January 27, 2018

No Image

Nassar's Exploitation Of The Climate Of Fear At A USA Gymnastics Training Site

Olympic gold medalist Dominique Moceanu, an early critic of abusive behavior in the USA gymnastics program, talks to NPR’s Michel Martin about recent reporting on the sport’s widespread sexual abuse.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

This week marked an important moment in the ongoing story about the sexual abuse inflicted upon some of the country’s elite female athletes. By now, you’ve probably heard that Larry Nassar, the former Michigan State and USA Gymnastics doctor, was handed a sentence of up to 175 years in prison for sexually abusing young patients, patients who were required to see him as part of their training. Others have been forced to resign or fired. USA Gymnastics recently announced that the gym run by Bela and Martha Karolyi, where the victims alleged some of the abuse took place, will no longer be used to train Olympic contenders.

In the wake of this, some are wondering how this could all have happened without anybody knowing or intervening. But some in the sport have spoken about the kind of environment that could allow this to happen. Dominique Moceanu is one of them. She is a former gymnast and the youngest American to win an Olympic gold medal. And she has long been a critic of the Karolyis and their training methods. She even wrote about all this back in 2012 in her memoir called “Off Balance.” She’s with us now via Skype from her home in Cleveland. Dominique Moceanu, thank you so much for speaking with us.

DOMINIQUE MOCEANU: Thank you so much for having me.

MARTIN: Forgive me, I do have to ask. Did you experience the kind of mistreatment – sexual misconduct under the guise of medical treatment that has now been revealed?

MOCEANU: No, I was not a victim of Dr. Nassar’s. And more importantly, now he’s inmate Nassar because I don’t consider him a doctor at all but more a master manipulator. So no, I was not a victim of his, but I applaud all the women who have come forward so courageously to share their stories. Because if the world did not hear them one by one by one, they may not have believed how egregious these acts of manipulation were and how vulnerable young children were in the arms of this really toxic environment and this prolific pedophile.

MARTIN: Well, I do want to ask you about the environment, specifically at the Karolyi Ranch, because you were coached by them intensely – personally by them. So could you talk a little bit about the environment that you described?

MOCEANU: Well, the environment at the Karolyi Ranch is a place where I know very well. And I lived there before the Summer Olympic Games in 1996, and it holds some of my darkest and worst memories of training. It was a very cold place. It’s not welcoming. The expectations I have no problem with – discipline and respect and hard work. I’m all for those things. But what they had there was fear, intimidation tactics, shaming tactics. If you didn’t go along with everything that they wanted you to and what wanted you to do, well, you were blacklisted immediately. You may not be put on an Olympic team.

And that fear is what did not allow so many young gymnasts to speak up when they were being abused because some of them didn’t even recognize it was abuse initially. So the abuse became normalized. And Nassar knew and saw the abuses take place not only with the Karolyis but at the gym with John Geddert in Michigan at Twist Stars. He knew the psychological abuses, and he took an oath to do no harm. And he was exploiting the abuses for his own personal pleasure on top of it.

MARTIN: Why do you think it’s taken so long, though, to get attention to this issue? Obviously, the sexual misconduct is a crime but also this kind of closed environment, this attitude of you can’t question authority. You can’t say anything. You’re not, you know, not allowed to speak about it. Why do you think it’s taken so long to get attention for this?

MOCEANU: It’s taken so long because it took countless courageous women to come forward for people to believe. It took Dr. Nassar – inmate Nassar, correctly speaking – it took his child pornography and for him to get arrested, first of all, to start getting more attention paid on this. We have to give credit to the investigative journalists at the Indy Star. They broke the story of abuse and they stayed on it. They got a lot of heat for it, but they stayed on it. And then the next step was kind of all of the women little by little coming forward and then all of them forward.

MARTIN: The practices that you described, the kind of the demeaning the athlete, you know, this kind of toxic environment, do you think that’s changing?

MOCEANU: I absolutely see it changing because it has to. Look at the attention worldwide this has received. I mean, right now, it’s an embarrassment to our sport. And it’s a humiliation to the powers that be and who ran our sport. And if any coach thinks they’re getting away with this in the future, you have another thing coming to you because it’s not going to happen. And a lot of eyes are going to be much more serious and watching the behavior of coaches. I mean, there wasn’t an inmate Nassar just because he was super clever.

