Consumer News: The spring home maintenance jobs that actually save you money

Volkswagen, Mack, and Chrysler are part of this week's recalls

Know where to get the care you need when you need it

• Emergency rooms are for life-threatening or severe conditionswhen every second counts

• Urgent care is best for non-life-threatening issues that still need prompt attention

• When in doubt, err on the side of cautionserious symptoms should always go to the ER

When something goes wrong, or you need fast, reliable medical care, knowing where to go can save time, money, and even your life.

The choice between urgent care and the emergency room (ER) often comes down to one key question: How serious is this?

Both options are designed to provide care quickly, but they serve very different purposes. Emergency rooms are equipped for severe, life-threatening situations, with access to advanced imaging, specialists, and around-the-clock care.

On the other hand, urgent care centers are built for convenience handling less serious issues when your primary doctor isnt available.

Theres a lot of overlap between what urgent care centers and emergency departments can handle, Christopher F. Freer, DO, FACEP, Executive Vice President and Chief Clinical Officer, Acute Care Providers at RWJBarnabas Health, said in a news release.

But the key difference is the level of resources available.

ER vs. urgent care: What goes where

A good rule of thumb: if a condition could threaten your life, limb, or long-term health, head to the ER no hesitation.

Dr. Freer shared his guidelines for when patients should head to the ER:

• Signs of a heart attack (shortness of breath, chest pains)

• Severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis

• Severe traumatic injuries (car accidents, head trauma, sports collisions)

• Stroke symptoms (facial drooping, sudden weakness, difficulty speaking)

• Difficulty breathing, especially in young children

An ED is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is always prepared for critical cases, said Dr. Freer. [The teams are] trained to act quickly in emergencies ensuring that patients receive immediate, life-saving care when every second counts.

Urgent care is ideal when you need same-day treatment but arent in immediate danger. Its often faster and more affordable, too.

For many pediatric concerns like mild fevers, common colds, or minor sprains urgent care can be a great option, Dr. Freer said. But when symptoms are severe, such as high fevers that dont respond to medication, difficulty breathing, or dehydration from persistent vomiting, the emergency department is the safest choice.

What consumers should keep in mind

If youre on the fence, heres the simplest way to think about it: urgent care is for this cant wait, while the ER is for this cant wait and could be serious.

Some other things to consider timing. If its late at night and urgent care is closed, the ER may be your only option.

Also, dont forget your primary doctor. For less urgent concerns, a quick call could save you a trip altogether.

Urgent care centers are great for non-emergencies that require rapid attention, but the emergency department (ED) is always going to be your go-to for serious or potentially life-threatening conditions, Dr. Freer said. The ED has the full capabilities and staffing of a hospital system behind it meaning it can offer comprehensive care and has the equipment necessary for more complicated diagnostics.

Proposed 2035 ban on PFAS pesticides aims to reduce toxic exposure and reshape how produce is grown nationwide

• California is considering a bill that would ban PFAS (forever chemical) pesticides by 2035.

• These chemicals are widespread in agriculture and have been found on a significant portion of produce.

• The move could impact food safety, farming practices, and what consumers buy at the grocery store.

California is once again stepping into the spotlight on chemical safety this time with a proposed bill that would phase out so-called forever chemicals in pesticides by 2035.

Known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), these chemicals are used in a wide range of products, including agriculture, because they resist heat, water, and breakdown. But that durability is exactly what worries scientists and public health advocates: PFAS can linger in the environment and the human body for years.

The urgency behind the bill comes as new data highlights just how common these chemicals are in the food supply. A recent analysis found that nearly 40% of non-organic fruits and vegetables grown in California contain traces of PFAS pesticides. With California producing more than half of the nations produce, that has implications far beyond the state.

The country depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now theyre being seasoned with chemicals that never break down, Bernadette Del Chiaro, the Environmental Working Groups (EWGs) senior vice president for California, said in a news release.

