • Consent decree: 75 pages long
• Newark Police Department
  • Findings Report Issued: July 22, 2014
  • Findings report recommendations: zero
  • Consent decree: 78 pages long
• Cleveland Division of Police
  • Findings Report issued: Dec. 4, 2014.
  • Findings report recommendations: zero
  • Consent decree: 110 pages long
• Chicago Police Department
  • Findings Report Issued: Jan. 13, 2017
  • Findings report recommendations: 19
  • Consent decree: 236 pages long
• Louisville Metro Police Department
  • Findings Report Issued: March 8, 2023
  • Findings report recommendations: 36
  • Consent decree: 236 pages long
• Minneapolis Police Department
  • Findings Report Issued: June 16, 2023
  • Findings report recommendations: 28
  • Consent decree: 171 pages long

It’s all there for them if they were serious. They aren’t.

Full text of body of the DOJ letter:

Re: Department of Justice Investigation into the Worcester Police Department

Dear Mr. Kelly:

I write regarding the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Worcester Police Department (WPD) pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Our investigation focused on allegations of use of force and sexual contact during undercover operations. As explained below, the Department is closing this matter.

Since our December 9, 2024 findings report, WPD has taken a number of important steps and shared substantial information with us. We requested, and WPD produced, existing and updated policies, training materials, incident reports, body-worn camera video, and complaint investigations related to use of force and sexual misconduct allegations. We reviewed all reported uses of force by WPD officers from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, with the assistance of a subject-matter expert. On July 14, 2026, our team met with WPD leadership and personnel, including Chief Saucier. In addition, WPD clarified its policies to demonstrate a strengthened use-of-force review and explicit prohibition against officers engaging in sexual contact while on duty.

Based on these developments and lack of current allegations concerning the conduct that was subject to the original investigation, we are closing this matter without further action. We thank Chief Saucier and WPD for their cooperation, and we commend WPD for taking steps to improve its practices.

King image credit: Facebook | Batista image credit: City of Worcester

Governor Appoints First Massachusetts Heat Resilience Officer

WORCESTER – Governor Maura Healey announced the appointment Katie Schlick as the first Massachusetts Heat Resistance Officer at Clark University in Worcester on Thursday, August 13. The position leads coordination across state government and works with local communities to prepare for rising temperatures, protect public health, and reduce impacts of extreme heat.

“Extreme heat is the deadliest weather hazard in the U.S., killing more Americans than hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and other weather hazards combined,” said Climate Chief Melissa Hoffer. “Extreme heat and droughts have caused global crop losses this year and threaten water supplies, as well as infrastructure, like railways and runways, that was not built to withstand these temperatures.”

Most recently, Schlick worked on federal and external affairs and led the resilience portfolio at the U.S. Climate Alliance, supporting states in developing and implementing resilience and extreme heat strategies. She previously served as Special Assistant to the White House National Climate Advisor, where she helped advance national climate policy and coordinate major initiatives. Schlick graduated from Yale University.

“Amidst another record-breaking year of heat and smoke, Massachusetts is taking bold, coordinated action to protect and uplift our communities,” said Schlick.

Schlick reports jointly to Climate Chief Hoffer and Department of Public Health (DPH) Commissioner Robbie Goldstein, MD, PhD. She will coordinate across state agencies, including the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

A donation from the Boston Foundation funds the position.

Clark University is home to the Human-Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) Program. HERO researchers have studied how communities experience environmental change and how local planning can reduce climate risks.

Image courtesy of Clark University

New WPD Internal Investigation Policy Fails Basic Scrutiny

The City of Worcester continues to pretend that police reform means only writing new policy, as city officials celebrate the U.S. Department of Justice of the Trump Administration closing its investigation of the Worcester Police Departmemt.

Meanwhile, a new policy approved in June doesn’t pass basic scrutiny.

Worcester Police Department Policy and Procedure No. 500, Bureau of Professional Standards Investigations, effective June 12, 2026, does not declare a standard of proof by which the department will conduct its internal investigations.

