Articles by admin

No Image

Congress Reaches Deal To Fund Government Through September

Congressional negotiators are reporting an agreement has been reached on a massive $1 trillion-plus spending bill that would fund the day-to-day operations of virtually every federal agency through Oct. 1. The House and Senate have until Friday at midnight to pass the measure to avert a government shutdown.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

With Friday’s deadline looming, Congressional negotiators have reached a new agreement on a bill to keep the government open through September 30th, NPR’s Susan Davis confirms.

On Sunday night, details of the deal were not yet public.

Last Friday, Congress bought a week’s time to finalize the bipartisan agreement when lawmakers in the House and Senate approved a short-term spending bill that averted a shutdown on Saturday — President Trump’s 100th day in office.

The agreement follows a tense week of dealmaking on Capitol Hill that led the Trump administration to concede on two sticking points.

On Monday, Trump dropped his demand that the spending bill include a down-payment for his wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats, who flexed their leverage in spending negotiations, refused to support any bill that included wall funding. And Wednesday, the White House said it would not stop paying federal subsidies to health insurers that help cover low-income Americans under the Affordable Care Act.

The agreement includes billions in funding for defense and border security, NPR’s Geoff Bennett reports, but scraps some of Trump’s key budget proposals, including his long-promised border wall with Mexico.

“The spending package also includes a nearly $70 million reimbursement to law enforcement agencies for costs incurred helping to protect President Trump and the first family,” Geoff says.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi praised Democrats’ wins, which included increased funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program and a $2 billion boost to the National Institutes of Health, which Trump proposed slashing. The spending bill also gives additional funding to combating opioid abuse and for summer school Pell Grants.

Lawmakers have until midnight on Friday to pass the deal to keep the federal government funded.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

ESPN Continues To Struggle As Spectators Cut The Cord On Cable

Bloomberg reporter Max Chafkin talks about the future of ESPN as the network behemoth sees lower profits. This past week the sports media hub let approximately 100 employees go, including big names.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

There’s some news about sports news we want to talk more about. For years, ESPN has been the big name in sports broadcasting showing live events, reporting news, hosting talk shows about sports, airing documentaries about sports. But the network has also been making news itself for losing millions of subscribers in recent years and in the wake of that, losing hundreds of staff.

Last week, there was another layoff – some 100 employees were let go, including well-known names who covered the NFL and college hoops and so on. We were wondering why this is happening and why it matters, so we called Max Chafin. He’s a writer for Bloomberg Businessweek. He’s been writing about all this. We reached him in Vancouver where he’s attending the TED conference. Max, thanks so much for taking time out of the conference to talk with us.

MAX CHAFKIN: Thanks for having me.

MARTIN: So last week’s layoffs are just the latest. There was a massive layoff in 2015 like some 300 staffers were let go. Why is this round of layoffs getting so much attention? And why is all this happening?

CHAFKIN: So the reason this is getting attention is because these are in some cases well-known names. These are people who were on-air talent – combination of people who are on Sports Center which is ESPN’s kind of signature sports highlights show – it’s actually the first show that ever aired on ESPN – and you have some sort of beat reporter.

So these are people that fans know about, and the other reason that this is getting attention is because it’s part of this long-running story that we’ve been seeing playing out over the last few years where ESPN which for a time was probably the most powerful entity in all of sports and maybe arguably the most powerful entity in all of media has now been suddenly laid low by what’s known in the industry as cord-cutting which is to say people who are deciding not to subscribe to cable anymore which cuts directly to their bottom line.

MARTIN: ESPN obviously is kind of pushing back against this idea that the network has been kind of knocked off its lofty perch, for example, you know, Scott Van Pelt, one of their big stars has been very vocal about this. He says that there really is no near competitor. They still are making billions of dollars, and they have like hundreds of thousands of subscribers and still get more per subscriber than any other entity. So what’s the big deal?

CHAFKIN: That’s all true. I mean, ESPN is one of those businesses that is like so good it should be, you know, illegal. They don’t just get more money per subscriber than anybody else, they get, I think, more than double anybody else. So the thing that is a little bit troubling is the trend. And ESPN has been dealing with these subscriber losses in recent months that are historically enormous – losing more than half a million subscribers in a single month.

And the other thing that’s happening to them is that their costs have gone up a lot in recent years, so a single Monday night football game – just the rights to show Monday night football on a single night costs more than, like, an entire season of “Game Of Thrones.” So they’re in this kind of box where on one hand, their costs are going up and their revenues are not going up as much as they’re accustomed to. And so that’s putting them in this position where they have to start cutting.

MARTIN: So, Max, before we let you go, there are some who might be listening to our conversation and say why do I care about that? And what would you say?

