March 17, 2017

No Image

Customs And Border Protection Outlines Border Wall Requirements

The border fence between the U.S. and Mexico in Hidalgo, Texas.

John Moore/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

John Moore/Getty Images

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is asking for design proposals and prototypes of President Trump’s proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Late Friday, the agency released specifics for the first time on how tough the barrier must be. CBP posted online two different options for contractors: one proposal must be for a solid concrete wall, another is for a wall with “a see-through component/capability” that is “operationally advantageous.”

“The wall design shall be physically imposing in height,” the CBP outlines say. The government says its “nominal concept” is for a 30-foot-high wall, but adds that designs as low as 18 feet “may be acceptable.”

The proposal document asks contractors for 30-foot-long prototypes and mock-ups of 10 feet by 10 feet.

A CBP official told NPR’s John Burnett that contractors will have to make mock-ups of their ideas in San Diego. “It’s a way for the agency to identify designs. We’re looking for industry’s designs, to take a fresh look at the wall. We’ll have industry propose and then we’ll down-select.”

The CBP, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, requires the wall designs to be impossible for humans to climb without a ladder. It wants proposals that will prevent people from tunneling underneath by at least 6 feet underground.

The government outlines the types of things both types of walls have to stand up to: “sledgehammer, car jack, pick axe, chisel, battery operated impact tools, battery operated cutting tools, Oxy/acetylene torch or other similar hand-held tools.”

It has to look good, too. “The north side of wall (i.e. U.S. facing side) shall be aesthetically pleasing in color, anti-climb texture, etc., to be consistent with general surrounding environment,” the CBP says. There’s no mention of the aesthetics on the Mexican side.

More than 400 companies have told the Department of Homeland Security they’re interested in the project, NPR’s Richard Gonzales reported last week. Cost estimates of the wall vary widely: President Trump said it would cost $12 billion; an MIT study said $38 billion.

The deadline for contractors to submit their proposals for the first phase is March 29.

NPR’s John Burnett contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Best of the Week: SXSW Reviews and Interviews, More 'Man of Steel' and 'The Matrix' on the Way and More

The Important News

DC Extended Universe: Matthew Vaughn , Wonder Woman, Free Fire, Megan Leavey, Coco, Early Man, Despicable Me 3 and Smurfs: The Lost Village.

TV Spots:The Flash musical crossover with Supergirl.

Behind the Scenes:Ghost in the Shell visual effects showcase.

Movie Clips: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Movie Pics: A Wrinkle in Time,

Music Videos: Beauty and the Beast violin medley by Lindsey Stirling and “Beauty and the Beast” by Traci Hines and Nick Pitera.

Character Reprisals: Jeff Bridges brought out the Dude for John Goodman’s Walk of Fame honor.

Fan Theories: The cars in Cars aren’t cars and Life is a Venom prequel.

Movie Parodies: How Beauty and the Beast should have ended and Logan animated parody.

Mashups: La La Land meets Logan and Kong: Skull Island.

Easter Eggs: Disney animated features are all connected by Easter eggs.

Remade Trailers: The Belko Experiment in Lego and Wonder Woman in animation.

Remade Movie Scenes: Mariachi version of the Beauty and the Beast dance and The Belko Experiment in claymation.

Supercuts:God and Satan, Ben Stiller says “little,” women cinematographers. and movie characters saying “let’s go home.”

Our Features

SXSW Reports: We listed our favorite movies of SXSW, we posted a brief response and Q&A video from the SXSW premiere of The Disaster Artist and a review of Atomic Blonde‘s awesome action scene.

SXSW Buzz: We collected responses to Baby Driver at SXSW, and responses to Atomic Blonde, Song to Song and The Disaster Artist.

SXSW Interview: Alexandra Shipp and Breanna Hildebrand on Tragedy Girls and their X-Men characters.

Comic Book Movie Guides: We recapped and previewed Thanos’s part in the MCU and detailed what’s going on with The Batman.