Item 8C of Policy and Procedure 500 defines the disposition of investigations. Below is the WPD definition of a sustained allegation against an officer, compared to the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s definition:

• WPD: Sustained—the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegations made in the complaint.
• POST: SUSTAINED: The investigation produced a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation of an act that was determined to be misconduct.

There are six legal standards of proof. “Sufficient evidence to clearly prove” is not one of them. Preponderance of evidence is one of the six. Reasonable cause to believe, the standard the DOJ uses in its pattern and practice investigations, is the same as reasonable suspicion.

In other words, the department policy declares no formal standard by which proof will be determined.

The Bureau of Professional Standards (BOPS) has manipulated standards of evidence in the past, notably in its internal investigation of the WPD response to the June 2020 George Floyd Protest on Main Street. In its report, it wrote the following related to a complaint alleging officers stole the phone of an arrestee:

“Since the video does not clearly and unambiguously show who took the phone I can not say clearly and unambiguously
that PO Frigon and PO Coleman took the phone. Just because the cell phone is recording the sound of police activity doesn’t mean that a police officer is in possession of it-it could have just as easily been picked up by a citizen who was following along all the action.”

“Clearly and unambiguously” is not a legal standard of proof.

While there were many allegations and 12 plaintiffs in that case, the city settled the case for $825,000 in taxpayer funds.

The audio of the video in question goes on for several minutes after the arrest. The sound of a police radio is consistent throughout much of that audio.

If city officials and the Worcester Police Department were serious about police reform, rather than spending much of the 20 months since the release of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report on the Worcester Police Department disputing the findings but refusing to acknowledge anything accurate in them, they would have reviewed past consent decrees between DOJ and other cities. The standard of evidence used in internal investigations is a consistent issue.

• New Orleans: NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent.
• Newark: NPD and the City will establish policies and procedures directing that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent.
• Seattle: “Misconduct” means conduct by an officer or other SPD employee that, if proven by a preponderance of evidence, would be a violation of law, SPD policy, procedure, rules, or regulations. Misconduct excludes minor misconduct as defined in SPD Manual 11.001.IV.A or violations unrelated to the substantive terms of this Agreement.
• Chicago: Unlike criminal investigations, in which findings are based on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, findings in administrative investigations are based on the significantly lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This standard is appropriate because, if it is more likely than not that an officer has committed misconduct, the Department must take action to ensure it does not continue.
• Baltimore: “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur.
• Cleveland: Within seven days of the conclusion of each use of force investigation, FIT will prepare an investigation report and recommend whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the involved officer(s) violated CDP policy, and whether any training or policy concerns are presented.

A request for comment was sent to the Worcester Police Department, but no response was received at the time of publication.

See the reports and consent decrees mentioned in this piece below.

Senate Quietly Launches Another Push for Juvenile Justice Reforms

by Chris Lisinski, CommonWealth Beacon

Just as was the case two years ago, lawmakers sitting down now to finalize a sprawling bill intended to supercharge the region’s economy will need to debate whether the package should also embrace a major criminal justice reform.

Senators once again want to use the biennial economic development legislation as the vehicle to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction, a change that would allow many 18-year-olds accused of lower-level crimes to be tried in Juvenile Court instead of in the adult system.

Supporters have long argued that allowing 18-year-old offenders — who are often still in high school — to remain under the purview of the Department of Youth Services will better equip them for rehabilitation, lower recidivism rates, and shield teenagers from conviction records that can significantly damage their long-term employment and housing prospects.

Now, backers are hopeful that growing acceptance of the social and economic upsides, combined with new understanding of young adult brain development, means policymakers are on the verge of marshaling a critical mass of support for the policy.

Nichelle Sadler, executive director of the Training Center for Excellence at UTEC, an organization that works with young adults in the Merrimack Valley previously involved in the criminal justice system, said increasing the age of juvenile jurisdiction is “an issue that people understand more clearly” than they did even just a few years ago.

