Illinois
Editorial: Here are our views on new Illinois laws on everything from your health care coverage to your Netflix subscription
For those who mutter, “There ought to be a law,” when they see or experience something of which they disapprove, the Illinois General Assembly had their back in 2024. As always, there were dozens of new laws attempting to redress the irritations and injustices of day-to-day life, as well as to clamp down on practices few previously had considered nefarious.
One such law — the provision of small plastic shampoo bottles by hotels is (mostly) illegal in the Land of Lincoln as of today — we’ve already highlighted. But Gov. JB Pritzker signed nearly 300 new laws, most of which took effect Jan. 1. Democrats, enjoying super-majorities in both chambers, were mainly the authors of the new statutes by which Illinoisans will have to abide. Here now are several that caught our attention. And we’re never shy with our opinions.
House Bill 5395 and House Bill 2499: A landmark overhaul of health insurance practices in Illinois.
Many of the provisions in Pritzker’s top legislative priority last year won’t take effect until 2026. But a few are effective now, including the banning of short-term, limited-coverage insurance plans that supporters of the bill refer to as “junk insurance.”
For this year, the Department of Insurance and the health insurance industry will prepare for the many changes the law mandates beginning Jan. 1, 2026. They include the prohibition of step therapy provisions that require patients and doctors to try cheaper prescription alternatives before moving on to more expensive medications, which industry critics deride as “fail first.” The law will bar insurers from requiring prior authorization for in-patient psychiatric treatment. And the Insurance Department for the first time will have the authority to deny rate hikes sought by large-group insurance plans.
For all the criticism the health insurers get, and the industry is under a particularly intense microscope following the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s Brian Thompson, there’s a reason some of these companies put doctors and consumers through the hoops they do. Health care costs in the U.S. are out of control; this country spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation, and our outcomes lag most of the Western world.
Pritzker and fellow Democrats described their legislation as “common sense,” and indeed insurers are easy — and sometimes deserved — recipients of criticism for the crude steps they take to reduce costs. And to be clear, our health system is inefficient and makes too many of us miserable.
But if ever there were a subject where unintended consequences come into play, it’s access to health care. Are critics correct when they say elimination of short-term health plans simply will prevent some consumers who need stopgap coverage from getting it affordably? Would requirements for better disclosure of what consumers are getting — and not getting — with these short-term plans be preferable to an outright ban?
Time will tell, as they say. Whatever happens once these changes take full effect, we predict Illinois lawmakers will need to revisit this subject sooner rather than later.
Senate Bill 3649: Giving workers the right to skip “mandatory” workplace meetings discussing unionizing, politics and religion.
Organized labor has succeeded in convincing several states to bar employers from making workers sit through meetings where union organizing is discouraged. Illinois has joined this group — and taken this “captive audience” law further than most other states by including discussions involving politics or religion among those meetings workers can’t be compelled to attend.
The conservative Illinois Policy Institute has sued in federal court, claiming the law is an unconstitutional infringement on the free-speech rights of employers.
In practical terms, instances where legislative or regulatory actions directly affect a business fall under the umbrella of “politics.” It doesn’t make sense to us that employers subject, say, to a pending bill that would have a material impact on their business shouldn’t be allowed to compel staff to be updated on the issue and what their employers are doing about it.
This is overreach, plain and simple.
Senate Bill 508: Protecting workers whose immigration status comes into question.
This measure originally was described as close to an outright ban on employers using the federal E-Verify system to determine whether any of their workers or applicants are ineligible. The Illinois Labor Department in the fall clarified that employers still could use E-Verify but only if they followed the law’s detailed requirements on notifying affected employees of any problems and giving them a period of time to respond.
The bill’s chief sponsor, Democratic Sen. Javier Cervantes of Chicago, said, “Many immigrant employees have run into a problem where their documentation may have misinput their name with slight differences of dashes, spaces, letters with or without an accent, only to be flagged during the work verification process.” He said many employers simply terminate employees caught up in these misunderstandings rather than giving them time to clear up the confusion.