CHAFKIN: That’s kind of a good point. But I do think that the thought of ESPN being diminished or sports in our culture being diminished would be unfortunate. I mean, it’s a big part of how a lot of us go through our lives and understand things about the world and things about ourselves and go through these wild, emotional swings. And if that were to all go away, I mean, that would be really sad.

And the other thing is probably worth saying is that ESPN does do some amazing journalism. The O.J. documentary “O.J.: Made In America” won an Academy Award and was obviously about this running back who’d ran a lot of yards, but it also kind of gave you this story of race in Los Angeles. That was new to a lot of people and was important. So I think if they were to go away would be very unfortunate.

MARTIN: That was Bloomberg reporter Max Chafkin He was kind enough to speak to us from Vancouver where he’s attending the TED conference. Max Chafkin, thanks so much for speaking with us.

CHAFKIN: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2017 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

The Call-In: Your Stories About Veterans Affairs

This week’s Call-In is about the Department of Veterans Affairs: stories from veterans about getting health care and ideas for reforming the whole agency.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

And this is the Call-In. Today we’re talking about veterans’ health care. In recent years, the VA has developed a reputation for red tape, long wait times and lapses in care. So we asked you to share your stories about getting the care you need from the VA.

MATT SIMMONS: Hey there, NPR. My name is Matt Simmons (ph), retired Army Sergeant.

CLAYTON MCARTHUR: This is Clayton McArthur (ph). I’m from Tuscaloosa, Ala.

CHRISTINA VERDAROSA: My name is Christina Verdarosa (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: I’m an Army veteran.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: Marine Corps veteran with PTSD.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: I’m a Vietnam veteran with three different service-connected disabilities.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: We have some of the best doctors in the world. We just don’t have enough of them.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: My care was so bad that they couldn’t even perform the necessary surgeries to save my life, and they had to outsource it.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: Tell me, you don’t have a wait times when you set up something in the civilian world.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #5: My experience with VA health care has been pretty good, actually. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #6: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #3: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #4: Bye.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: NPR’s Quil Lawrence reports on Veterans Affairs, and he joins us now. Hey, Quil.

QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Hi, Lulu.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I want to start with a pretty simple question. How many people get their care through the VA, and what determines how people qualify?

LAWRENCE: Sure. There are about 20 million vets in the United States, most of them from earlier eras – World War II, Vietnam – when there was a draft. About 9 million of them are enrolled in VA health care. About 6 million of those are sort of regular yearly users of VA health care.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: That’s a huge system.

LAWRENCE: Yeah it is. It’s the largest single-payer system in the country. Most vets can qualify for it if they have a service-connected injury. If they are five years after having served in the recent wars, they can make it. There’s also an income threshold. So the VA more or less says if you’re a vet, you should apply, and we’ll let you know if you’re eligible, but most – many vets are.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right, I want to have you listen to some of the calls that we got. We got a ton of messages like this one from Joyce Davenport (ph) of Ocklawaha, Fla. Let’s listen.

JOYCE DAVENPORT: I have been a patient of the VA since my discharge back in the 70s, and I have had only wonderful experiences with them. They have gotten me through some very rough times. I’ve received 100 percent of my medical care from them, and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate them being there.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I should say the vast majority of the people who called in were really happy with their VA care. Are vets mostly satisfied?

LAWRENCE: Yeah. And I can hear the surprise in your voice. And that’s, I suppose, partly due to the fact that negative headlines are what really run the media. So…

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No.

LAWRENCE: (Laughter) Yes, it’s true. I’m not surprised by that at all. Even people who are having problems say the bureaucracy of getting their care or getting a disability rating, getting things – sort of getting in the door – they will say, well, but my doc at the VA is wonderful. So VA, in studies, rates as good or better than in the private sector in most areas of health care. Although, the question really is, compared to what? What care would this veteran be getting in the private sector if the VA wasn’t there?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK, we’re going to come to that in a minute. But first, you mentioned something, which is that the VA has gotten a lot of negative press – long wait times, shortages of doctors, and we got calls about that, too. Listen.

MARK COYUS: My name is Mark Coyus (ph), and I am a Marine Corps veteran calling from Denver, Colo. I think that the VA is overworked, understaffed and underpaid. With the state of the world and how much our veterans sacrifice for us with so little in return, the status quo is unacceptable for both them and VA caregivers.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK, so what have been the biggest problems?

LAWRENCE: The VA is a massive bureaucracy. It’s got 360,000 employees. They literally invented the term red tape at VA, and there were horrible backlogs when a lot of recent vets were coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2014, a scandal kind of came to a head about senior managers who had been lying about their statistics – about how fast they were seeing veterans. And there were some somewhat misleading headlines about veterans who were dying while they were waiting for care. And that brought about calls for reform, which were quite genuine but also somewhat politically motivated, where VA health care, which is the largest example of government-run health care in the country, became kind of a proxy battle for people in Congress who love the idea of government health care against people who hate the idea of government-run health care.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: There’s been a lot of effort made to improve veterans’ care, and this is a bipartisan issue. Congress passed legislation a few years ago to make it easier for veterans to access that private care. Can you bring us up to speed on this? What does it mean for the VA system?

