This story first ran in GBH News’ politics newsletter.
Click here to subscribe and get our rundown of the Massachusetts’ latest political happenings every Thursday morning straight to your inbox.
When the State House closed this week after a basement electrical fire, elected officials and their staffs pivoted to remote work — including virtual votes Wednesday to approve seven pardons Gov. Maura Healey recommended.
It’s the kind of adjustment that might not have been feasible before work-from-home protocols took shape in the pandemic’s early days. Remote work is one COVID-19 innovation that’s found a place in this post-emergency phase, helping businesses and governments navigate not just public health crises but predicaments like fire investigations or commute gridlock from the Sumner Tunnel shutdown.
Over the past three years, state officials instituted a host of policies aimed at solving pandemic-era problems that popped up in town halls, restaurants, hospitals and other settings.
While some, such as the ability to remotely notarize documents, made their way permanently into the state’s law books, the fates of many others now rest in the hands of the Massachusetts Legislature. So far, lawmakers have mostly opted for temporary extensions rather than long-term policy decisions.
I recently heard from families and advocates who want to keep, for good, a change adopted in assisted living residences. Pre-COVID, nurses in those facilities weren’t allowed to perform health care services like insulin injections for residents that need help, leaving family members to handle it themselves or hire outside professionals.
An emergency order from then-Gov. Charlie Baker changed that, and lawmakers extended the permission through March of 2024. Falmouth resident Robert Smith says his diabetic dad’s health rebounded when he was able to get his insulin injections, at the same time each day, from nurses in his assisted living home.
Smith backs a bill also supported by the Massachusetts Assisted Living Association, which would permanently let nurses in assisted living provide some services, including injections, eye drops and oxygen management. Another industry group, the Massachusetts Senior Care Association, has concerns with the idea, particularly around consumer protections.
A similar dynamic is at play on a very different issue. Lawmakers will also have to weigh competing interests as they decide whether restaurants should retain their ability to sell to-go cocktails with takeout orders. Restaurants like it, but package stores don’t.
In both cases, proponents of permanently keeping the pandemic policy say short-term extensions have left businesses on uneasy footing as they try to plan their operations.
Good-government advocates and disability rights activists are pushing, too, to make hybrid public meetings the law of the land. The expiration date on that isn’t looming quite as large – it’s in place through March 2025. Bills to make hybrid meetings permanent haven’t had a hearing yet, but when they do, expect testimony on how online options have knocked down barriers to civic participation.
And expect it to be a while still before concrete answers emerge on pandemic policies. State lawmakers have a habit of acting once they’re up against a deadline, and that’s been the case as each round of temporary extensions has neared its end date.