Interview: Gareth Edwards on why we’ll never see Rogue One‘s alternate scenes and on why Carrie Fisher didn’t believe her Rogue One cameo.

Horror Movie Guide: We rounded up all the latest horror news and trailers.

Home Viewing: Our guide to everything hitting VOD this week.

and

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Should The U.S. Government Buy A Drug Company To Save Money?

Gilead Sciences Inc. makes the two leading drugs that can quickly cure hepatitis C infections. But most patients can’t afford the expensive drugs, and states restrict their use among Medicaid patients.

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

David Higginbotham contracted hepatitis C more than 35 years ago. He’d like to rid his body of the virus, but Colorado’s Medicaid program says he’s not sick enough to justify the cost.

And he’s not alone.

Since 2013, when Gilead Sciences Inc. released Sovaldi, the first medication that can reliably cure hepatitis C, health insurers and state Medicaid programs have been coming up with ways to limit access to it and a sister drug, Harvoni, because they’re priced so high — more than $80,000 for a 12-week course of Sovaldi at the outset.

Both drugs are produced by Gilead, and their price has dropped some, as competitors have hit the market, but Higginbotham still hasn’t been able to get the cure.

Gilead isn’t the only company that produces expensive drugs. Prices for prescription medications for various conditions have been rising faster than inflation for years.

President Donald Trump says the pharmaceutical industry is “getting away with murder,” and he’s vowed to do something about it.

So what could he do in the case of hepatitis C medications?

One solution that’s been proposed is to buy the company. Specifically buy Gilead Sciences Inc.

Dr. Peter Bach, the director of health policy and outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, says the U.S. government could save money and treat everyone in the nation who has hepatitis C if it bought Gilead Sciences, rather than just buying Gilead’s products.

Hepatitis C kills more Americans than any other infectious disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it leads to a liver transplant more often than any other condition.

A year after Gilead got FDA approval for Sovaldi, it launched Harvoni, — a combination medicine that includes Sovaldi’s key ingredient and a second medication that attacks the hepatitis C virus in a different way. Sovaldi and Harvoni are the first drugs to consistently eradicate the virus, which has infected an estimated 2.7 to 3.3 million people in the U.S.

Bach says that in the three years since the drugs hit the market, only about 600,000 people have been treated — a low number considering there is a cure available.

Gilead Sciences’ Harvoni can cure hepatitis C, but costs tens of thousands of dollars for a course of treatment.

Lloyd Fox/Baltimore Sun/TNS via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Lloyd Fox/Baltimore Sun/TNS via Getty Images

“We’re doing a pretty poor job right now of finding patients with hepatitis C,” he says.

The slow uptake, Bach says, is because of the drugs’ price. When Harvoni came on the market, it was listed at $94,000 for a course of treatment that cures most patients. The price has since dropped to about half that, but is still out of reach for most people.

Medicaid programs are limiting access and many insurance companies list it as a specialty drug and cover only a percentage of its cost.

“Because nobody can afford Gilead’s prices, there really isn’t much sense in investing to go find these patients and get them into treatment,” Bach says.

He says the U.S.government, however, could cut the cost of treatment by almost two-thirds by buying Gilead on the open market – its market capitalization on March 17 was about $90 billion — and selling off all its assets except the U.S. rights to Sovaldi and Harvoni.

The savings would be three-pronged, he explains. The cost of treatment would decline. The disease would stop spreading. And the number of liver transplants prompted by hepatitis C infections would drop significantly.

“There’s a queue right now for liver transplants, so it will free up those livers for other people who have other diseases that we can’t cure who otherwise will die,” Bach points out.

That would help states like Colorado, for example, which is limiting access to Medicaid patients because the costs of treating everyone at once would be too high. If the state were to treat every Medicaid beneficiary who is diagnosed with hepatitis C, it would cost an additional $500 million.

So to get the drug, Higginbotham has to wait until his liver is more damaged that it is today.