“There is a recognition that there’s something different about this population, and that in order for us to achieve what we all want, which is public safety, we have to look at alternatives that are maybe less traditional and less punitive,” Sadler said.

The Senate quietly tucked the policy rider into a larger economic development bill, adopting it as an amendment from Sen. Brendan Crighton with only an unrecorded voice vote and no commentary or debate. By doing so, senators kept the proposal on the table heading into a months-long stretch in which legislative negotiators will need to finalize the bill, buying time for backers to convince leaders in the House — which did not embrace any juvenile jurisdiction changes in its version of the bill — that the time for reform is now.

Standalone legislation that Crighton and other lawmakers filed would have gradually increased the age of criminal majority to 21, eventually allowing many 19- and 20-year-olds to face proceedings in juvenile courts. But the measure now in play as part of the economic development bill is narrower, applying only to 18-year-olds. Both the bills and Senate economic development rider would still allow 18-year-olds to face adult charges for some of the most violent offenses, including murder.

Crighton said the Department of Youth Services, the state’s juvenile justice agency, provides more education, mental health treatment, and job training resources than the adult criminal justice system.

“All those important programs will have a much better impact on them as they come back out,” the Lynn Democrat told CommonWealth Beacon.

The lack of fanfare around the vote was a sharp contrast to what happened two years ago, when the Senate pursued a similar change in that term’s economic development bill. That time around, five different senators spoke in support of the raise-the-age amendment, and one spoke against it before the chamber approved it 31-9. (Months before the vote, Senate President Karen Spilka hosted high-profile supporters, including then- Celtics player Jaylen Brown, for a raise-the-age advocacy event at the State House.)

Crighton said the brief voice vote this time was sufficient because “we had already passed this multiple times in the Senate, and our position’s clear.”

The proposal’s outlook, however, is still murky. After nixing the rider two years ago, top House Democrats are remaining mum about it, offering no real indication if they’re now on board. Through a spokesperson, House Speaker Ron Mariano declined to comment, citing the active conference committee negotiations.

Rep. Manny Cruz, a Salem Democrat who filed raise-the-age legislation in the House alongside Rep. James O’Day, one of the four division leaders in Mariano’s team, said he’s cautiously optimistic about the prospects, even if convincing skeptics — including many police leaders — that steering more offenders through the juvenile system is better for the state remains an “uphill fight.”

“There are certainly a lot more engaged House members beyond myself and Leader O’Day who would like to see this proposal move forward,” Cruz said in an interview.

If the idea doesn’t move forward this time, Cruz added, perhaps lawmakers can weave it into a bigger criminal-justice reform package in the 2027-2028 term.

last increased the age of criminal majority in 2013, allowing many 17-year-olds to remain part of the juvenile justice system instead of facing charges in adult court. Since then, arrests of people younger than 18 have fallen by more than half, and Juvenile Court caseloads have declined significantly, according to data compiled by Citizens for Juvenile Justice. Advocates think that suggests the system has enough capacity to account for the added demands of steering many 18-year-olds through Juvenile Court.

Supporters think taking the next step is essential. They argue that recidivism rates are significantly lower for those who go through the Department of Youth Services than the adult court system, that science shows that adolescents are likely to age out of the decision-making patterns that lead to criminal behavior, and that adult criminal records carry lifelong consequences.

That last point is why Reese Thompson, a 20-year-old youth advocate with the group More than Words, thinks it makes sense to include the criminal justice reform in a bill otherwise focused on job growth and economic well-being.

“It’s hard for a youth who’s coming out of the system to access a job when they’re being saddled with literally hundreds of barriers just from the jump,” Thompson, who coauthored an opinion piece on the topic earlier this year for CommonWealth Beacon, said in an interview. “When it comes to that, you’re not able to provide for yourself. How are you able to contribute to your community when you don’t even know where food is coming from and if you’ll be able to maintain a job?”

