Category: health care

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

    The drug potassium chloride has been on the market for decades, widely prescribed to help the nerves and muscles — including the heart — function properly in patients with low potassium. Too much of it, however, can kill you.

    At high doses, it is so effective at stopping the heart that some states have used injections of it for executions.

    So the danger was obvious in May, when Indian drugmaker Glenmark Pharmaceuticals recalled nearly 47 million capsules for a dire flaw: The extended-release medication wasn’t dissolving properly, a defect that could lead to a perilous spike in potassium. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration deemed it the most serious kind of recall, a defective drug that had the potential to kill people.

    At the time of the recall, the FDA, which is charged with protecting Americans from unsafe drugs, was already on notice about troubles at Glenmark.

    The Mumbai-based company had four recalls in the previous eight months and would have two more in following months, all for the same dangerous tendency for pills to dissolve improperly. All the faulty medications were made at the same Glenmark factory in central India, government records show.

    Yet the FDA hasn’t stopped Glenmark from shipping pills from the factory to American patients. Nor did it send investigators to the Indian facility to figure out what had gone wrong. Its last inspection of the plant was more than four years ago, before the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “They should have been camping out there,” said Patrick Stone, a former FDA inspector who now advises pharmaceutical companies.

    Glenmark’s String of Recalls

    In less than 12 months, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals had seven recalls for drugs that didn’t dissolve correctly. All were made at the same factory in central India, records show.

    Oct. 20, 2023: Recall of deferasirox tablets for oral suspension, which treat iron overload from blood transfusions

    Oct. 23, 2023: Recall of ranolazine extended-release tablets, which treat chest pain

    March 26, 2024: Recall of diltiazem hydrochloride extended-release capsules, which treat high blood pressure

    April 17, 2024: Another recall of diltiazem hydrochloride extended-release capsules

    May 29, 2024: Recall of potassium chloride extended-release capsules, which treat low potassium. This recall was expanded on June 24, 2024, and announced by the FDA the next day.

    June 28, 2024: Recall of pravastatin sodium tablets, which treat high cholesterol

    July 31, 2024: Recall of indomethacin extended-release capsules, which treat rheumatoid arthritis

    Since the May recall, Glenmark told regulators it has received reports of three deaths, three hospitalizations and four other serious problems in patients who took the recalled potassium chloride capsules, FDA records show. It’s unclear if the drug was the cause.

    A federal lawsuit alleges that the pills were responsible for the death of Mary Louise Cormier, a 91-year-old woman in Maine. A letter informing her of the recall arrived three weeks after she died.

    The FDA’s anemic response underscores longstanding weaknesses in the way the agency oversees the safety of generic medications manufactured in foreign factories. The agency failed to act on clear patterns of trouble, was slow to warn the public about the potentially deadly pills and never mentioned that millions of them had been sold to consumers.

    From the day of the first recall in October 2023 through the next 12 months, the FDA oversaw 22 recalls for drugs that didn’t dissolve correctly and could cause harm, agency data shows. That single Glenmark factory was responsible for more than 30%, a ProPublica analysis found.

    “The FDA is always late to respond,” Stone said. “This should have been dealt with immediately.”

    The FDA has long said it polices foreign plants by prioritizing inspections based on risk. For routine inspections, the agency uses a computer model that weighs prior recalls, the date and results of the most recent inspection, and other factors. FDA employees decide when to send investigators for more urgent visits based on signs that something is amiss. But the agency would not explain why Glenmark’s string of recalls didn’t meet that threshold.

    What’s more, federal regulators were aware of significant deficiencies at three of Glenmark’s four other factories that have made drugs for the U.S. market, FDA records show. The breakdowns were so grave at one plant that the FDA barred drugs made there from entering the country.

    The FDA’s failings date back decades. In her book “Bottle of Lies,” journalist Katherine Eban exposed the agency’s struggles to identify and combat corruption in the global pharmaceutical industry amid a huge demand for cheap generic drugs in the U.S. The book detailed how a whistleblower in 2005 started feeding the FDA insider details about unsafe medications at a different Indian drugmaker, but it took federal officials almost nine years to wrap up a criminal case.

    The majority of the factories making drugs for U.S. patients are in other countries, many of which churn out the generics that make up more than 90% of prescriptions filled here. Yet the investigative arm of Congress has repeatedly found that the FDA has too few inspectors to adequately oversee these plants.