LAWRENCE: So again, in response to this scandal in 2014, Congress passed a law called the Veterans’ Choice Act. They wanted to get something set up quick but, as a result, it’s been a real mixed bag. It was a system so that veterans, if they had been waiting too long or if they lived too far from a VA, they could just go out to a private doctor get their care, and the VA would pay for it. The result in many cases was just another maddening layer of red tape.

Sometimes it took longer to get an appointment in the private sector than it would have originally at the VA. But the VA’s always done some referrals for private care. This month, President Trump signed an order extending the Veterans’ Choice program just as kind of a stopgap because it was about to expire in August. But we’re expecting Congress and the VA to work on a way to streamline this process. And they say they’re going to pass that sometime in the fall.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I want to play you this message we got from Anna Smith (ph) who’s worried about the VA’s future.

ANNA SMITH: I fear that some changes that people are proposing, such as privatizing parts of it and that sort of thing, is just going to ruin a good deal for those of us who are lucky enough to be able to use the services of the VA.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So you’ve talked about this political football of people pro and against sort of socialized medicine, if you will. What kind of support is there for privatization?

LAWRENCE: So no one will say they want privatization. All of the veterans organizations say that they’re against it. The new secretary of the VA, Dr. David Shulkin, says he’s against privatization. Now, that doesn’t stop some people from claiming that there is sort of a Trojan horse here, where this Veterans’ Choice program of allowing vets to go into the private sector is an attempt to bleed resources away from the VA into private care, which is much more expensive, and that would sap the VA’s resources and make the care even worse and lead to this sort of spiral.

The VA is supposed to be this sort of holy vow to take care of veterans. Abraham Lincoln said that it was created for those who have borne the battle and their widow and their orphan. On the other side are people who say, well, the VA can be a lot leaner with strategic use of the private sector in remote places – in places where there’s too much demand on their clinics. This is a battle that we’re going to see continue to play itself out with a lot of people who sincerely studied VA health care and then a lot of people who have a political agenda, as well.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right, that’s NPR’s Quil Lawrence. Thanks so much.

LAWRENCE: Thanks, Lulu.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And next week on the Call-In, we want to hear your stories and questions about airline travel. How has flying been recently? Do you have any tips or tricks for navigating airlines and airports? If you work for an airline, tell us about your job. What questions do you have about the airline industry and where it’s headed? Call in at 202-216-9217. Leave us a voicemail with your full name, where you’re from, and your experience, and we may use it on the air. That number again – 202-216-9217.

Copyright © 2017 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

Saturday Sports: Layoffs At ESPN, Star High School Baseball Pitcher

ESPN recently let go of about 100 employees. The company faces declining subscriptions as people switch to view sports online. Also a high school pitcher is facing big expectations, maybe too big.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Finally, it’s time for sports.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: And I guess a hundred is kind of a theme for the news portions of today’s program and that same number shook the sports world as ESPN let go of about a hundred employees this week, including producers and on-air personalities as more people watch sports online while ESPN still pays enormous amounts of money for broadcast rights. But has the network also gotten over its skis on other matters? NPR’s Tom Goldman joins us. Morning, Tom.

TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Hi, Scott, welcome back.

SIMON: Thank you. Good to be back. Although, I had fun, too. Not to drag politics into sports, but there are some people who believe ESPN has done just that and may have lost viewers because of it.

GOLDMAN: Yeah, there are. They say ESPN leans left, and that’s driven away Conservative sports fans. Conservative commentators and bloggers cite lots of coverage of Caitlyn Jenner and transgender issues, lots of coverage of Colin Kaepernick and his anthem protests. Although, I watched a lot of that and not all was supportive of Kaepernick.

ESPN also has made visible moves to promote diversity, pulling – putting more women and people of color in prominent on-air positions. ESPN’s public editor named Jim Brady acknowledged in a tweet this week that politics is a small cause for ESPN’s problems. But he also wrote in a column, a few weeks ago, the network isn’t going to stick to sports, and it’ll continue covering the fusion of sports and culture and politics.

SIMON: I’ve been in the sports world for a couple of weeks, as you know, on book tours, in and out of sports studios. And I know the feeling there seems to be this is something much bigger for ESPN because it has all these long-term top-dollar broadcast rights while more and more people are just cutting the cord and streaming sports online.

GOLDMAN: Yeah. I think there’s general agreement those are the main causes according to Nielsen data. ESPN has lost more than 10 million subscribers in the past five years. And at the same time, as you mentioned, ESPN is paying billions in rights fees to broadcast NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, college sports.