Many law enforcement leaders have opposed the idea of further raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction. Last year, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association wrote to a legislative panel arguing against the broader legislation.

“At 18, individuals can vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, and even sit on a jury to determine someone else’s guilt, yet under this proposal, they would not be fully responsible for their own criminal actions,” the association wrote, according to the Herald.

It’s also generated a mixed reaction within the state’s judiciary.

In 2019, while a state task force weighed whether to recommend expanding the juvenile justice system to include 18- to 20-year-olds, then-Juvenile Court Chief Justice Amy Nechtem aired skepticism about the idea. Paula Carey, the head of the Trial Court at the time, also cautioned the system could “face some challenges” as a result of the envisioned change.

Four years later, Carey’s successor, Jeffrey Locke, detailed a range of knock-on effects that could stem from upping the age of juvenile jurisdiction. In a 2023 letter to lawmakers, Locke said raising the age of criminal majority to 19 years old — which the Senate now backs — would increase the caseload for Juvenile Court judges by about a third while straining juvenile clinics and probation officers.

He also expressed “grave concerns” about the prospect of overcrowding in detention facilities designed for juveniles, which are “already limited and cramped, especially in our older courthouses.”

“Raising the age of criminal majority to just 19 would inevitably increase the number of individuals in our courthouse lockup facilities which were originally designed for a limited population of juveniles in custody,” Locke wrote. “Expanding the universe of individuals who must be placed in a juvenile cell will overcrowd those facilities and potentially create dangerous conditions for younger individuals in custody by exposing them to older emerging adults.”

The Trial Court’s current chief justice, Heidi Brieger, has not examined or weighed in on the issue, according to a spokesperson.

However, supporters feel at least partially buoyed by one court action: the 2024 Supreme Judicial Court decision that declared it unconstitutional to sentence someone to life without parole if they were younger than 21 at the time of the offense.

Writing for the 4-3 majority in the Commonwealth v. Sheldon Mattis decision, Chief Justice Kimberly Budd cited brain development science and said the court “must recognize the ‘unique characteristics’ of emerging adults.”

The decision applies to sentencing, while the campaign to raise the age instead focuses on decisions made about where to prosecute young offenders. But campaign supporters think their cause is helped by the court’s embrace of the idea that 18- to 20-year-olds are more prone to risk-taking and peer pressure with less impulse control.

“Any level or degree of skepticism toward adolescent brain development and the fact that this population of young people is different than older adults — you’ve seen that retreat since the Mattisdecision,” said Leon Smith, executive director of the Citizens for Juvenile Justice group.

Now, Smith said, it’s time to continue that momentum. “We need to go further,” he said, “we need to focus on youth development, we need to take a different approach.”

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Image Credit: Hsin Ju HSU, Massachusetts Statehouse, CC BY-SA 3.0

DOJ Declines Comment on WPD Investigation

WORCESTER – In response to an inquiry from This Week in Worcester, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to comment on inquiries related to its Civil Rights Division’s investigation of the Worcester Police Department (WPD).

The City of Worcester released a statement on Friday, Aug. 7, posted to the city’s website at 4:57 PM, that said that the DOJ informed City Manager Eric Batista on Thursday, Aug. 6, that it closed its pattern and practice investigation into the WPD.

This Week in Worcester first contacted the media relations office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Massaachusetts Leah Foley on Saturday, Aug. 8. A response received later that day directed the inquiry to the Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Aug. 10, This Week in Worcester sent an inquiry at 8 AM to the DOJ Office of Public Affairs, the official destination for media inquiries at DOJ, asking three questions:

1. Is there a statement available from DOJ [on the closing of the investigation]?
2. Has the investigation report been rescinded?
3. Does DOJ “sustain” allegations after the release of its investigation report?

The DOJ Office of Pubic Affairs responded to the inquiry, and received at 9:55 AM. The full response: “We will decline to comment at this time.”