    The consequences of lax oversight were unmistakable when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2023 that four people died and others had to have their eyeballs removed after they used contaminated eyedrops made by a different Indian company. The FDA had never inspected that factory before people got sick.

    Fed up with what they called “institutional weaknesses and dysfunction” in the oversight of foreign drugmakers, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in June demanded that the head of the FDA turn over documents about inspections in India and China.

    A spokesperson for the FDA declined to answer questions about the Glenmark recalls or inspection history, saying the agency could not publicly discuss potential or ongoing compliance matters. “When there are quality issues identified that could result in harm, patients should rest assured that the FDA does everything within our authority to work with firms to ensure a recall is conducted most effectively,” FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils wrote in an email. A recent reorganization, she added, “will ultimately help the agency be more efficient and cohesive in our inspection and investigation efforts.”

    Officials with Glenmark also declined to answer detailed questions. In a court document, the company denied being responsible for the death of Cormier, the woman in Maine.

    “Due to the ongoing litigation, we are unable to provide further information at this time but Glenmark is fully committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and regulatory compliance in all our operations,” a Glenmark spokesperson wrote in an email. “We continue to work closely with the FDA to ensure compliance with manufacturing operations and quality systems.”

    Overseas compliance with U.S. manufacturing standards is crucial in a drug market where foreign factories like the ones operated by Glenmark make a wide range of injections and pills that treat some of the most vulnerable patients in the U.S., including those with cancer, heart disease, epilepsy and kidney ailments. What happens in a factory a half a world away can have deadly consequences.

    Glenmark’s major troubles with the FDA began in 2019 at a factory far from the one that made the potassium chloride.

    That spring, FDA investigators went to the company’s Himachal Pradesh plant in northern India and reviewed more than 100 complaints about products made there: A steroid cream was gritty, a medication was watery, and tubes of medicines were cracked and punctured.

    The inspectors found so many problems at the facility that the agency sent Glenmark what’s known as a warning letter, a disciplinary tool the FDA uses to lay out significant violations of federal requirements and demand changes. Too often, Glenmark didn’t identify the root causes of problems and failed to come up with plans to prevent the same defects in the future, the director of the FDA’s Office of Manufacturing Quality wrote to Glenmark’s chairman.

    “Your quality system for investigations is inadequate and does not ensure consistent production of safe and effective products,” the FDA official wrote.

    This became a recurrent theme for Glenmark in subsequent years as FDA investigators dinged one plant after another for failing to follow manufacturing processes that prevent defective drugs from winding up in American medicine cabinets.

    FDA records show the problems stretched from India to the U.S., where Glenmark has a factory outside of Charlotte, North Carolina. In August 2021, Glenmark recalled every product it made at that plant. The recall notices said they failed to meet manufacturing standards.

    In the spring of 2022, FDA investigators spent more than a month in that factory, documenting 17 violations that resulted in a warning letter for that plant as well.

    The problems snowballed in the fall of 2022. The FDA sent Glenmark’s chairman yet another warning letter, this time about its factory in Goa, India, which the agency said failed to thoroughly investigate discrepancies among batches of drugs and lacked the procedures necessary to ensure that its products had the strength, quality and purity that Glenmark claimed. And FDA officials were so concerned after a subsequent inspection of Glenmark’s Himachal Pradesh factory that they placed it on the agency’s dreaded import alert list, which allowed federal regulators to prevent drugs made there from entering the U.S.

    At that point, three of the five Glenmark factories that had made drugs for American consumers were in trouble with the FDA.

    Get in Touch

    Do you work at the FDA? Do you have information about generic drugs that we should know? We’re particularly interested in decisions made by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research about drug shortages, foreign or U.S. manufacturing, and regulatory actions, such as warning letters and import alerts. What aren’t officials telling Americans about their drug supply? Email Megan Rose at megan@propublica.org or Debbie Cenziper at debbie.cenziper@propublica.org. If you prefer to reach out confidentially on Signal, Megan can be contacted at 202-805-4865, Debbie can be contacted at 301-222-3133, or get in touch with both reporters at 202-886-9594.

    But one plant has escaped scrutiny in the last few years: the Glenmark facility that made the recalled potassium chloride.