Sure, he was a master manipulator, but there were also a lot of people who helped him. You have John Geddert, who allowed him a private room in his gym club. There was – the Karolyi Ranch was the perfect breed for a prolific pedophile. He got to go unchecked. And there is also the institutions who never reported any instances of sexual abuse. They brushed it under the rug. So that arrogance is what got us here. There were a lot of enablers. And now we have to hold people accountable. So for me, I just want the healing for these young women. I want everyone to heal. And I want to get rid of all of the abusers. So one by one, they better be careful because we’re coming after you.

MARTIN: That was Dominique Moceanu. She is the youngest American ever to win a gold medal in gymnastics, which she did in 1996. I want you to know that we reached out several times to the Karolyis for comment, but we have not heard back.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Montana Pushes Back On FCC Ruling To Enforce Net Neutrality

NPR’s Michel Martin talks with Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who signed an executive order requiring Internet service providers to follow net neutrality principles if they do business with the state.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

We’re going to turn now to the ongoing debate over net neutrality. You may remember that in December, the FCC rolled back Obama-era legislation aimed at regulating Internet service providers, meaning providers don’t have to treat all online sites equally. They can speed up or slow down connections to sites at their discretion or charge fees for access. Now what looked like a done deal is getting pushback at the state level. Attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia took legal action this week. They filed lawsuits to challenge the FCC decision on the grounds that it violates federal laws and agency protocols for protecting American consumers.

On Monday, Montana Governor Steve Bullock went a step further and became the first state official to sign an executive order imposing net neutrality in Montana. The order says that Internet service providers with state contracts must follow net neutrality principles. The governor of New York quickly became the second. Both are Democrats. And Governor Bullock is here with me now to talk more about this. Governor, thank you so much for speaking with us.

STEVE BULLOCK: It’s sure great to be with you, Michel.

MARTIN: So first, would you just tell us about your thought process in deciding to issue this executive order? And I’d particularly like to know why you think this is an important issue for Montana.

BULLOCK: Well, I think it’s an important issue for Montana and, indeed, our entire nation. The free and open exchange of information secured by an Internet has never been more essential to our modern, social, commercial and civic life. I see it through business that the state does. I see it through the activities of my children. So to sit back and say hopefully Washington will take some action to fix what was recently broken in December was unacceptable to me. So I wanted to take action and make sure that we can guarantee for Montanans and hopefully, then ultimately for the rest of the nation, that net neutrality will continue.

MARTIN: We need to point out that the FCC ruling says explicitly that states and city governments cannot create their own net neutrality laws. So is this a largely symbolic move or do you expect it actually to have force in the marketplace?

BULLOCK: We as governors, you know, we just don’t make statements. We actually try to make a difference and take action that will withstand. And from my perspective, I mean, we’re not regulating anything. Through this order, the state of Montana, we’re acting as a purchaser. I think that it’s legally sound. And the FCC can’t challenge the fact that what we’re doing is just as a market – I mean, the FCC chair even said that individual consumers, not the federal government, should be making these decisions. I, as overseeing an enterprise called state government in Montana, is making that individual decision that this is the expectation that I’m going to uphold if I’m going to be purchasing services from companies.

MARTIN: The president of the American Cable Association told The New York Times, quote, “following a patchwork of legislation or regulation is costly and makes it even harder to invest in networks.” You have some response to that?

BULLOCK: Yeah. I mean, internet service providers have always faced 50 sets of tort laws, consumer protection laws, property laws, tax laws. We’re not proposing any changes from what certainly existed on December 13 and what consumers expect even today.

MARTIN: So you see this almost like an RFP, which is that if you want to do business in my state, these are the guidelines that you have to follow?

BULLOCK: That’s exactly right. Montana alone, we purchase close to $50 million a year of Internet services. And just saying that if you want to provide those services, expectation is that you’ll disclose the provisions around net neutrality. And you’ll also adhere to the expectations that most Montanans and most Americans want, and that’s a free and open Internet.

MARTIN: You have any concern about a backlash which is that service providers saying, I mean, this is a different marketplace entirely but in the same way that, you know, health insurers are pulling out of certain states where they find the terms unfavorable to them?