Bach says if the federal government treated hepatitis C as a public health issue, rather than as a Medicaid budget problem, buying Gilead would make sense.

Gilead’s senior vice president, Gregg Alton, says Bach’s idea is thought-provoking. What it really demonstrates, Alton says, is that the system to pay for prescription drugs isn’t equipped to deal with quick, expensive cures.

“Because we have a cure, the costs are paid in a short period of time,” he says. “Our payment systems have a real tough time with that because they’re used to these sorts of long-term, chronic therapies that pay a little bit at a time – but, over time, cost a lot more.”

In other words, it can cost a lot more to treat diabetes or multiple sclerosis over a lifetime than to cure hepatitis C in three months.

From a public health perspective, buying Gilead isn’t a bad idea, says Sara Fisher Ellison, an economics lecturer at MIT.

But that assumption rests on the notion that the government would buy the company’s shares at full price on the open market. That would avert any reaction from drugmakers or other companies who would fear that the government could use its power just to force them to lower prices.

“The reason this proposal could work is that right now the drugs are only serving a fraction of the potential patients,” Fisher Ellison says, “and there’s a big public health benefit to serving all of the patents. That’s something that Gilead doesn’t take into account in its pricing policy, but it’s something that a government does take into account.”

The idea is a long shot of course.

But Higginbotham, who is still waiting in Colorado for his chance to take the hepatitis C drug, sees an opening with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

“With our present administration,” he says, “a hostile takeover might be just up his alley.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

First Openly Transgender Professional Team Athlete Retires

Harrison Browne, hockey player for the Buffalo Beauts and the first openly transgender athlete, announces his retirement.

Michael Hertzel/National Women’s Hockey League

hide caption

toggle caption

Michael Hertzel/National Women’s Hockey League

To Harrison Browne, hockey has always been a pivotal part of life. He’s been in the rink for the past 15 years and currently plays for the Buffalo Beauts, a professional hockey team in the National Women’s Hockey League.

Last October, Browne came out, saying he identified as male, which made him the first openly transgender professional team sport athlete in the United States.

“I started to feel a really big disconnect between my personal identity and my professional identity,” Browne says. “Whenever I would hear my name announced … I just wanted to align it.”

He had come out privately to his friends and family while in college, and in his second year in the NWHL, he felt comfortable to make the statement publicly. In the months since, he says, the support has been overwhelming.

“My teammates, my coaches and the league did a great job of just treating me like a regular teammate.”

Even though he identifies as male in a women’s league, he sees himself as just an athlete.

“Every time I go to the rink. I’m an athlete,” Browne says. “I don’t think of myself as a woman. I don’t think of my teammates as women. We’re athletes, we’re teammates and we’re friends.”

Harrison Browne shoots during a Buffalo Beauts match.

Troy Parla/National Women’s Hockey League

hide caption

toggle caption

Troy Parla/National Women’s Hockey League

Since coming out, Browne says he has received tweets and other messages of support on social media from fellow transgender athletes, who tell him “they are so thankful that there’s somebody out there that did what they couldn’t,” he says.

“I’m glad that I broke down a wall,” he says. “I’m glad that I was able to help people in need.”

Earlier this week Browne announced his retirement from professional hockey and is looking forward to transitioning after the season is over. Under NWHL rules, players who are transitioning are ineligible once they begin hormone therapy.

“I want to start transitioning and seeing myself in the mirror the way I see on the inside,” Browne says.

Browne’s season could come to an end soon as the Buffalo Beauts take on the New York Riveters in the semi-finals of the Isobel Cup playoffs Friday night. But he’s not thinking about that.

“I don’t think it’s hit yet, but it definitely will hit me once the buzzer goes,” he says.

After the season ends, Browne will continue to work with the NWHL as the leader of the inclusion board. He hopes that going forward he can be an advocate, speak at conferences and help athletes feel included.

Until then, Browne is focused on playing his best hockey, and winning a championship.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)