    The factory, in Madhya Pradesh, India, previously had a mixed record with the FDA. The agency had sent inspectors every year between 2015 and 2020, finding problems in half the visits.

    In 2018, the FDA asked Glenmark to voluntarily make improvements after inspectors found evidence that drafts of internal investigations were shredded in the quality department, among other deficiencies.

    Subsequent inspections in September 2019 and February 2020, though, went well.

    Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and the FDA put all but the most urgent inspections on hold. An Associated Press analysis this September found that about 2,000 pharmaceutical plants had not been inspected by the FDA in five years.

    The FDA doesn’t have enough experienced investigators to figure out what’s wrong at factories where there are signs of trouble, said Peter Baker, a former FDA inspector who consults on pharmaceutical quality.

    “It’s really difficult to be proactive when you don’t have people,” Baker said.

    People familiar with FDA enforcement say inspectors are often frustrated because they have little say on which facilities they inspect. That decision is made by another arm of the agency that doesn’t have the same sort of on-the-ground view of what’s going on in factories.

    Those who have the most to lose — the patients who could be endangered by defective pills — rarely, if ever, learn about the conditions inside the manufacturing plants. The FDA doesn’t make it easy for people to know where a drug is made, let alone whether it was by a factory with a concerning safety record.

    To determine that the recalled Glenmark drugs were all made at the Madhya Pradesh factory, ProPublica matched drug-labeling records from the U.S. National Library of Medicine with details in two FDA databases. Because the FDA doesn’t routinely post its inspection reports online, ProPublica obtained these and other records from Redica Systems, a data analytics company that receives this information from the FDA through public-records requests.

    The first in the string of recalls from the plant came in October 2023 for a drug that treats iron overload from blood transfusions. Days later, the company announced a second recall, this time for a medication for chest pain. Then came two more for capsules that treat high blood pressure. The potassium chloride recall was Glenmark’s fifth. Two more came after that, for a cholesterol-lowering drug and a rheumatoid arthritis medicine.

    The only one mentioned on the FDA’s recalls website was the potassium chloride. In that case, the agency followed its practice of posting a press release from the drug company rather than writing its own alert for the public.

    “Public notification is generally issued when a product poses a serious health hazard or has been widely distributed,” the FDA spokesperson wrote in an email.

    Records show the agency determined that potential harm from taking the other pills Glenmark recalled was likely to be temporary or reversible. But it never told the public what that harm might be.

    Mary Louise Cormier never knew her potassium chloride pills had been recalled.

    On June 27, the 91-year-old was taken to the emergency room from her nursing home in Brunswick, Maine. She was lethargic and could give only soft, monosyllabic answers to questions, according to the lawsuit filed by one of her daughters.

    A blood test showed that her potassium level was alarmingly high — so high that an emergency room doctor had the lab run the test a second time to make sure the result wasn’t a mistake, according to the lawsuit. A level above 6 millimoles per liter is considered a medical emergency. The tests showed Cormier’s level was 6.9, the lawsuit says.

    Cormier — who had raised five children, cared for babies in the foster care system and once ran a day care out of her home — suffered cardiac arrest and died, the suit says.

    The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, accuses Glenmark of a “systematic disregard for drug safety” and alleges the company sold pills “more suitable for an execution” than for the vulnerable patients they were supposed to help. Cormier’s pharmacy confirmed that her pills came from recalled batches, the lawsuit says. The suit is seeking class-action status.

    In a court filing, Glenmark denied the allegations. The company’s attorneys listed dozens of defenses, including that the injuries claimed were the result of preexisting or unrelated medical conditions and that the product contained an adequate warning. There can be other reasons for a spike in potassium, and ProPublica was unable to independently verify key details in the suit. Cormier’s daughter referred a reporter to her attorney, Aaron Block, who declined to release Cormier’s medical records, citing the early stage of the litigation.

    It’s not clear when Cormier’s pharmacy first learned the pills could be dangerous, but news of recalls can often take time to reach pharmacists — and longer to get to patients. The suit says Cormier’s pharmacy dispensed the pills on June 25. That was the day the FDA posted the recall on its website and three days before Cormier died. Medicines in the U.S. often pass through distributors. The manufacturer is responsible for notifying its distributors, who then have to notify their customers and so on down the supply chain.