BULLOCK: Not really for two reasons, one of which is that, again, this is what those service providers said even before the rollback in December is that they had no expectation or anticipation of changing their plans. And secondary, what we’re seeing is – well, some might say, oh, Montana is not big enough to influence the overall market. When other states like New York join in our effort, and I’m certainly hopeful that states across this country will join, then it really does become a market decision where certainly they may say, oh, we don’t want to play in Montana. But if they’re saying we don’t want play in New York and any additional other states, then it’s a business decision to block content or to slow things down that they would be making. But I don’t think it’s one that certainly their consumers in any of those states would be too happy about.

MARTIN: That is Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. We reached him in his office in Helena. Governor, thank you so much for speaking with us.

BULLOCK: Thanks for having me on today, Michel.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

No Car, No Care? Medicaid Transport Program Faces Cuts In Some States

Donavan Dunn is trained to drive fragile Medicaid patients like Maddie Holt of Everett, Wash., to health appointments.

Heidi de Marco/KHN

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/KHN

Unable to walk or talk, barely able to see or hear, 5-year-old Maddie Holt of Everett, Wash., waits in her wheelchair for a ride to the hospital.

The 27-pound girl is dressed in polka-dot pants and a flowered shirt for the trip, plus a red headband with a sparkly bow, two wispy blond ponytails poking out on top of her head.

Her parents can’t drive her. They both have disabling vision problems; and, besides, they can’t afford a car. When Maddie was born in 2012 with the rare and usually fatal genetic condition called Zellweger syndrome, Meagan and Brandon Holt, then in their early 20s, were plunged into a world of overwhelming need — and profound poverty.

“We lost everything when Maddie got sick,” says Meagan Holt, now 27.

Multiple times each month, Maddie sees a team of specialists at Seattle Children’s Hospital who treat her for the condition that has left her nearly blind and deaf, with frequent seizures and life-threatening liver problems.

The only way Maddie can make the trip, which is more than an hour each way, is through a service provided by Medicaid, the nation’s health insurance program started more than 50 years ago as a safety net for the poor.

Designed for Medicaid’s most fragile

Called non-emergency medical transportation, or NEMT, the benefit is as old as Medicaid itself. It requires the transport of certain people to and from medical services like mental health counseling sessions, substance abuse treatment, dialysis, physical therapy, adult day care and, in Maddie’s case, visits to specialists.

“This is so important,” says Holt. “Now that she’s older and more disabled, it’s crucial.”

However, citing runaway costs and a focus on patients taking responsibility for their health, Republicans have vowed to roll back the benefits, cut federal funding and give states more power to eliminate services they consider unaffordable.

More than 1 in 5 Americans — about 74 million people — now rely on Medicaid to pay for their health care. That includes nearly 104 million NEMT trips each year at a cost of nearly $3 billion, according to a 2013 estimate, the most recent.

Proponents of limiting NEMT say the strategy will cut escalating costs and more closely mirror private insurance benefits, which typically don’t include transportation.

They also contend that changes will help curb what government investigators in 2016 warned is “a high risk for fraud and abuse” in the program. In recent years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that a Massachusetts NEMT provider was jailed and fined more than $475,000 for billing for rides attributed to dead people. Two ambulance programs in Connecticut paid almost $600,000 to settle claims that they provided transportation for dialysis patients who didn’t have medical needs for ambulance transportation.

Last March, Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican, introduced a resolution that would have revoked the federal requirement to provide NEMT in an effort to provide states with “flexibility.” That effort stalled.

Another Republican proposal in 2017 would have reduced federal funding for the NEMT program. It failed, but other efforts by individual states still stand.

Current flexibility through waivers

But there is some flexibility for states already. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and CMS Administrator Seema Verma encouraged the nation’s governors to consider NEMT waivers, among other actions, in a March 2017 letter.

“We wish to empower all states to advance the next wave of innovative solutions to Medicaid challenges,” they wrote. The Trump administration has used state waivers to bypass or unravel a number of the Obama administration’s more expansive health policies, and has granted some states’ requests.

At least three states — Iowa, Indiana and Kentucky — have received federal waivers and extensions allowing them to cut Medicaid transportation services. Massachusetts has a waiver pending.