This law seems like a clear enough response to that problem, but it also (perhaps intentionally) risks employers shying away from using E-Verify at all for fear of not following all of the new rules. With a Trump administration committed to strict enforcement of immigration laws, that potentially puts employers in the position of running afoul of state or federal enforcement officials, whatever they decide to do. The law is the law, and immigration issues are the responsibility of the federal government. But let’s hope reason prevails in this sensitive area.
Senate Bill 2764: Helping consumers who want to cancel monthly bills before their teaser rates end.
Here’s a bill addressing an issue most of us can relate to. This measure, authored by Sen. Doris Tucker, D-Springfield, requires email notification of subscribers at least three days before their introductory rates convert automatically to higher rates.
It’s hard to argue with this consumer-friendly measure, since streaming services, websites, publications, broadcast channels and many other subscription-based services rely for their business growth in part on subscribers who forget they signed up at the teaser rate in the first place. That reminds us: Our New Year’s resolution is to comb through our unruly mess of monthly commitments and do some serious pruning.
House Bill 5408: No more camping on the shoulder waiting for O’Hare arrivals.
Anyone who’s picked someone up at O’Hare recently has seen long lines of cars parked on the shoulder just outside the airport. In one of the rare instances where a Republican-sponsored bill became law, this measure authored by Rep. Bradley Stephens, who also is the GOP mayor of Rosemont, was pitched as a safety act and won overwhelming support.
The law subjects anyone camped out on the shoulder within 2 miles of O’Hare to a $100 fine. C’mon, people. The cellphone lot at O’Hare has plenty of space.
Stay on the right side of the law, and Happy New Year to all!
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Illinois
Illinois vs Iowa prediction, analysis, Elite Eight expert picks for men’s March Madness
The men’s 2026 NCAA Tournament continues with Elite Eight action Saturday with No. 3 Illinois vs. No. 9 Iowa on the two-game schedule.
USA TODAY Sports’ college basketball experts have analyzed all the angles and determined a path to victory for each side. Here’s everything you need to know before the Elite Eight matchup tips off.
USA TODAY has a team of journalists covering the men’s NCAA Tournament to keep you up to date with every point scored, rebound grabbed and game won in the 68-team tournament.
Illinois will win Elite Eight game vs Iowa if…
- John Leuzzi: It replicates what it did defensively against Houston.
- Jordan Mendoza: It controls the interior.
- Ehsan Kassim: Wagler can win the matchup against Stirtz.
- Austin Curtright: If its defense plays like it did against Houston.
Iowa will win Elite Eight game vs Illinois if…
- John Leuzzi: It limits Illinois on offensive rebounds, and second chance opportunities.
- Jordan Mendoza: it’s knocking down 3-pointers.
- Ehsan Kassim: Hawkeyes can make the game slower paced and Illinois misses shots.
- Austin Curtright: Its bench contributors of Alvaro Folgueiras, Tate Sage and others continue their strong play.
Illinois vs Iowa: 1 Stat to watch
- John Leuzzi: Bennett Stirtz vs. Keaton Wagler at the point guard battle.
- Jordan Mendoza: 3-point shot.
- Ehsan Kassim: Illinois 3-point shooting.
- Austin Curtright: Illinois’ defense has been outstanding in the NCAA Tournament, despite ranking outside the top 20 in KenPom’s adjusted defensive efficiency.
Illinois vs Iowa Elite Eight prediction
- John Leuzzi: Iowa
- Jordan Mendoza: Illinois
- Ehsan Kassim: Illinois
- Austin Curtright: Illinois
3 Illinois vs 9 Iowa
- Opening Moneyline: Illinois (-275), Iowa (+227)
- Opening Spread: Illinois (-6.5)
- Opening Total: 139.5
How to Watch Illinois vs Iowa in the Elite Eight
No. 3 Illinois takes on No. 9 Iowa at Toyota Center on March 28 at 6:09 PM The game is airing on TBS.
Stream March Madness on Sling
2026 Men’s March Madness full schedule
See the schedule, live scores and results for all of the NCAA Tournament action here.
- March 17-18: First Four
- March 19-20: First Round
- March 21-22: Second Round
- March 26-27: Sweet 16
- March 28-29: Elite 8
- April 4: Final Four
- April 6: National Championship
Illinois
Bears stadium deal should not include lawmaker perks or raise property taxes
Publicly funded stadium deals can involve questionable incentives for politicians. The megaprojects bill in Illinois would drive up neighbors’ property taxes.