We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops, she said.

What the bill would do

The proposed legislation would ban the use, sale, and manufacture of PFAS in pesticides by 2035, giving farmers time to transition to safer alternatives. It targets a lesser-known but significant source of exposure: agricultural chemicals applied directly to crops.

PFAS pesticides have been widely used in California for years. Between 2018 and 2023 alone, nearly 15 million pounds were applied to farmland across the state. These chemicals dont easily break down and can accumulate in soil, water, and food raising concerns about long-term health risks, including links to cancer, reproductive issues, and immune system effects.

While some states like Maine have already moved to ban PFAS in pesticides, Californias size and influence make this proposal especially significant. If passed, it could set a new national standard and push federal regulators to follow suit.

As a father, I don't want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades, Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), who introduced the bill, said in a news release.

AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring Californias agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water. We are providing a clear, responsible road map for our farmers to transition away from these persistent chemicals, while re-establishing California as a global leader in food safety.

What consumers should know

For shoppers, this bill is ultimately about reducing everyday exposure to chemicals that are hard to avoid. While the proposed ban is still years away, there are a few simple steps you can take now if this issue hits close to home.

Washing produce thoroughly can help remove some surface residues, and choosing organic options when possible may reduce exposure, since PFAS pesticides arent allowed in organic farming.

But experts stress that the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables still far outweigh the risks so this isnt a reason to cut them out.

The bigger picture? This bill reflects a growing shift toward tighter regulation of chemicals in food production. If it passes, it could mean cleaner farming practices and, eventually, a safer food supply for everyone.

Is Lowes HomeCare+ actually worth $99 a year?

• Lowes new HomeCare+ plan costs $99 a year and includes two in-home maintenance visits.

• Services include basics like dryer vent cleaning, water heater flushing, and filter replacement.

• It could be worth it for homeowners who put off upkeep, but check availability and compare it to DIY costs first.

Lowes is rolling out a new home maintenance subscription service called HomeCare+, offering homeowners two in-home service visits per year for $99 annually.

The plan, available to MyLowes Rewards members in areas covering more than 75% of U.S. homes, includes up to seven basic maintenance services per visit, performed by Lowes red vest associates.

The maintenance services they offer include the following seven items:

1. Dryer vent cleaning
2. HVAC filter replacement
3. Refrigerator water filter replacement
4. Water heater flushing
5. Garage door lubrication
6. Smoke detector battery replacement
7. Light bulb replacement.

You can actually select all seven maintenance items for one visit if needed.

Subscribers also get Gold Status in MyLowes Rewards and 5% off select supplies tied to those services.

For homeowners, the program could make sense if you regularly put off basic maintenance or simply do not want to climb ladders, crawl behind appliances, or perhaps youre a senior and cant handle routine upkeep yourself.

It comes out to about $8.25 per month, which may be cheaper than hiring a handyman for even one visit.

Actionable tips for shoppers:

• Be selective. Use the service for the maintenance chores you actually dread and avoid the most. Things like dryer vent cleaning or water heater flushing jump to mind, as they can both be time consuming, yet can improve safety and appliance efficiency.
• Check your area first. Be sure to check your zip code before subscribing. Lowes initially claims to only have this service reach 75% of U.S. homes, so make sure your address is included.
• Compare the value to your own DIY habits. If you already replace filters and batteries yourself, the subscription may not be worth it. But for older adults, busy families, or first-time homeowners, who want the peace of mind that routine maintenance will get done, it could definitely be worth the $99 annually.
• Beprepared for a sales pitch. It stands that the repair person could try to upsell you on more expensive filters, bulbs, batteries, or replacement parts. Know what's a good price before you agree to buy anything.

The bottom line: Lowes is clearly trying to turn routine home maintenance into a subscription business; one theyre hoping you set and forget.

But for the right homeowner, the subscription could be a smart way to stay on top of small tasks before they become expensive repairs.