    News of the recall didn’t reach Cormier’s family until three weeks after her death. As her family was preparing for her memorial, a letter arrived. Cormier’s health insurance company was writing with “important drug recall information” about her potassium chloride: “Our records show that you may have recently filled a prescription for this product.” The letter made it clear that the pills may cause high potassium levels, potentially leading to cardiac arrest and death.

    Glenmark knew there was a problem with its potassium chloride at least a month before Cormier died.

    On May 29, a Glenmark executive wrote a letter to distributors saying a batch of potassium chloride had failed to dissolve correctly in a test, so the company was issuing a recall. The executive told the distributors that the recall was “being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration” and used red capital letters to mark the notice “URGENT.” The letter was sent via FedEx overnight. But the company and the FDA didn’t tell the public at the time.

    In late June, Glenmark recalled dozens more batches, including the pills that the lawsuit says Cormier took.

    On June 25, about four weeks after the Glenmark executive had written to distributors, the FDA finally alerted the public.

    Glenmark and the FDA declined to say why the initial recall in May didn’t include all of the faulty pills or why they didn’t tell the public sooner. Speaking generally, Hils, the FDA spokesperson, said that the agency does not have the authority to mandate recalls of most drugs, with a limited exception for controlled substances. The agency’s role, she said, is “to oversee a company’s recall strategy, assess the adequacy of the company’s action, and classify the recall.”

    Since then, Glenmark has told the FDA about reports it received of the deaths, hospitalizations and other serious health problems in patients who took the recalled potassium chloride. Companies are required to file reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System so the agency can monitor the safety of drugs. The FDA’s online database includes only bare-bones details, so ProPublica was unable to independently verify what happened in each case. While the FDA would not comment on these complaints, the agency generally warns, “For any given report, there is no certainty that a suspected drug caused the reaction.”

    A majority of the reports said the patients suffered from abnormal heart rhythms, while the second-most-common complaint was of muscle problems. Glenmark’s public alert said that the recalled pills could cause irregular heartbeats and severe muscle weakness.

    Glenmark’s top executives have told financial analysts on earnings calls that the company has invested in improvements to its factories.

    The company’s troubles with U.S. regulators are so well known to investors that its compliance officer notified the National Stock Exchange of India in September that FDA inspectors had found no problems at one of its other factories in India. As the news spread, Glenmark’s stock jumped 9%.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • The proportion of Americans who say that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure health care coverage for all has reached a nearly two-decade high, new polling finds. According to a Gallup survey released Monday, 62 percent of Americans now say that the federal government should ensure that all Americans have coverage, versus 36 percent who say it should not. Support is highest among…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Advocates for a government-run healthcare program applauded U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna for pushing back during a Sunday morning interview in which ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz casually dismissed Medicare for All as a proposal that has no chance of ever being implemented. Khanna (D-Calif.) spoke to Raddatz days after the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City — an…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    Lisa Warwick found her husband gasping for air at the foot of the basement stairs and knew the miracle was over. It was Aug. 2, 2020, more than 11 years since Scot Warwick had been diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer. Most patients are dead in months, but her husband, who had just turned 51, had somehow destroyed the odds.

    “Are we going in?” she asked.

    “Yes,” he said. “We are going in.”

    His body had endured six years of chemotherapy and an additional five of experimental therapies. According to his medical record, he had responded “singularly impressively.” Two months earlier he had been running 5 miles a day, but since the latest round of chemo he had rapidly declined.

    Lisa Warwick guided her husband up the stairs, dragged him to the car and raced to St. Peter’s Hospital in downtown Helena, Montana.

    The emergency room doctor cited shortness of breath, fever and chills. He flagged that Warwick’s respiratory crisis could be the result of the chemotherapy. It had been restarted weeks before on the order of the oncologist who diagnosed him, the only doctor he’d consistently seen for more than a decade.

    The next morning, a doctor named Randy Sasich arrived for his shift at St. Peter’s. An independent nonprofit with just under 100 beds, the hospital is the only acute-care facility for about 100 miles in any direction and has touched the lives of virtually every area resident going back generations. Helena, the state capital, remains a small vestige of the Old West, with just 34,000 residents, so luring doctors has always been a challenge. This was especially true in April 2020, at the onset of COVID-19, when Sasich signed a short-term contract.