This Week in Worcester sent a follow up inquiry at 11:17 AM on Aug. 10, asking if the office could confirm the investigation has been closed.

At the time of publication of this piece, after 2 PM on Aug. 10, the office has not responded to the second inquiry

An auto response email received in response to the initial inquiry to DOJ in Washington says, in part: “This mailbox is for press inquiries from members of the media and is monitored every 30 minutes from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (ET), Monday through Friday.”

As This Week in Worcester previously reported, the investigation in Worcester was one of the few DOJ pattern or practice investigations open in the United States. The administration of President Donald Trump closed investigations in six cities in May 2025. In one of those cities where the investigation was closed, Mount Vernon, New York, the DOJ issued its investigation report on Dec. 12, 2024, three days after it released its report on the Worcester Police Department.

Over 15 months have elapsed since the DOJ closed its Mount Vernon investigation.

This page will be updated if a response is received.

Worcester Says DOJ Closed WPD Investigation

WORCESTER – The City of Worcester announced on Friday, Aug. 8, that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) informed it on Thursday, Aug. 7, that it has closed its investigation into the Worcester Police Department.

The DOJ announced its investigation in November 2022 and released its investigative report in December 2024.

“I want to thank the DOJ for recognizing the positive steps the WPD has taken to strengthen its policies and practices and for their thorough attention to this matter,” City Manager Eric D. Batista said. “I also want to thank Chief Saucier and the entire department for working cooperatively with the DOJ and for their work every day that helps make Worcester one of the safest mid-sized cities in the country. While the DOJ investigation may be closed, we remain committed to proactive evaluation and improvement.”

The investigation in Worcester was one of the few DOJ pattern or practice investigations open in the United States. The administration of President Donald Trump closed investigations in six cities in May 2025. In one of those cities where the investigation was closed, Mount Vernon, New York, the DOJ issued its investigation report on Dec. 12, 2024, three days after it released its report on the Worcester Police Department.

Over 15 months have elapsed since the DOJ closed its Mount Vernon investigation.

At the time of publication, it does not appear that the DOJ has issued a statement on its investigation in Worcester.

The DOJ provided 19 remedial recommendations in its report on its investigation in Worcester. The website page the City of Worcester refers to for updates on progress on issues related to the DOJ report lists six policies completed.

Three policies it lists as pending relate to issues raised by the DOJ.

• Undercover Prostitution Operations – Pending
• Policy 401 K9 Guidelines – Pending
• Sexual Assault Unit Policy – Pending

Governor Signs Law Creating Additional Restrictions on ICE

BOSTON – Governor Maura Healey signed the PROECT Act into Massachusetts law on Wednesday, August 5, which places additional restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in the state.

The bill prohibits arrests by ICE without a judicial warrant at:

• Courthouses;
• Schools;
• Child care centers; and
• Health care facilities, including hospitals, community health centers, and nursing homes.

The bill also codifies into law a previous executive order issued by Healey, which limits civil immigration enforcement in nonpublic areas of state buildings, requiring multilingual guidance on immigration enforcement procedures and individual rights, and prohibiting any new 287(g) agreements with state agencies.

“Today, Massachusetts is standing up for what’s right and taking action to keep our people and our communities safe,” said Governor Healey. “The PROTECT Act is the strongest law in the country to protect people from ICE, because no one should be afraid to send their child to school, seek medical care or fear reporting a crime or appearing in court. It makes us all less safe. So we are getting ICE out of our courthouses, schools and hospitals. This bill is a testament to the hard work and advocacy of so many people across our state. We’re going to keep working together to make Massachusetts and this country the place we all want it to be.”

Additional provision of the bill allow for civil rights claims to be made against government officials, including ICE agents, and allows parents to pre-arrange guardianship for their children in case they are detained or deported.