Any deal between Illinois and the Chicago Bears for a new stadium must avoid giveaways to lawmakers and property tax increases for others.
The Bears own the former Arlington Park Racecourse in Arlington Heights and have said they’re also considering Northwest Indiana for a stadium development. A bill in the Illinois General Assembly would offer property tax breaks to such “megaprojects.”
Agreements for publicly funded stadiums in other cities often have included luxury suites and free tickets for lawmakers. Local officials in Kansas City have been criticized for getting access to tickets and suites during ongoing stadium negotiations. Officials in Arizona have repeatedly used free access to publicly funded stadiums to host guests.
A bill in Ohio would prohibit state lawmakers from knowingly accepting free or discounted tickets to pro sports events. The proposal comes amid negotiations with the Cleveland Browns over public funding for a new stadium.
Offering free admission and luxury suites to lawmakers who make decisions about publicly funding stadiums creates a clear conflict of interest.
From a taxpayer perspective, such perks can divert public resources if lawmakers have an incentive to offer a team or other megaproject a tax break when that revenue could go toward broadly shared public benefits. From a free-market standpoint, these arrangements distort competition by subsidizing select teams and projects rather than encouraging municipalities to make themselves attractive for private investment.
Illinois legislators should ensure that any stadium agreement with the Bears does not include free tickets or luxury accommodations for lawmakers.
Perks for politicians are only half the story. The proposed incentive package in Springfield, HB 910 House Amendment 1, would be devastating for taxpayers.
Much of the current discussion revolves around the massive property tax reductions the bill would provide for so-called megaprojects as an attempt to spur economic development.
While negotiating targeted tax incentives is bad policy to begin with, the legislation would make Illinois’ property tax crisis even worse for other taxpayers. Although approved megaprojects would pay steeply discounted property taxes, a clause in the bill allows a taxing body to count the cash value of the megaproject in its total assessed value.
In other words, taxing bodies can still increase taxes as if the project were paying normal tax rates, generating increased revenue, but the project would not pay those higher taxes. Neighboring businesses, homeowners and renters would pay more to make up for the team’s discount.
Here is some of what’s in the bill, which has passed out of committee and could be called for a full House vote any time:
- To qualify, a project must have at least $500 million in eligible costs, which can include the property purchase and can be retroactive up to five years before the megaproject certificate is issued. The project must be completed within seven to 10 years, but that can be extended by five years. The site must be operated for at least 20 years; the tax incentive would last at least 23 years and up to 40 years.
- The megaproject’s assessment would be frozen so that its property tax bill is calculated on the “base year” of the project, meaning the value of the property before any improvements, such as a stadium.
- However, for purposes of issuing bonds and property tax extension limitation calculations, the taxing body could use the current fair cash value of the property. In other words, new development, which is generally exempt from Property Tax Extension Limitation Laws, would allow for the levy to grow beyond the limited rate, which other taxpayers will have to cover.
The bill’s “incentive agreement” allows for separate payments from the megaproject entity, such as the Bears, or an alternative source, to affected taxing bodies in addition to property taxes bill. The payment amount would be negotiated with taxing bodies.
Illinoisans already pay the highest property taxes in the nation. Homeowners in Arlington Heights pay average annual property taxes of more than $8,000. HB910 would make it even worse. One simple solution is to strike this language from the bill:
“Projects to be valued at fair cash value for purposes of bonded indebtedness and limitations on property tax extensions. Projects to which an assessment freeze applies pursuant to this Division shall be valued at their fair cash value for purposes of calculating a municipality’s general obligation bond limits and a taxing district’s limitation on tax extensions.”
Removing that language would ensure that businesses, homeowners and renters in the megaproject area would not face higher property taxes because of an incentive agreement.
Illinois
Obituary for Tessie Lee Woods at Carl E. Ponds Funeral Home Inc.
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Sports7 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
New Mexico5 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Business1 week agoDisney’s new CEO says his focus is on storytelling and creativity
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube job scam text: How to spot it fast
-
Tennessee4 days agoTennessee Police Investigating Alleged Assault Involving ‘Reacher’ Star Alan Ritchson
-
Texas1 week agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets