March 10, 2019

No Image

U.S. Women's Soccer Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

NPR’s Michel Martin speaks with USA Today sports columnist Christine Brennan about a gender discrimination lawsuit the U.S. women’s soccer team has filed against U.S. Soccer.



MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

The U.S. women’s national soccer team is ranked number one in the world. The team won the women’s World Cup three times, and the U.S. women are four-time Olympic champions. The U.S. men’s soccer team – not so much. They’ve never won World Cup or the Olympics. They didn’t even qualify for the 2018 World Cup. But the women players are paid less than the men. And that’s why the U.S. women’s national team filed suit against the U.S. Soccer Federation in federal court on Friday – Women’s Day – charging gender discrimination. USA Today sports columnist Christine Brennan has been following the story, and she’s with us now.

Christine Brennan, thank you so much for talking to us.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Oh, Michel, my pleasure. Always good to talk with you – especially about a topic like this.

MARTIN: Well, the lawsuit points out that for their success in winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup, the U.S. women were paid less than a third of what the U.S. men were paid for losing in the round of ’16. And I think a lot of people might look at that and say, how is that possible? So how is that possible?

BRENNAN: Well, soccer is – has an old boys’ network to the max, Michel. And actually, the U.S. Soccer Federation is doing a better job than most federations around the world. It truly – the sexism and the anti-women feelings are incredibly strong in the sport of soccer worldwide. And so what we’re seeing here is the U.S. women’s national team – I believe it’s the most famous women’s team on the planet in any sport, and certainly role models for so many other women’s sports and charging away, leading the charge, so to speak, on these kinds of issues. They’ve just said enough is enough.

And here we are, three months away from the next Women’s World Cup, which is coming up in France in June. And they have just – with the confidence that they’ve been given from years of playing sports in our country, Title IX now 46, almost 47 years old – they just are not going to deal with this anymore. And that’s why they did this now. And it really is quite a statement about where women are, not just in sports, but in our culture in 2019.

MARTIN: Tell me about the history of this suit. As I understand it, this started with a complaint that the women filed to the EEOC back in 2016. Is that right?

BRENNAN: That is correct. And they didn’t – that hasn’t gotten anywhere – and five players back then, including Megan Rapinoe, Alex Morgan and a couple of others. But frankly, there have been skirmishes, Michel, going all the way back to the year 2000, when the players actually struck and missed a – one tournament going into the Sydney Olympics.

And it’s interesting because I’m sure many of your listeners remember where they were when they watched Brandi Chastain kick that penalty kick almost 20 years ago now – July 10, 1999. So 1999 was really a watershed moment because they saw the huge stadiums, they saw the popularity, the only story in history, as far as I know, to ever be on the covers of Time, Newsweek, People and Sports Illustrated the same week. That was the U.S. women’s soccer team – the nation falling in love with what it’s created with Title IX.

And so with that, I think that gave them the boost to know they needed to do more. And that has been in their DNA in terms of fighting for equal rights for women and, as I said, leading the charge for all kinds of female athletes around the globe, not just in the U.S. So from ’99 onward, there have been these skirmishes about equal pay. This is really just dropping the mike.

MARTIN: Well, OK. Let me just dig in a little bit deeper. Can direct comparisons of the compensation between the men and women – can those direct comparisons be made? I mean, the New York Times reports that each team has its own collective bargaining agreement with U.S. Soccer and that the men – they say that the men receive higher bonuses when they play for the United States, but they’re paid only when they make the team whereas the women receive guaranteed salaries supplemented by smaller matched bonuses. So…

BRENNAN: You’re right. You’re bringing up a great point. And there is an apples to oranges kind of quality to this. Why is that? Because the men’s teams are – men’s – members the men’s team are employed by professional clubs around the world, and they receive compensation that way because the men’s game is so much more advanced than the women’s game, aside from – especially maybe entirely the United States. The women, the top female players, are under contract with U.S. Soccer, not individual teams.

So that is a little bit of why the comparison is – can be difficult. But the differences in bonuses for the two teams – 2014 World Cup, the men’s World Cup, U.S. Soccer, they lost in the round of ’16, the U.S. men did. They were paid – the bonuses were paid out of a total of 5.375 million – OK, 5.375 million for the men who lost in the round of ’16. A year later, 2015, in, Canada the U.S. women win the World Cup, and they’re paid out of a pool of 1.725 million.

MARTIN: Who makes that decision? I mean, who decides how much bonus money and how it’s divided?

BRENNAN: That’s U.S. Soccer. And you bring up a very interesting point because these are the national governing bodies for the sport. All these sports that you see in the Olympics have a national governing body. They are – they’re not for profit. And their goal simply is to promote the game, the athletes and the sport. So, for example, U.S. Figure Skating years ago decided to pay the men equal to the women on things like bonuses. It’s a little different because it’s not a team, it’s individual athletes. But figure skating made sure to pay the men equally because they wanted to hold that carrot out there to boys and men to become figure skaters because the women are the stars in figure skating. Same with swimming – Katie Ledecky gets the exact same amount of money and a bonus that Michael Phelps did. So those are the comparisons, and that’s why U.S. Soccer doesn’t look obviously so good.

MARTIN: Except that you’re telling us that, say, in figure skating, the governing body figured out that – without having to be sued – that they should pay the male athletes the same even though the women are the stars. What I think I hear you saying is that U.S. Soccer could have done the same and has chosen not to.

BRENNAN: Absolutely. U.S. Soccer could have headed this off at the pass. They have known since the year of 1999, since that World Cup, that things were changing. That was a watershed moment. And when those football stadiums were full for women’s soccer, literally packed to capacity, the Rose Bowl, Soldier Field in Chicago, all around the country these things were happening that summer, that they – someone should have said this is a sea change and we need to start noticing it. They think they did OK by raising them when prodded or when having these disputes. They did do more, they didn’t do enough.

MARTIN: That was sports columnist Christine Brennan of USA Today. Christine, thank you so much for talking with us.

BRENNAN: Michel, my pleasure. Thanks again.

Copyright © 2019 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

'Miami Herald' Reporters Investigate Ties Between Massage Parlor Owner, Trump

The Miami Herald has detailed how a woman who once owned a chain of day spas in Florida allegedly steered Chinese businessmen to a fundraiser for President Trump. NPR’s Michel Martin speaks with Herald reporter Caitlin Ostroff.



MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

By now, you’ve probably heard the reports about Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots. He’s been charged with soliciting prostitution at a day spa in Florida. And while at first, this story may have played like another embarrassing tale about celebrity mischief, it has now revealed much more. It’s led to deeper reporting about how the sex trade actually works and how it’s connected to human trafficking.

And now, thanks to reporting by the Miami Herald, yet another story has emerged. This one is about a woman who founded a chain of day spots where prostitution is alleged to have taken place and how she may have steered Chinese business executives to a fundraiser for President Trump. There’s a lot to get through here, so we’ve called up Caitlin Ostroff. She’s part of the team of reporters at the Miami Herald who broke this story, and she is with us now.

Caitlin, thanks so much for talking with us.

CAITLIN OSTROFF: Thanks for having me.

MARTIN: I’m going to start by asking you to tell us about the woman in question and how she got involved in politics. And I do want to make clear she founded the day spa where Robert Kraft was arrested, but she sold it several years ago, and she has not been charged in this case. But tell us more about her.

OFTROFF: Yeah. So that’s kind of the big mystery – that when we were researching the spa where Kraft was busted, we wanted to know who owned it, who had founded it. And when we started looking up Cindy Yang – Cindy is the first name that she typically goes by – we were just following through her Facebook page, and all of a sudden, we found all of these pictures that popped up of her posing with President Trump and other high-ranking Republican officials.

She wasn’t politically active before a couple years ago, so she hadn’t really made political contributions. She hadn’t registered to vote until a little bit before the 2016 general election. And so we were trying to figure out, how did she go from a business owner to donating a lot of money to Republican candidates and being in a position with high-ranking officials?

MARTIN: So, according to your reporting, she arranged for a group of Chinese business executives, Chinese nationals, to attend a fundraiser for President Trump. What more do we know about that? And is there anything wrong with them attending the fundraiser?

OFTROFF: It depends. And this is what, again, our reporting is kind of seeking to pose the question of and answer. So it’s illegal for foreign nationals to directly contribute to a campaign. And so the question of that fundraiser, which happened in December of 2017 in New York – it was an RNC fundraiser – is how did Chinese residents happen to be at that fundraiser? How did they pay for their tickets to the event? And was there any influence of that exacted on the president or on other Republican officials?

MARTIN: So they could attend – foreign visitors can attend fundraisers as long as they don’t pay their own way, and they cannot reimburse a U.S. citizen for paying their way.

OFTROFF: Yes.

MARTIN: So that is the question that you are investigating. Do you know the role that Cindy Yang played in getting those executives to that fundraiser?

OFTROFF: So we don’t know exactly how she arranged for them to attend the fundraiser. But we do know that she had started a consulting business called GY US investments. And through that company, there was promises of getting Chinese investors into the president’s orbit. So we do know that she has boasted of her political ties in order to get Chinese businessmen into the presidential orbit and give them access. But we don’t know exactly how she got them into that fundraiser in New York.

MARTIN: And what does the RNC have to say about that? Have they responded to your queries?

OFTROFF: The RNC hasn’t said how they got there or why they were guests yet.

MARTIN: That is Caitlin Ostroff of the Miami Herald. We reached her at a conference in California.

Caitlin, thanks so much for talking with us.

OFTROFF: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2019 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

How Much Difference Will Eli Lilly's Half-Price Insulin Make?

Eli Lilly and Company, based in Indianapolis, is rolling out a half-price version of its insulin Humalog that will be sold as a generic.

Darron Cummings/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Darron Cummings/AP

When Erin Gilmer filled her insulin prescription at a Denver-area Walgreens in January, she paid $8.50. U.S. taxpayers paid another $280.51.

She thinks the price of insulin is too high. “It eats at me to know that taxpayer money is being wasted,” says Gilmer, who was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes while a sophomore at the University of Colorado in 2002.

The diagnosis meant that for the rest of her life she’d require daily insulin shots to stay alive. But the price of that insulin is skyrocketing.

Between 2009 and 2017 the wholesale price of a single vial of Humalog, the Eli Lilly and Company-manufactured insulin Gilmer uses, nearly tripled — rising from $92.70 to $274.70, according to data from IBM Watson Health.

Six years ago, Gilmer qualified for Social Security Disability Insurance — and thus, Medicare — because of a range of health issues. At the time, the insulin she needed cost $167.70 per vial, according to IBM Watson Health.

“When it’s taxpayer money paying for medication for someone like me, it makes it a national issue, not just a diabetic issue,” Gilmer says.

Stories about people with Type 1 diabetes dying when they couldn’t afford insulin have made headlines. Patient advocates like Gilmer have protested high prices outside Lilly’s headquarters in Indianapolis.

Loading…

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.

Last October in Minnesota, then state Attorney General Lori Swanson sued insulin manufacturers alleging price gouging. Pharmaceutical executives were grilled about high drug prices by the Senate Finance Committee on Feb. 26.

This is the backdrop for Lilly saying Monday that it is rolling out a half-priced, generic version of Humalog called “insulin lispro.” The list price: $137.35 per vial.

“Patients, doctors and policymakers are demanding lower list prices for medicines and lower patient costs at the pharmacy counter,” Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks wrote in a blog post about the move. “You might be surprised to hear that we agree – it’s time for change in our system and for consumer prices to come down.”

No panacea

When Lilly’s Humalog, the first short-acting insulin, came to market in 1996, the list price was about $21 per vial. The price didn’t reach $275 overnight, but yearly price increases added up.

In February 2009, for example, the wholesale price was $92.70, according to IBM Watson Health. It rose to $99.65 in December 2009, then to $107.60 in Sept. 2010, $115.70 in May 2011, and so on.

“There’s no justification for why prices should keep increasing at an average rate of 10 percent every year,” says Inmaculada Hernandez of the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy who was lead author of a January report in Health Affairs attributing the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs to accumulated yearly price hikes.

“The public perception that we have in general is that drugs are so expensive because we need to pay for research and development, and that’s true,” Hernandez says. “However, usually research and development is paid for in the first years of life of a drug”

At $137.35 per vial, Lilly’s generic insulin is priced at about the same level as Humalog was in 2012, 16 years after it came to market.

“We want to recognize that this is not a panacea,” says company spokesman Greg Kueterman. “This is an option that we hope can help people in the current system that we work with.”

It’s worth noting that Humalog is a rapid-acting insulin, but that’s only one of the two types of insulin most people with Type 1 diabetes use every day. The second kind is long-lasting. Lilly makes one called Basaglar. The most popular long-lasting insulin is Lantus, produced by Sanofi. Neither has a lower-cost alternative.

Still, Lilly’s move on Humalog could put pressure on the other two big makers of insulin to act.

Novo Nordisk called Lilly’s lower-priced generic insulin “an important development,” in an emailed statement.

“Bringing affordable insulin to the market requires ideas from all stakeholders,” Novo Nordisk’s Ken Inchausti said in an email, which also listed steps the company has taken, such as a patient assistance program. The statement didn’t say whether Novo Nordisk is considering offering a lower-priced version of its popular insulin Novolog, a rival of Humalog.

A statement from Sanofi, the third major insulin maker, also didn’t say whether the company would offer lower-priced version of its insulins.

“Sanofi supports any actions that increase access to insulins for patients living with diabetes at an affordable price,” spokesperson Ashleigh Koss said in the email, which also touted the company’s patient assistance program.

A different kind of generic

One twist in this story is that Lilly’s new insulin is just a repackaged version of Humalog, minus the brand name. It’s called an “authorized generic.”

“Whoever came up with the term, ‘authorized generic’ ?” Dr. Vincent Rajkumar says laughing. Rajkumar is a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It’s the same exact drug” as the brand name, he continues.

Typically, Rajkumar says, authorized generics are introduced by brand-name drugmakers to compete with generic versions of their drugs made by rival companies.

But in the case of Humalog and other insulins, there are no generics made by competitors, as there are for, say, the cholesterol medicine Lipitor or even other diabetes drugs, such as metformin.

So when Lilly’s authorized generic comes to market, the company will have both Humalog insulin and the authorized generic version of that medicine on the market.

Rajkumar says it’s a public relations move.

“There’s outrage over the price of insulin that is being discussed in Congress and elsewhere. And so the company basically says, ‘Hey, we will make the identical product available at half price.’ On the surface that sounds great,” Rajkumar says.

“But you look at the problems and you think, ‘OK, how crazy is this that someone is actually going to be buying the brand-name drug?’ “

In fact, it’s possible that Lilly could make the same or even more profit off its authorized generic than it does from the name-brand Humalog, according to University of Pittsburgh’s Hernandez.

The profit margin would depend on the rebates paid by the company to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers. Rebates are getting a lot of attention these days as one factor in rising drug prices. They’re usually not disclosed and increase as a drug’s price increases providing an incentive to some

“Doing an authorized generic is nothing else than giving insurers two options,” Hernandez says: Pay the full list price for a brand-name drug and receive a higher rebate, or pay the lower price for the authorized generic and receive a presumably smaller rebate.

“What we really need to get insulin prices down is to get generics into the market, and we need more than one,” Hernandez says, adding that previous research has shown that prices begin to go down when two or three generics are competing in the marketplace.

Even so, Lillly’s Kueterman says the authorized generic insulin “is going to help hopefully move the system towards a more sustainable model.”

“I can guarantee you the reason that we’re doing this is to help people,” Kueterman says, noting the company’s Diabetes Solution Center has also helped “10,000 people each month pay significantly less for their insulin” since it opened in August 2018.

For Erin Gilmer, the news about an authorized generic insulin from Lilly has left her mildly encouraged.

“It sounds really good and it will help some people, which is great,” Gilmer says. “It’s Eli Lilly and pharma starting to understand that grassroots activism has to be taken seriously, and we are at a tipping point.”

This story is part of NPR’s reporting partnership with Kaiser Health News. Freelance journalist Bram Sable-Smith can be found on Twitter: @besables.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)