Critics of the cuts worry the trend will accelerate, leaving poor and sick patients with no way to get to medical appointments.

“I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of these waivers in the pipeline,” says Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

Because medical transportation isn’t typically covered by the commercial insurance plans most Americans use, it’s unfamiliar to many people and could be seen as unnecessary, says Eliot Fishman, senior director of health policy for Families USA, a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer health advocacy group.

Formerly a Medicaid official in the federal government, Fishman calls the transportation program “vital” not only for children with severe disabilities, but also for non-elderly, low-income adults.

Maddie Holt, 5, was born with a rare genetic condition called Zellweger syndrome and is unable to walk or talk and can barely see or hear.

Heidi de Marco/KHN

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/KHN

In a 2014 survey of Medicaid users, CMS found that lack of transportation was the third-greatest barrier to care for adults with disabilities, with 12.2 percent of those patients reporting they couldn’t get a ride to a doctor’s office.

“This is not something to be trifled with lightly,” Fishman says. “We’re talking about a lifesaving aspect of the Medicaid program.”

About 3.6 million Americans miss or delay non-emergency medical care each year because of transportation problems, according to a 2005 study published by the National Academy of Sciences.

That same study analyzed costs for providing NEMT to patients facing 12 common medical conditions and found that providing additional transportation is often cost-effective because patients who got to a health appointment stayed healthier.

Medicaid is required to provide NEMT services using the most appropriate and least costly form of transportation, whether that’s taxis, vans or public transit.

Proponents of revamping NEMT note that disabled children like Maddie and other people with serious disabilities are in little danger of losing services. In Iowa and Indiana, Medicaid transportation remains available to several groups of patients, including those classified as “medically frail,” though the definition of who qualifies can vary widely.

In addition, one managed-care provider, Anthem, continues to transport Indiana Medicaid patients, despite the waiver that was first enacted in 2007.

Left out and struggling

Still, some Medicaid clients struggle without transport services. Fallon Kunz, 29, of Mishawaka, Ind., has cerebral palsy, migraine headaches and chronic pain. She uses a power wheelchair. When she was a child, she qualified for door-to-door service to medical appointments, she says.

Kunz is studying psychology online at Southern New Hampshire University. She lives with her father, whose home is outside the route of a Medicaid transit van. Getting to and from medical appointments for her chronic condition is a constant struggle, she says. Taxis are too expensive: $35 each way for a wheelchair-enabled cab.

“The only way I can get rides to and from my doctor’s appointment is to ride the two miles in my wheelchair, despite all kinds of weather, from my home, across the bridge, to the grocery store,” she says. “Right outside the grocery store is the bus stop. I can catch the regular bus there.”

Sometimes, she’s in too much pain or the Indiana weather — warm and humid in the summer, frigid and windy in the winter — is too much to battle and she skips the appointment.

“Today I didn’t go because it was too cold and my legs hurt too much,” she says on a Tuesday in December. “I didn’t feel like getting blown off the sidewalk.”

In Maddie Holt’s case, she is one of hundreds of NEMT-eligible children transported to Seattle Children’s each month. Last September, for instance, more than 1,300 clients made more than 3,600 trips at a cost of more than $203,000, according to the Washington Health Care Authority, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program called Apple Health.

Dunn carefully loads Holt into the van as her mom, Meagan Holt, looks on.

Heidi de Marco/KHN

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/KHN

The need is so great, in fact, that the hospital created a transportation will-call desk to help organize the comings and goings.

“When we realized how much transportation is a barrier to getting to your appointment, we decided to do something about it,” says Julie Povick, manager of international exchanges and guest services at Seattle Children’s.

“The majority of our patients are in survival mode,” Povick adds. “You need a lot of handholding.”

But Verma, the architect of Indiana’s Medicaid overhaul plan, has suggested that too much handholding might be “counterproductive” for patients and bad for the country.

“[Ninety] percent of [Healthy Indiana Plan] members report having their own transportation or the ability to rely on family and friends for transportation to health care appointments,” Verma notes in a 2016 Health Affairs essay.

But there are some who can’t.

“I’m a college student, I have a cat,” says Kunz. “I’m just a regular human trying to do things, and the inaccessibility in this area is ridiculous.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)