“Strong public safety requires strong partnerships with the communities we serve,” said Public Safety and Security Secretary Gina Kwon. “The PROTECT Act helps preserve the trust that law enforcement, prosecutors and community organizations rely on to protect victims, investigate crimes and keep neighborhoods safe. When people feel safe, our Commonwealth is stronger.”

Image Credit: “Governor Healey Jan. 21, 2025” by Office of Governor Healey is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Massachusetts Town Treasurer in Charged with Embezzling

BOSTON – The office of Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced on Tuesday, August 4, that a Massachusetts town treasurer faces charges for embezzling town funds and from a fund for veterans’ services.

Rodney Kincaid, the elected Treasurer of the Town of Wales since 2018, faces one count of Embezzlement by a Town Officer, one count of Uttering False or Forged Records, and one count of Larceny by Embezzlement over $1,200.

Kincaid pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. The judge scheduled Kincaid’s next appearance for Sept. 9.

According to Campbell’s office, the investigation by the Attorney General’s Office and the Massachusetts State Police found that from June 2018 through 2025, Kincaid allegedly embezzled $138,150 through fraudulent invoices to the Town of Wales. They say he processed those invoices through his town treasurer position and had the funds diverted to accounts he controlled.

Kincaid also allegedly issued himself $50,000 in checks between August 2023 and December 2025 from the Eastern Hampden County Veterans’ Service District, a veterans service agency where he served as treasurer.

With House Vote, Beacon Hill Inches Closer to Landmark Primary Care Reforms

by Chris Lisinski, CommonWealth Beacon

After keeping onlookers guessing for weeks about the contours of its plan, the House made clear with a resounding vote Thursday that its leaders, too, want to force the health care industry to dedicate significantly more resources to a primary care sector in crisis.

Representatives embraced a sweeping bill that would more than double the share of health care spending that goes toward the front lines of care, plus erect new limitations around how insurers can use artificial intelligence and require more money from drug rebates to flow to patients.

Coming six weeks after a similar bill cleared the Senate, the House’s unanimous vote signals that lawmakers are ready to fashion a far-reaching bill that could fundamentally reshape the state’s health care landscape.

Wayne Altman, a family medicine physician in Arlington who has long been urging policymakers to improve support for primary care, said a final accord could become the most impactful health care legislation in Massachusetts since the reform package known as “Romneycare” was enacted two decades ago.

“Both of these bills are outstanding bills, and in and of themselves would be historic, national stories,” Altman said of the House and Senate proposals. “This primary care bill that will pass in 2026 will be a national model for primary care legislation all over the country in the same way Romneycare was for Obamacare.”

The hard work is not done. While both branches are in alignment on some of the biggest general ideas, legislative negotiators will now need to hash out a host of specific details and find common ground on areas where the House and Senate diverged. They have the next five months to do so before the legislative term ends.

Doctors, patients, and advocates have been warning for years that the primary care system is teetering in a precarious position. Physicians are leaving the field more quickly than new practitioners are joining, and securing an appointment has become increasingly difficult. One survey published in June 2025 found that a patient in the area needed to wait an average of 69 days to book a physical with a new provider, the longest among 15 cities studied.

Primary care receives comparatively little investment. In 2024, primary care accounted for only about 6.6 percent of spending by commercial insurers, down from an even 7 percent a year earlier.

Both the House and Senate bills would force that figure upward, requiring at least 15 percent of health care expenses in to go toward primary care. That embraces one of the central recommendations from a task force that studied primary care problems, which counted Altman among its members.

Under the House bill, regulators will monitor health care entities for their compliance with new primary care spending requirements. Those that fail to devote enough dollars toward primary care can be required to file a plan detailing how they will come into compliance, and if they still fall short, they might be subject to a performance improvement plan — one of the main levers the state can use currently if a hospital or other actor is contributing to excessive health care spending growth.

Embracing a higher primary care spending floor is a full turn for Beacon Hill. Former governor Charlie Baker twice filed legislation that sought to boost dollars going to primary care, but neither of his proposals ever received a vote in the House or Senate, and Baker later reflected that his idea “freaked everyone out.”