    Dr. Randy Sasich (Brooke Herbert for ProPublica)

    A 47-year-old lung specialist, with degrees from Georgetown and Santa Clara University and experience at hospitals in major cities, Sasich was a rare get. The de facto director of the hospital’s intensive care unit, Sasich met with the morning shift’s coordinating doctor. Standing in the ICU, the two ran through patients, their needs, the usual, until Warwick.

    We have a 51-year-old patient with metastatic lung cancer, diagnosed 11 years ago, Sasich remembered the doctor saying.

    “There’s no way,” Sasich interrupted.

    Well, he’s been treated for 11 years, the doctor explained.

    “You don’t live 11 years after a Stage 4 lung cancer diagnosis,” Sasich said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

    Between patients, Sasich reviewed Warwick’s chart. Something must have been misread along a medical game of telephone, he reasoned, or he’d missed some great advancement in cancer treatment. He found the 2009 report that prompted the cancer diagnosis. A smoker at the time, Warwick had seen an ear, nose and throat doctor about a tiny lump on his neck. The ENT had sent a sample of cells from Warwick’s neck to the lab. A few days later he wrote in the file that they were “most likely consistent” with cancer.

    That is not a cancer diagnosis, Sasich thought.

    The records indicated that Warwick was referred to the hospital’s Cancer Treatment Center. Sasich’s curiosity graduated to shock: There was no biopsy. Yet Warwick was immediately placed on an aggressive chemotherapy regimen by the hospital’s sole oncologist, Dr. Thomas C. Weiner.

    This is bad.

    In his few months at St. Peter’s, Sasich had already questioned Weiner’s incomplete documentation and curious diagnoses and had taken his concerns to a veteran doctor for advice. To Sasich’s surprise, his colleague was fearful of challenging Weiner. According to Sasich, the doctor said: “I live here. My kids go to school here. I don’t want to move.”

    Sasich scoured Warwick’s file, thinking someone must have ordered a lung tissue biopsy, which would capture more cells and target the suspected origin of the disease. Where was the lab report that confirmed cancer and ruled out everything else? From 2009 to 2019, he found none. Then, finally, there it was — in April 2020, just a few months earlier — a report on lung cells biopsied. Sasich read and reread the pathologist’s conclusion: no cancer.

    “What the hell is going on here?” he whispered.

    Despite the negative biopsy, Weiner had started Warwick on another round of chemotherapy, according to the medical records. Within two months, Warwick couldn’t walk upstairs, and now he was in the ICU while his wife and two children waited outside of the hospital because of COVID-19 protocols.

    Sasich called the pathologist, who confirmed the finding. Sasich feared his own hypothesis. He worried what it would mean to Warwick and his family, but the “unbelievable conclusion” he had come to might save the patient’s life.

    The next morning, Sasich entered the ICU where Warwick lay in the dark, oxygen pumping into his nose. Sasich pondered how to tell a man that everything he believed about himself for more than a decade was false.

    Deposition of Dr. Randy Sasich

    Watch video ➜

    Moments after Sasich left the room, Warwick called his wife. “He doesn’t know my history,” he told her. “He doesn’t know anything about me. He doesn’t know I’ve had this for 11 years. He doesn’t know anything. And this doctor’s telling me that I don’t have cancer? This guy’s an idiot.”

    Sasich knew he had just challenged a powerful figure in Helena. He just had no idea how powerful.

    While reporting on COVID-19’s toll in early 2022, I found myself in Helena, chatting over drinks with a handful of St. Peter’s medical staff. They wondered why I wasn’t asking about Tom Weiner. There was a deeper, haunting story, they told me, about the oncologist many inside the hospital suspected of hurting his patients. Despite those whispers, he was beloved by countless patients — “followers,” they called them. His nurses were wildly devoted to him — “a cult,” they said. The hospital administration feared him.

    The rumors they shared, though vague, were disturbing and impossible to ignore. They portrayed a man whose ability to both inspire and intimidate had divided the town of Helena. It would take two years to unravel one doctor’s myth, a hospital’s complicity in creating it and the attempt to conceal a trail of suspicious deaths. One of them, I’d later learn, was of a 16-year-old girl.