You know, it’s not certain whether the layoffs can help recoup losses or if they’re more of a signal to shareholders that ESPN is taking the losses seriously and trying to streamline. Either way, Scott, the network has lost some talented journalists. And you hope they find outlets to continue their great work.

SIMON: Have to ask about the cover of Sports Illustrated.

GOLDMAN: Were you on?

SIMON: You know, no. Maybe regionally, maybe in the Midwest, maybe even in Chicago…

GOLDMAN: (Laughter).

SIMON: …With my word processor as they say. But in any event, it’s a 17-year-old pitcher out of Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, Calif. His name is Hunter Greene. And the cover says, is he baseball’s LeBron or the new Babe?

Now, look, I have seen video of Hunter Greene. I am excited about him. But is it wise to hang this line around the neck of a gifted young man?

GOLDMAN: Little bit of pressure? Of course, LeBron James hit the cover of SI years ago with the words, the chosen one, and that worked out pretty well. You know, we are always so ready to christen the youngest as the next greatest of all time, but we need to remember greatness, winning, usually takes time.

It’s a small sample size but I think relevant. In the NBA playoffs, four of the first five teams to win opening playoff series had older starting lineups based on the average age of the starting five. So age matters.

SIMON: Yeah. I mean, LeBron is a good example, by the way, now that he’s in his 30s. Before we go, any quick nice stories that you noticed in the NFL draft?

GOLDMAN: We are so NFL obsessed, Scott. Seems like every player drafted is a noteworthy story in his new city. I will pluck out one, though – quarterback Deshaun Watson drafted by Houston this week. When he was 11, he and his mom and siblings moved from public housing into a Habitat for Humanity house. It was presented to them by NFL player Warrick Dunn, one of the most charitably-minded athletes ever. Watson was drafted 12th by the Houston – same draft position Warrick Dunn went in 1997.

SIMON: NPR’s Tom Goldman, thanks so much.

GOLDMAN: You’re welcome.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: You’re listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News.

Copyright © 2017 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

Examining Trump's Record On Trade

When the president speaks the world listens. Adam Behsudi of Politico talks with NPR’s Scott Simon about how Donald Trump’s outspoken commentary is affecting international trade with the U.S.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

President Trump signs another executive order today as he travels to Harrisburg, Pa., to celebrate his 100th day in office. This EO, as they’re called in D.C., directs his administration to review trade agreements for violations and abuses. A few weeks ago, a different executive order focused more on imbalances. Candidate Donald Trump promised to negotiate better trade deals for the United States or to rip them up. So he pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But he kept the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had savaged on the campaign trail.

And he’s called a current trade deal with South Korea unacceptable even as North Korea menaces South Korea. Adam Behsudi covers trade for Politico. Speaking over Skype, he points to the real world effects that presidential commentary, like Trump’s on South Korea, has around the world.

ADAM BEHSUDI: Well, I mean, I think we saw the value of the won go down and that spooked, probably, the market there. So yeah, these statements definitely do have an effect in the real world when they are said.

SIMON: Yeah. And is it a bad deal, as you see it? What does President Trump see that so disadvantageous to the U.S.?

BEHSUDI: So the vice president went to South Korea just recently. And apparently, in a meeting with U.S. businesses in Seoul, he highlighted the fact that the trade deficit had doubled in the five years and that there is still too many barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services. So he said the administration will review and possibly reform the deal.

SIMON: On this continent, the president, at one point, of course, had said that he was going to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA. But then he spoke to the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico and decided to try to work things out. What do the administrations in Ottawa and Mexico City make of that – a tough negotiating position on behalf of the U.S. or what?

BEHSUDI: Well, I mean, I think the reports kind of noted that Mexico very explicitly said we’re not going to negotiate with a gun to our head and meaning that this threat of withdrawal won’t bring us to the table, won’t make it a constructive conversation. And Canada is – you know, they’re playing it cool. They’re putting out very calming sort of high-level statements.

And I think we’re going to see a lot of Canada and Mexico strategizing together in terms of how to deal with this new relationship they have. And I think that there’s definitely a lot of that happening when that news broke on Wednesday.

SIMON: Well, Mr. Behsudi, as you see it, what are some areas that – I’ll put it this way – could stand some refinement in NAFTA that the United States might find more advantageous and that Canada and Mexico would accept?

BEHSUDI: Sure. I mean, NAFTA is – was negotiated in 19 – you know, the early ’90s and that was predating the Internet, predating digital trade, Internet commerce. So that’s something that probably can be updated and that all three sides – all three businesses in all three countries are looking forward to.

SIMON: And I guess a question that – I almost hesitate to ask, but are trade deficits always bad for an economy? Do they open up opportunities?

BEHSUDI: Yes, it can definitely be argued they are, you know, not – it’s not a binary, black and white. Deficit is bad. A surplus is good.

SIMON: Well help us understand that if you can. Is there a practical example?

BEHSUDI: There’s actually a fight going on right now with Canada over lumber. And the U.S. lumber producers argue that – have had brought a case – they’ve basically taken a case against Canadian lumber imports saying that the lumber up there is subsidized. It’s underpriced, and it’s being dumped into our market to the competitive detriment of U.S. producers. But then if you look at the homebuilders side, you know, lumber is an important material for houses.

And you can argue that the housing industry employs a lot of people in a lot of different ways. And if you’re, you know, stopping that from happening or you’re making it harder for them to have a selection of lumber at a competitive price, you know, you’re going to hurt that industry.

SIMON: But then the housing people might have to buy more expensive lumber and that could increase the cost of houses, which Americans don’t like either.

BEHSUDI: Right, right. Exactly. So it’s a very kind of nuance balance or dance that is happening. And, you know, trade makes a good sort of talking point on the campaign trail. But when you really look at the nuance, you know, there are winners. There are losers. And, you know, there are different degrees of losers and winners. And it’s kind of a very complex view of how the economy works.

SIMON: Adam Behsudi, who is a trade reporter with Politico. Thanks so much for being with us.

BEHSUDI: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2017 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

American Medical Association President On GOP Health Care Plan

Republicans have revived efforts to overhaul health care. NPR’s Scott Simon asks American Medical Association President Andrew Gurman what he’d like to see in a health care bill.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

It’s President Trump’s 100th day in office. He’s still working on a day one promise – to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that was the hallmark of the Obama administration. President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan renewed their push this week. They hope to bridge the divide between hard-line conservatives and moderates in the House Republican caucus. One group that remains unconvinced is the American Medical Association. Dr. Andrew Gurman is the AMA’s president, and he joins us now from Omaha, where he’s traveling. Dr. Gurman, thanks so much for being with us.

ANDREW GURMAN: My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

SIMON: What makes you uncomfortable about the language so far that is being circulated on Capitol Hill that’s being proposed?

GURMAN: Well, we had a number of problems with the original bill, the AHCA, and we think that this proposed amendment just makes it worse.

SIMON: How so?

GURMAN: Well, what it does is it does away with the prohibition against rating on pre-existing conditions, meaning that if you have a pre-existing condition – and about a third of us do – that you could be charged a much higher rate for insurance. So let me give you an example. Somebody is working, they have insurance, and they have a catastrophic illness – cancer, some other calamity. They have to stop working because they need to get their condition taken care of. If they’re out for 60 days, they lose their insurance. And now, they have to pay whatever the insurance company decides is the premium because they are – now have a pre-existing condition. Somebody in that situation may never be able to accumulate enough money to pay the very high premiums and get back on the cycle of having continuous insurance coverage.

SIMON: Now, of course, Speaker Ryan looks forward to what are called now high-risk pools. These would be plans that are essentially devoted to try and accommodate people who have expensive and pre-existing conditions. You’re not convinced that would do it.

GURMAN: Well, I think that the problem with those is in the fine print. First of all, very often they are not adequately funded. And many of the high-risk pools have lifetime caps, lifetime limits.

SIMON: What kind of reforms would you like to make?

GURMAN: Well, we think that the individual insurance markets need to be stabilized. There needs to be certainty. Right now, the insurance companies are putting together their plans for rating the 2018 insurance products, and they have no certainty from Congress regarding the support for insurance premiums for lower income people. Without knowing those, they don’t know how to price their policies, and they’re going to price them very high. So the bit – that’s the biggest thing that needs to be addressed right now.

SIMON: Dr. Gurman, I move to ask you a question, both as a physician with a practice and the head of the AMA, how much time do you have to spend on matters that have nothing to do with medicine?

GURMAN: Well, unfortunately, a lot. We know from doing detailed studies where we actually follow doctors and minute to minute with a stopwatch find out what they’re doing. The doctors are spending less than half of their time actually taking care of patients. So it’s a big problem.

SIMON: And how would you reduce that bureaucracy, though? Because, you know, bureaucracies run on (laughter) run on a paper trail in a sense.

GURMAN: Well, yeah, I think that we have to work on the electronic health records, make some of these reporting requirements and some of the documentation requirements more seamless, things that will fit into the normal workflow of a physician practice. You know, medicine is one of the only industries where technology has not led to efficiencies and improvements. Technology has simply been a tremendous burden for a lot of practices.

SIMON: Yeah. Do I get what amounts to the bottom line of your advice correctly in that in the absence of a better idea, you and the AMA would be comfortable sticking with the Affordable Care Act?

GURMAN: There are lots of things in the Affordable Care Act that need to be improved, but we would be comfortable improving them rather than throwing the whole thing out, particularly since we have no indication of what it would be replaced with.

SIMON: Dr. Andrew Gurman is president of the American Medical Association. Doctor, thanks so much for being with us.

GURMAN: It’s an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much.

Copyright © 2017 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

Best of the Week: 'Unbreakable' Sequel Greenlit, Jeff Goldblum Joins 'Jurassic World 2' and More


No Image

Episode 553: The Dollar At The Center Of The World

English economist John Maynard Keynes attends the United Nations International Monetary and Financial Conference at the Mount Washington Hotel in New Hampshire.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Note: This episode originally ran in 2014.

As World War II was ending, world leaders realized they had a problem. Countries no longer knew how to trade with each other. Their economies were devastated. So representatives from 44 nations gathered in the small town of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to come up with the solution.

It came down to two different plans put forward by two very different men. One was the most famous economist in the world. A British aristocrat. The other was an American that no one remembers. But it was the American that won the day and put the U.S. dollar right in the middle of world trade.

Today on the show, how the US won. The story involves a carefully laid trap, late night dancing and copious amounts of alcohol.

Music: “Cool Down” and “Je Suis Juste Un Bad Boy.” Find us: Twitter/ Facebook.

Subscribe to our show on iTunes or PocketCast.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

For Some, Pre-Hospice Care Can Be A Good Alternative To Hospitals

At Gerald Chinchar’s home in San Diego, Calif., Nurse Sheri Juan (right) checks his arm for edema that might be a sign that his congestive heart failure is getting worse.

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Gerald Chinchar, a Navy veteran who loves TV Westerns, isn’t quite at the end of his life, but the end is probably not far away. The 77-year-old’s medications fill a dresser drawer, and congestive heart failure puts him at high risk of emergency room visits and long hospital stays. He fell twice last year, shattering his hip and femur, and now gets around his San Diego home in a wheelchair.

Above all, Chinchar hopes to avoid another long stint in the hospital. He still likes to go watch his grandchildren’s sporting events and play blackjack at the casino.

“If they told me I had six months to live, or [could instead] go to the hospital and last two years, I’d say leave me home,” he said. “That ain’t no trade for me.”

Most aging people would choose to stay home in their last years of life. But for many, it doesn’t work out: They go in and out of hospitals, getting treated for flare-ups of various chronic illnesses. It’s a massive problem that costs the health care system billions of dollars and has galvanized health providers, hospital administrators and policymakers to search for solutions.

Sharp HealthCare, the San Diego health system where Chinchar receives care, has devised a way to fulfill his wishes and reduce costs at the same time. It’s a pre-hospice program called Transitions, designed to give elderly patients the care they want at home and keep them out of the hospital.

Social workers and nurses from Sharp regularly visit patients in their homes to explain what they can expect in their final years, help them make end-of-life plans and teach them how to better manage their diseases. Physicians track their health and scrap unnecessary medications.

All the medicine Chinchar takes for his congestive heart failure and other ailments fills a kitchen drawer. “What we like to do as a palliative care program is streamline your medication list,” the nurse explained during a home visit. “They may be doing more harm than good.”

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Unlike hospice care, patients in this program don’t need to have a prognosis of six months or less to live, and they can continue getting treatment that is aimed at curing their illnesses, not just treating symptoms.

Before the Transitions program started, the only option for many patients in a health crisis was to call 911 and be rushed to the emergency room. Now, they can get round-the-clock access to nurses, one phone call away.

“Transitions is for just that point where people are starting to realize they can see the end of the road,” said Dr. Dan Hoefer, a San Diego palliative care and family practice physician, and one of the creators of the program. “We are trying to help them through that process,” he said, “so it’s not filled with chaos.”

The importance of programs like Transitions is likely to grow in coming years as 10,000 baby boomers — many with multiple chronic diseases — turn 65 every day. Transitions was among the first of its kind, but several such programs, formally known as home-based palliative care, have since opened around the country. They are part of a broader push to improve people’s health and reduce spending through better coordination of care and more treatment outside hospital walls.

But a huge barrier stands in the way of pre-hospice programs: There is no clear way to pay for them. Health providers typically get paid for office visits and procedures, and hospitals still get reimbursed for patients in their beds. The services provided by home-based palliative care don’t fit that model.

In recent years, however, pressure has mounted to continue moving away from traditional payment systems. The Affordable Care Act has established new rules and pilot programs that reward the quality of care, rather than the quantity. Those changes are helping to make home-based palliative care a more viable option.

In San Diego, Sharp’s palliative care program has a strong incentive to reduce the cost of caring for its patients, who are all in Medicare managed care. The nonprofit health organization receives a fixed amount of money per member each month, so it can pocket what it doesn’t spend on hospital stays and other costly medical interventions.

‘Something that works’

Palliative care focuses on relieving patients’ stress, pain and other symptoms as their health declines, and it helps them maintain their quality of life. It’s for people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, dementia and heart failure. The idea is for patients to get palliative care and then move into hospice care, but they don’t always make that transition.

The 2014 report “Dying in America,” by the Institute of Medicine, recommended that all people with serious advanced illness have access to palliative care. Many hospitals now have palliative care programs, delivered by teams of social workers, chaplains, doctors and nurses, for patients who aren’t yet ready for hospice. But until recently, few such efforts had opened beyond the confines of hospitals.

Kaiser Permanente set out to address this gap nearly 20 years ago, creating a home-based palliative care program that it tested in California and later in Hawaii and Colorado. Two studies by Kaiser and others found that participants were far more likely to be satisfied with their care and more likely to die at home than those not in the program. (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

One of the studies, published in 2007, found that 36 percent of people receiving palliative care at home were hospitalized in their final months, compared with 59 percent of those getting standard care. The overall cost of care for those who participated in the program was a third less than for those who didn’t.

“We thought, ‘Wow. We have something that works,'” said Susan Enguidanos, an associate professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California’s Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, who worked on both studies. “Immediately we wanted to go and change the world.”

But Enguidanos knew that Kaiser Permanente was unlike most health organizations. It was responsible for both insuring and treating its patients, so it had a clear financial motivation to improve care and control costs. Enguidanos said she talked to medical providers around the nation about this type of palliative care, but the concept didn’t take off at the time. Providers kept asking the same question: How do you pay for it without charging patients or insurers?

“I liken it to paddling out too soon for the wave,” she said. “We were out there too soon. … But we didn’t have the right environment, the right incentive.”

A bold idea, rooted in experience

Hoefer is a former hospice and home health medical director and has spent years treating elderly patients. He learned an important lesson when seeing patients in his office: Despite the medical care they received, “they were far more likely to be admitted to the hospital than make it back to see me.”

Doctors, nurses and social workers meet bimonthly to discuss patient cases for the Sharp HealthCare Transitions program in San Diego.

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

When his patients were hospitalized, many would decline quickly. Even if their immediate symptoms were treated successfully, they would sometimes leave the hospital less able to take care of themselves. They would get infections or suffer from delirium. Some would fall.

Hoefer’s colleague, Suzi Johnson, a nurse and administrator in Sharp’s hospice program, saw the opposite side of the equation. Patients admitted into hospice care would make surprising turnarounds once they stopped going to the hospital and started getting medical and social support at home, instead. Some lived longer than doctors had expected.

In 2005, the pair hatched a bold idea: What if they could design a home-based program for patients before they were eligible for hospice? Thus, Transitions was born. They modeled their new program in part on the Kaiser experiment, then set out to persuade doctors, medical directors and financial officers to try it. But they met resistance from physicians and hospital administrators who were used to getting paid for seeing patients.

“We were doing something that was really revolutionary, that really went against the culture of health care at the time,” Johnson said. “We were inspired by the broken system and the opportunity we saw to fix something.”

Despite the concerns, Sharp’s foundation board gave the pair a $180,000 grant to test out Transitions. And in 2007, they started with heart failure patients and later expanded the program to those with advanced cancer, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other progressive illnesses. They started to win over some doctors who appreciated having additional eyes on their patients, but they still encountered “some skepticism about whether it was really going to do any good for our patients,” said Dr. Jeremy Hogan, a neurologist with Sharp. “It wasn’t really clear to the group … what the purpose of providing a service like this was.”

Nevertheless, Hogan referred some of his dementia patients to the program and quickly realized that the extra support for them and their families meant fewer panicked calls and emergency room trips.

Hoefer said doctors started realizing home-based care made sense for these patients — many of whom were too frail to get to a doctor’s office regularly. “At this point in the patient’s life, we should be bringing health care to the patient, not the other way around,” he said.

Across the country, more doctors, hospitals and insurers are starting to see the value of home-based palliative care, said Kathleen Kerr, a health care consultant who researches palliative care.

“It is picking up steam,” she said. “You know you are going to take better care of this population, and you are absolutely going to have lower health care costs.”

Nurse Sheri Juan and social worker Mike Velasco, take health care to the Chinchars.

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Providers are motivated in part by a growing body of research. Two studies of Transitions in 2013 and 2016 reaffirmed that such programs save money. The second study, led by outside evaluators, showed it saved more than $4,200 per month on cancer patients and nearly $3,500 on those with heart failure.

The biggest differences occurred in the final two months of life, said one of the researchers, Brian Cassel, who is palliative care research director at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond.

A home visit tailored to each family

Nurse Sheri Juan and social worker Mike Velasco, who both work for Sharp, walked up a wooden ramp to the Chinchars’ front door one recent January morning. Juan rolled a small suitcase behind her containing a blood pressure cuff, a stethoscope, books, a laptop computer and a printer.

Late last year, Gerald Chinchar’s doctor recommended he enroll in Transitions, explaining that his health was in a “tenuous position.” Chinchar has nine grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. He has had breathing problems much of his life, suffering from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — ailments he partly attributes to the four decades he spent painting and sandblasting fuel tanks for work. Chinchar also recently learned he had heart failure.

“I never knew I had any heart trouble,” he said. “That was the only good thing I had going for me.”

Gerald Chinchar’s wife, Mary Jo (right), told the visiting nurse she especially appreciates getting the advice about what her husband should eat and drink. He doesn’t always listen to his wife, Mary Jo said. “It’s better to come from somebody else.”

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health New

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health New

Now he’s trying to figure out how to keep it from getting worse: How much should he drink? What is he supposed to eat?

That’s where Juan comes in. Her job is to make sure the Chinchars understand Gerald’s disease so he doesn’t have a flare-up that could send him to the emergency room. She sat beside the couple in their living room and asked a series of questions: Any pain today? How is your breathing?

Juan checked his blood pressure and examined his feet and legs for signs of more swelling. She looked through his medications and told him which ones the doctor wanted him to stop taking.

“What we like to do as a palliative care program is streamline your medication list,” she told him. “They may be doing more harm than good.”

His wife, Mary Jo Chinchar, said she appreciates the visits, especially the advice about what Gerald should eat and drink. Her husband doesn’t always listen to her, she said. “It’s better to come from somebody else.”

Growing acceptance of palliative care

Chinchar (left) is now 77. He told nurse Sheri Juan he never expected to live into old age. In his family, he said, “you’re an old-timer if you make 60.”

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Outpatient palliative care programs are cropping up in various forms. Some new ones are run by insurers, others by health systems or hospice organizations. Others are for-profit, including Aspire Health, which was started by former senator Bill Frist in 2013.

Sutter Health operates a project called Advanced Illness Management to help patients manage symptoms and medications and plan for the future. The University of Southern California and Blue Shield of California recently received a $5 million grant to provide and study outpatient care. “The climate has changed for palliative care,” said Enguidanos, the lead investigator on the USC-Blue Shield project.

Ritchie said she expects even more home-based programs in the years to come. “My expectation is that much of what is being done in the hospital won’t need to be done in the hospital anymore and it can be done in people’s homes,” she said.

Challenges remain, however. Some doctors are unfamiliar with the approach, and patients may be reluctant, especially those who haven’t clearly been told they have a terminal diagnosis. Now, some palliative care providers and researchers worry about the impact of President Donald Trump’s plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and revamp Medicare — efforts that seem to be back in play.

Gerald Chinchar, who grew up in Connecticut, said he never expected to live into old age. In his family, Chinchar said, “you’re an old-timer if you make 60.”

Chinchar said he gave up drinking and is trying to eat less of his favorite foods — steak sandwiches and fish and chips. He just turned 77, a milestone he credits partly to the pre-hospice program.

“If I make 80, I figured I did pretty good,” he said. “And if I make 80, I’ll shoot for 85.”

This story is part of NPR’s partnership with Kaiser Health News. KHN is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. You can follow Anna Gorman on Twitter: @annagorman.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Waffle House Founders Die Less Than 2 Months Apart

Waffle House founders Joe Rogers, center, and Tom Forkner, right, greet long time customer John Webb as they stop for a meal at a Waffle House restaurant in Norcross, Ga., in 2005.

Ric Feld/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Ric Feld/AP

In 1949, Thomas Forkner Sr. was in the real estate business when he helped Joe Rogers Sr. buy a house.

Rogers was working for the Toddle House restaurant chain and he convinced Forkner to join him in starting their own restaurant.

The two opened the first 24-hour Waffle House on Labor Day in 1955 in the Atlanta suburb of Avondale Estates.

By the time they sold the business in the late 1970s, the chain had grown to 400 restaurants.

The Atlanta-based company that owns the chain now has more than 1,500 locations.

Waffle House said in a statement that Forkner died Wednesday at age 98.

Rogers died March 3, seven weeks before Forkner. Rogers was 97.

On March 4, Forkner’s wife of 71 years, Martha, died. They got married 90 days after dating, according to Forkner’s obituary.

The Associated Press reports:

“Forkner was known to drop by the company headquarters regularly, up until a few weeks before his death.

“He would often drive there to have lunch with new manager trainees, said Waffle House Chairman Joe Rogers Jr., whose father started the company with Forkner.

” ‘Tom and my father had a handshake deal, and their partnership and friendship continued for more than 60 years,’ Joe Rogers said in a statement.”

Forkner was also an avid golfer. He was listed among the top 10 senior golfers four times by Golf Digest.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)