The move could generate tension. If lawmakers conclude they want to increase the share of health care money that goes toward primary care, but avoid increasing overall health care spending, that means other segments such as pharmaceuticals or specialists might receive less of the pie — or at least smaller growth in future years — than they would under the status quo.

The House bill also calls on insurers to offer new payment models to primary care providers. Instead of defaulting to the current fee-for-service approach, in which practitioners are paid for each separate service or test, plans would have to make available a flat per-member per-month payment. Supporters argue that will make it easier for doctors to provide more comprehensive care because they can respond to patient needs without incurring additional administrative work of billing for multiple, discrete services.

Jennifer Lemmerman, executive director of the Health Care for All group, said the bill “will help patients access more timely, affordable primary care and begin to address the deep concerns about primary care access we hear from patients” every day.

There are several noteworthy areas of difference between the House and Senate bills that legislative negotiators will need to navigate.

The House version, but not the Senate bill, would prohibit insurers from using AI-powered automated tools as the “sole basis” to decide not to cover a procedure or service; those rulings would instead need to come from licensed health care professionals.

Lora Pellegrini, the head of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, called those proposed requirements “unnecessary.”

“State law already requires that adverse utilization review determinations be made by appropriately licensed clinicians, and the Division of Insurance has established comprehensive standards governing insurers’ responsible use of artificial intelligence,” Pellegrini said in a statement.

Another House addition calls on insurance carriers and the middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers to pass along the majority of savings from prescription drug rebates to patients by limiting what they pay.

House Speaker Ron Mariano said his chamber’s approach also recognizes that different types of hospitals face different economic realities. “We make allowances for the different situations that different hospitals are in. Some are financially a little better off than others,” Mariano told reporters Thursday before the vote. “We make it fairer.”

One of the biggest areas of divergence is the timeline. The Senate bill seeks to reach the 15 percent primary care spending target within three years, while the House’s would ramp up to that point over the course of a decade.

That longer timeline is Altman’s chief concern with the House bill.

“Family physicians and primary care physicians are retiring early. They’re leaving the profession altogether. They’re reducing their hours. They’re leaving for concierge care,” Altman said. “We can’t wait until 2036.”

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

22 States Sue Federal Government on New Healthcare Rules

BOSTON – Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced on Friday, July 31, that the state joined with 22 other states to sue the Trump Administration to challenge a federal rule that would make changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The lawsuit challenges parts of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) standards for health plans offered in 2027.

“Massachusetts residents are already struggling with the rising cost of healthcare, and attorneys general across the country are working every day to protect consumers and expand access to affordable coverage,” said AG Campbell. “Instead of lowering costs or making it easier for people to get the care they need, the Trump Administration is yet again creating barriers to coverage and shifting even greater financial burdens onto working families. We’re asking the court to stop these unlawful changes and protect the affordable healthcare that millions of Americans rely on.”

According to Campbell’s office, the rule expands eligibility for catastrophic health insurance plans, which are not eligible for premium tax credits. These plants typically offer limited coverage that can leave consumers responsible for higher out-of-pocket costs than other ACA plans.

The rule  also allows catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed ACA limits on maximum annual out-of-pocket costs.

In the lawsuit, the states argue that the new rule:

• Reimposes provisions that a federal court has already vacated — including additional income verification requirements and penalties for consumers who do not complete tax-credit paperwork — without addressing the court’s legal concerns.
• Unlawfully expands eligibility for catastrophic health plans beyond the limits established by Congress in the ACA.
• Unlawfully allows catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed ACA limits on maximum annual out-of-pocket costs.
• Will increase costs, reduce enrollment, and shift financial burdens onto consumers, healthcare providers, and states.
• Was adopted without adequate explanation or a meaningful response to the coalition’s comments, making it arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The other states in the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.