    Early in my reporting, I reached out to Weiner. Reluctant at first, he agreed to sit down with me. He was, he told me, the good guy in this story.

    Dr. Thomas C. Weiner (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    Weiner, 61, is guarded about his own life. He was raised Lutheran. His mother was a nurse, his father an FBI agent who urged him to be a lawyer. Weiner told me he was never much of “a research guy.” Rather, he wanted to bring a personal touch to medicine, to help people in their most vulnerable moments. He attended medical school at Hahnemann University, now Drexel, in Philadelphia. There, he met his wife, a devout Catholic, and he converted. An avid mountain climber and skier, Weiner felt that American westward pull and, after training in hospitals in Pennsylvania and Vermont, took the job at St. Peter’s in 1996.

    He arrived as something of a savior. In an ad in the Great Falls Tribune, the hospital announced that it had hired a permanent oncologist to direct its new cancer treatment center, replacing a rotation of doctors who made often precarious commutes from Great Falls, Bozeman or Missoula. For most of the next 24 years, he was the only option for thousands of cancer patients. It’s not an overstatement to say anyone who had cancer or knew someone who had cancer in that time knew of Weiner.

    He was instantly popular. Among his first patients was fashion designer Liz Claiborne, whose husband described Weiner as “a solid rock of a man, cheerfully youthful, robust, square-shouldered, handsome in a quiet way.” The Weiners became prominent members of the Cathedral of St. Helena and donated money to the Vatican.

    In our talks, he was as Claiborne’s husband described, if weathered by a quarter century in the dry high country. He is fit, almost always wearing hiking shoes, a North Face T-shirt on warm days, a fleece in the cold. With sharp blue eyes, he smiles when he explains his medical judgment, projecting an absolute conviction in what he believes and has done.

    Weiner’s stature rose with the cancer center’s. In late 2000, a news article reported that it was now treating about 250 patients a year. Three months later, the facility announced it would be adding six chemotherapy chairs, a library and a meditation center. An article in the Independent Record, the local paper, noted, “In the five years that Weiner has been with the cancer treatment center, he has seen an increase from 12 or 13 patients per day to 35 or 40 patients per day.”

    Weiner told me, and records confirm, that he billed for as many as 70 patient contacts a day. That pace made him an obvious outlier in data tracked by federal insurance regulators, but no one inside or outside the hospital slowed him down. He spoke proudly of his workload. He was always on call, he told me, and many of his patients had his cellphone number. As business boomed, so did Weiner’s wealth.

    Deposition of Dr. Thomas C. Weiner

    Watch video ➜

    Adding to a six-figure base salary, his pay was calculated by the number of relative value units, or RVUs, he billed on behalf of the hospital. The system compensates doctors using weighted values for certain types of visits or treatment. It works like this: A doctor might be paid $100 per RVU. A routine physical might be equal to 1 RVU, or $100; a more complicated and time-consuming procedure like radiation therapy might equal 8 RVUs, or $800. In other words, the more patient visits and treatments a doctor bills to insurance, the more that doctor and the hospital earn. Weiner described this system, which is common in American medicine, as “eat what you kill.”

    In 2006, Weiner purchased a 3,400-square-foot home atop Mount Helena with a panoramic view of town. The next year, Weiner’s rising RVUs made him the hospital’s highest earner at $751,000, tax filings show. By 2010, Weiner was paid more than $1.3 million, more than three times the salary of hospital CEO John Solheim.

    Around this time, according to court records, hospital administrators worried that Weiner’s pay could draw scrutiny from federal regulators for a violation of the Stark Law, which prohibits physicians who bill Medicare and Medicaid from referring patients in ways that enrich themselves. Those programs account for about 60% of St. Peter’s revenue. As questions about his pay intensified, Weiner responded by coordinating a staff rebellion, text messages show. A majority of St. Peter’s medical staff signed a letter of no confidence in Solheim, and Weiner was the lead signatory of a letter published in the Independent Record that charged the hospital with caring more about money than quality patient care. Not long after, Solheim resigned. He did not respond to my requests for comment. It’s unclear if the hospital at that time had its own concerns about the quality of Weiner’s care.

    St. Peter’s had flourished since Weiner’s arrival, recording nearly 200,000 patient visits and bringing in more than $187 million in 2012. Weiner told me that most years his cancer care accounted for more than a quarter of the hospital’s revenue; St. Peter’s told me it was closer to 10%.

