MENU

July 25, 2019

No Image

Health July 25, 2019

Litigation Over America’s Opioid Crisis Is Heating Up

NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly speaks with lawyer Mike Moore, who is representing several states, counties and cities that are suing opioid manufacturers.



MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

Litigation over the opioid crisis is heating up. A verdict in the first state case, Oklahoma, is expected next month. Meanwhile, in Ohio, a federal judge is overseeing litigation brought by more than 2,000 local governments – states, towns, counties – across the country.

Well, we’re going to spend these next few minutes with a man who has worked to convince all those governments to sue and who is working now to coordinate their efforts. A recent profile on “60 Minutes” called Mike Moore the unofficial commanding officer of opioid litigation in the U.S. And if his name sounds familiar, might be because he played a similar role two decades ago when he persuaded states to take on big tobacco.

Mike Moore, welcome back to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

MIKE MOORE: Thank you, Mary Louise. Glad to be here.

KELLY: So you represent several of the states that are suing – Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio – also, several of the counties and cities who are litigating. And I wonder – how hard has it been to get all of your different clients, which must have different laws, different aims – how hard has it been to get them all on the same page?

MOORE: Well, it’s taken a long time. The defendants in these cases, as you might imagine, are not anxious to go to trial. With the revelation of where all the pills went, you know, that’s been in the newspaper and TV recently, there’s really nowhere for them to hide. We know what the story is. We know who’s at fault. So it’s really time for folks to focus on the public health crisis and come together and solve the problem. I mean, litigation is great. But it really is, you know, a tool that is used to try to get the truth out and to try to hold people accountable.

KELLY: You said we know who’s at fault.

MOORE: Sure.

KELLY: But when I last interviewed you a couple of years ago, in 2017, you acknowledge there is plenty of blame to go around in the opioid crisis, from doctors who overprescribed to pharmacists who filled out all those prescriptions to the government that failed to regulate and so on. Just make the case as simply as you can, why should the drug companies – manufacturers and distributors – be the ones held accountable above all those other parties?

MOORE: Well, first off, because the manufacturers are the ones who made the most money…

KELLY: And presumably, who can also pay out in a big settlement.

MOORE: Yeah, billions of dollars. And truthfully, the manufacturers probably made less money than the distributors. The distributors really made a mother lode of money. And then the Walgreens, CVSes, Walmarts, Ride Aides – they made a lot of money, too, dispensing these drugs and didn’t take the steps that they should have. The Controlled Substance Act is there for a reason. These are controlled substances. And frankly, everybody failed to control the flow of these drugs.

KELLY: Yeah. I mean, these companies, as you know – to sum up their defense in a line is that these were controlled substances. These were legal substances sold to legit patients who had prescriptions.

MOORE: They are. But in our country, the law pretty much says you have to tell the truth. And it’s clear that Purdue Pharma and the other companies – Johnson & Johnson and others – they didn’t tell the truth about the addictive nature of these drugs or what they should be used for. You know, they’re fine for long-term cancer pain and those type things. But you’re not supposed to get a 60-day supply for a tooth extraction and the like. And that’s what they kind of marketed these things for.

KELLY: How big a payout are you looking for to count as a success?

MOORE: You know, I think a better way to say it is – what does it take to start saving lives? You know, how do we get naloxone, you know, the antidote for overdoses, out to everybody that needs it? How do we get buprenorphine and treatment drugs out? How do we get a prevention education program out there to try to reverse the negative statements that were made by these companies years ago?

KELLY: All right. What’s that number?

MOORE: Well, that number is going to be in the multi-multi-multibillions of dollars. But we need to do it now. We don’t need to do it five years from now.

KELLY: Are the pockets of the opioid manufacturers being targeted in these suits deep enough to make that kind of payout? My impression is they’re – they don’t have as much money as, say, big tobacco manufacturers who you were suing back in the ’90s.

MOORE: Yeah, Purdue Pharma is close to bankruptcy, probably rightfully so. Their OxyContin sales are way down. Sacklers have some money that can be retrieved. Johnson & Johnson is a huge pocket. Then the distributors are big pocketbooks. The Walgreens, the CVS are big pocketbooks, and they all have some responsibility.

KELLY: What about your personal goal out of all this, Mike Moore? And I ask because when you and I spoke before, you talked about how this feels personal to you – that members of your family have overdosed, friends of yours have overdosed.

MOORE: Yep. For me, I really want to do something that makes a difference in saving people’s lives.

KELLY: You also said that whatever money might flow to you, you would be would be happy to donate in the…

MOORE: Absolutely.

KELLY: …Service of public health. Is that still where you stand?

MOORE: Absolutely. You know, I’m doing this for one reason. I don’t need to do this anymore. And I’m trying to make this a public crisis rather than just a big lawsuit. This isn’t a lawsuit. This is something to try, frankly, to solve a public health epidemic.

KELLY: Lawyer Mike Moore talking there about the efforts, which he is leading, to hold prescription drugmakers and distributors accountable in court for the opioid epidemic.

Thank you.

MOORE: Thank you.

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

Sports July 25, 2019

The Future Of Baseball May Be Happening Already As Independent League Tests New Rules

The Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, in partnership with the major league is implementing new rules this season. It’s unclear though if these will impact the game at the highest levels.



MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

You wouldn’t know it at first glance, but the future of baseball may be happening at a cozy little ballpark in New Britain, Conn. That is where Major League Baseball, in partnership with an independent league, is experimenting with some unique innovations this season. Esteban Bustillos from member station WGBH in Boston reports.

(SOUNDBITE OF BASEBALL GAME AMBIANCE)

ESTEBAN BUSTILLOS, BYLINE: Just southwest of Hartford, the New Britain Bees of the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball are hosting the York Revolution on a scorcher of a midsummer evening. There’s everything you’d expect at a ballpark like this – hot dogs, cold beer and tickets you can get for eight bucks a pop.

(SOUNDBITE OF BASEBALL GAME AMBIANCE)

BUSTILLOS: But behind the scenes, the league is in the middle of an experiment that could change the way the game is played at the highest level. As part of a three-year agreement with Major League Baseball, the Atlantic League is testing out a series of rule changes to speed up the game, make it safer for players and give it more action. Some changes, like decreasing the amount of time between innings, are small, while others, like letting batters steal first on any wild pitch and having a radar-tracked strike zone are revolutionary. And they come as baseball is in a demographic crisis, with 9% of Americans listing it as their favorite sport to watch according to a Gallup poll released in 2018.

RICK WHITE: Baseball has tended to skew older in terms of its following, and this group of owners and the commissioner would like to see it start to skew younger.

BUSTILLOS: That’s Rick White, president of the Atlantic League. Of all the changes, the radar-tracked strike zone is probably the most eye-catching. It uses what’s called the Automated Ball-Strike System to determine each hitter’s strike zone and communicate whether a ball is inside or outside via an earpiece to the home plate umpire. It all stems from what White says is a constant pressure for accuracy in equity.

WHITE: Everyone in professional sports, but especially Major League Baseball, wants to create fairness and objectivity as opposed to a disparity between one player or another or their performance.

BUSTILLOS: Bees manager Mauro Gozzo is against some of the rule changes, but he likes the radar-tracked strike zones. Dealing with the grab bag of different strike zones is an everyday struggle for him as a manager.

MAURO GOZZO: As far as, you know, what you see from the umpires, it could change from the beginning of the game to the end of the game just on the intensity of the game.

BUSTILLOS: Bees pitcher Cory Riordan knows there are baseball purists who cling to tradition, but he says there’s also an evolution to the game.

GOZZO: I think if we’re more accepting of change and embrace the change, then I think, you know, there’s a future. But if you’re going to be constantly arguing against what the game has become and – it’s wasted to me. It’s wasted energy.

BUSTILLOS: On the other hand, Revolution shortstop Ryan Dent says the new rules have taken some getting used to.

RYAN DENT: It’s really you’re just accustomed to playing a certain brand of baseball for, you know, 10, 12 years of pro ball. And then all of a sudden, you know, you’re not going to be comfortable with it within a month or two, you know. So you got to give it time.

BUSTILLOS: Joe Trombetta was sitting in the first few rows behind home plate. He’s been coming to Bees games since the team started playing in 2016. He wasn’t aware of all the rule changes, but he was in favor of having a standardized strike zone.

JOE TROMBETTA: Well, I think it helps make things more accurate, you know. There’s no doubts, and there’s no arguing.

BUSTILLOS: As the game wore on, there weren’t any of the flashy changes immediately visible. No one stole first, and the new strike zone system wasn’t in use. But starting today, it will be implemented at every Atlantic League game. Major League Baseball will evaluate all the changes at the end of the season.

For NPR News, I’m Esteban Bustillos in Connecticut.

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

Business July 25, 2019

Economists Say Trump Administration Is Overpaying Farmers For Trade Losses

A worker at the port in Nantong, in China’s eastern Jiangsu province, displays soybeans imported from Ukraine. Imports of soybeans from the U.S., once China’s biggest supplier, have dropped massively since a trade war between the U.S. and China began in 2018.

STR/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

STR/AFP/Getty Images

If you’re caught in a trade war, it’s good to be a farmer.

Lots of American companies have lost sales since the Trump administration and China embarked on the current cycle of tariff-raising and retaliation. Few, if any, have been compensated as handsomely as farmers.

This week, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue unveiled details of the latest aid package for farmers who’ve lost export sales. It includes $14.5 billion in direct payments to farmers, another $1.4 billion in government purchases of agricultural commodities that will be distributed to food banks, and $100 million in loose change to promote exports to new countries. This is on top of $12 billion in aid that the Trump administration distributed last year.

Farmers will receive payments simply based on how much land they’ve planted with crops that are affected by tariffs, how much milk they produce or how many hogs they own. “We want sign-up to be easy for producers [and] straightforward,” said Bill Northey, undersecretary for farm production and conservation, “[so] that we can get these payments to them to address the challenges that they have due to these tariffs.”

In his remarks, Perdue portrayed the payments as a modest contribution toward the enormous losses that farmers have endured.

Agricultural economists, however, disagreed. “This is going to be a lot of money pumped into the Corn Belt,” said Scott Irwin at the University of Illinois.

Even last year’s smaller aid package probably overpaid farmers for their trade-related losses, according to a new analysis from the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. The study, as first reported by the The Food and Environment Reporting Network’s Ag Insider, looked specifically at soybeans, because soybeans were hit hardest by the trade dispute, and most of the aid package went to soybean farmers.

According to the new study, Chinese tariffs caused the price of soybeans grown in the U.S. to drop by $.78 per bushel. Last year’s aid package, however, paid farmers more than twice that much — $1.65 per bushel of soybeans that each farmer produced.

Pat Westhoff, the main author of the new study, wrote in an email to NPR that the USDA calculated farmers’ losses by estimating their lost sales due to foreign tariffs. The reality, he says, is more complex: As China bought soybeans in Brazil, rather than the United States, other buyers stepped in to purchase more soybeans in the United States, rather than Brazil. After all the reshuffling, American soybean farmers saw a rather modest decline in the prices they received for their soybeans.

Irwin agrees. “Most agricultural economists would probably put the damage at $.80 to $1 per bushel” of soybeans, he says. That’s about half what the USDA paid soybean farmers last year.

Secretary Perdue, in rolling out the new aid program, dismissed that analysis. “If you go out and survey farmers, you won’t find any that think they are being made whole by this [aid],” he said. “I guess some academicians can do whatever they want to with numbers, but they aren’t here on the ground producing and struggling to pay the bills.”

This year, the USDA calculated its aid differently in order to keep farmers from simply pursuing more government aid money by planting more soybeans. Instead, farmers will get paid a set amount per acre, as long as they’ve planted a crop that’s eligible for aid. The USDA set different payment rates for each county in the country, apparently based on which crops typically are grown in each area, and whether those crops have been affected by tariffs.

Irwin says that, at first glance, the payouts look “generous.” Farmers in many counties in Illinois will be paid more than $80 per acre. “That’s a lot of money!” Irwin says.

Two days ago, the USDA was in a distinctly less generous mood when it came to another group of people who get government aid. The agency proposed new rules for the SNAP program — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps — that could prevent about 3 million people from continuing to receive benefits. That change would reduce spending on SNAP by about $2.5 billion a year.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)