    When negotiating his pay, emails show that Weiner leveraged his position as the region’s only oncologist, threatening to sue or quit, and he would prevail. With that power, he built a kingdom. In an unusual move, St. Peter’s allowed him to take over every facet of his patients’ care by naming himself their primary care physician. Because other options for cancer treatment were a long car ride or plane trip away, patients rarely sought a second opinion. Weiner protected his turf, resisting attempts to hire another oncologist or to transfer his patients to other doctors, court records show. As a result, few colleagues were looking over his shoulder. Inside the hospital, some referred to what he created as “his closed system.” As one doctor put it to me, if you were Weiner’s patient, “he grabbed on to you. He stayed with you for life. No one else would see you until you die.”

    Concerns about Weiner’s billing and patient load persisted. Solheim’s successor, Nate Olson, also questioned his compensation. Weiner again helped organize a vote of no confidence, records show. Olson, who did not respond to requests for comment, stepped down in May 2016.

    In 2019, St. Peter’s current CEO, Wade Johnson, hired an expert on the federal False Claims Act and fraudulent billing practices to study Weiner’s pay. The consultant described Weiner’s RVUs as “exceedingly high” and his compensation “a significant outlier.” Weiner logged nearly four times the visits and treatments of the median oncologist in the United States, despite working in a sparsely populated region. The consultant said the billings could be defended but warned they presented a potential legal and financial liability for both the hospital and Weiner.

    From 2009 to 2020, the period Scot Warwick was under his care, the hospital paid Weiner more than $20.1 million. In all our conversations, he never shirked questions about his income. The bottom line, he told me, was that without him, St. Peter’s had no cancer center. “You want me to keep seeing everyone?” he said. “Then you’re going to pay me more, because I’m doing more work.”

    Helena, Montana (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    Each morning Warwick lay in the ICU, Weiner visited, still dressed in his gym clothes. Over a decade Warwick had come to see his doctor as a friend. In their talks, Weiner dismissed Sasich’s hypothesis, though he agreed with the decision to stop administering the chemotherapy drug gemcitabine. As Sasich spent more time with Warwick, his confidence only grew. Throughout his treatment, Warwick had shown few symptoms of lung cancer and had continued to backpack, camp and kayak with his kids.

    In Warwick’s records, a medically coded tit for tat ensued between the hometown celebrity and the outsider. Sasich ordered a new biopsy and tests to look for infection in Warwick’s lungs. “Dr. Sasich,” Weiner responded, “is still skeptical of the diagnosis.”

    Lisa Warwick first heard from Sasich on Aug. 9, a week into her husband’s hospitalization. He wanted to explain the need for another lung biopsy. A habitual note taker, she scribbled words her mind could not accept: “This doesn’t present to me like cancer,” he told her.

    “Well, how could that be?” she remembered thinking. “All our lives sucked for 11 years. I can’t imagine that we went through all that and it not be real.”

    Sasich agonized about what to do. Doctors rarely challenge one another’s work. But after talking with the Warwicks, he filed an official complaint, accusing Weiner of an egregious mistake. He sent a letter to the hospital’s peer review committee, an internal group of doctors tasked with examining concerns about patient care. In it, he wrote that Warwick “would be the longest living case in the medical literature.”

    One of the tests Sasich ordered indicated a possible fungal infection in Warwick’s lungs — not uncommon for patients whose immune systems have been wrecked. He was treated with steroids and an antibiotic cocktail. Warwick improved and, on Aug. 13, was sent home with an oxygen tank. Three days later, Lisa Warwick found him suffocating. He left home again for St. Peter’s, this time in an ambulance.

    After a week of tests, Sasich called Lisa Warwick to tell her that her husband was experiencing a rare and excruciating reaction to the antibiotic Bactrim. Called Stevens-Johnson syndrome, it causes the skin to blister and peel. He was intubated and flown to a specialized burn unit at the University of Utah’s Huntsman hospital. The next day, Warwick’s left lung collapsed. A doctor told her to rush down to Salt Lake City.

    For three weeks, Lisa Warwick lived at Huntsman, unable to leave and reenter because of COVID-19. Inside, doctors expressed to her confusion about Warwick’s diagnosis and sparse medical record.

    When his right lung neared collapse, a doctor asked about his dying wishes — his code status. Do not resuscitate, Lisa Warwick said, a DNR. When they could do no more, the lead doctor pulled her aside. According to court records, he asked if she wanted an autopsy. As he asked, the doctor nodded his head up and down. She said yes.

    Scot Warwick’s final communication with his wife was a faint squeeze of her hand. He died just after midnight on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2020.

    A memorial to Scot Warwick in the family home (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    About a month later, his widow heard from the medical examiner. This is how she recalled the conversation during court testimony:

    “Mrs. Warwick, I’ve never had to make this call before,” he said. She began to take notes. “I’m sorry.”

    “OK?”

    “We did not find any cancer cells at all. We can’t find anywhere in his records that he had cancer and found no malignancy at all.” All signs indicated he died from lung failure caused by the drug gemcitabine. Chemotherapy killed him.

    As the conversation closed, she asked: “What am I supposed to do with this? What do I do?”

    “Get a lawyer,” he said.

    Left to right: Peyton, Lisa and Brady Warwick (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    After Warwick’s death, Sasich bumped into Dr. Robert LaClair, the hospital’s kidney specialist and chair of the peer review committee. “How the fuck did this go on for so long?” Sasich asked. He considered LaClair an excellent specialist and consulted him frequently. From LaClair’s face, Sasich worried he had offended him.

    A former Air Force doctor, LaClair has a certain respect for bureaucratic channels, which Sasich admits is not his domain. LaClair had worked with Weiner for 11 years and over that time had choked down his concerns. As he would later tell me: “I was caught up in the culture. We all were.”

    LaClair revealed to Sasich that for months he had been quietly building a case against Weiner. According to court testimony, he advised Sasich to lay low as any attempt to remove Weiner had to be done “by the book.” Weiner had the money to sue the hospital and had threatened to do so many times. It could become a circus. Sasich was relieved that something was happening but was outraged that no one had acted before his patient suffered an agonizing death.

    What LaClair didn’t tell Sasich was that the problem was worse than he knew. The review had begun a year earlier, after LaClair and a colleague questioned Weiner about his practice of providing minimal, often indiscernible, notes in his patient files. This poor documentation complicated follow-up care and, according to LaClair, intentionally made it difficult for others to question Weiner’s treatment. Court records show LaClair and his colleague also told Weiner to stop admitting scores of patients to the hospital for stays unrelated to cancer — stays that financially benefited him.

    By early 2020, doctors and nurses had submitted enough confidential complaints for peer review to make LaClair act. He sent a half dozen patient files to medical experts at the University of Utah, but the conclusions had been delayed by COVID-19.

    After Warwick died, St. Peter’s added his file for review. The doctor examining it quickly responded, thinking there must have been a clerical error: The packet didn’t include a biopsy to support the 2009 diagnosis. On Oct. 9, St. Peter’s received his analysis: “If he had cancer, this course of many years would be truly remarkable.” It went on, “The long-term treatment with toxic medications in the absence of a confirmed diagnosis of cancer is not reasonable.”

    External reviews typically lack forceful language, perhaps by design. Medicine is nuanced, messy and rife with decision points and diverging paths, so doctors grading other doctors can sound deferential, even perfunctory. The eight Utah reviews were different.

    Looking at a 2018 incident involving a 62-year-old man whom Weiner had diagnosed with throat cancer, a reviewer described several decisions as potential “malpractice” that led to an unnecessary two-month hospitalization. As with Warwick, there was no biopsy in the file.

    Another review criticized what Weiner didn’t do. A 67-year-old woman with breast cancer had received chemotherapy and undergone a mastectomy and breast reconstruction. In a June 2019 check-up, Weiner noted “no evidence of any recurrence.” But records show that he didn’t conduct a breast examination. (Records show that this was a common failing in his breast cancer treatment.) Months later, the patient found a lump. A biopsy ordered at another hospital confirmed the cancer had been back for some time, which led to a second breast tissue removal, radiation and chemo.

    Deposition of Dr. Robert LaClair

    Watch video ➜

    “I’ve never seen so many cases of what we sent out that was not meeting standard of care. I’ve never seen that before, and I hope I never see it again,” LaClair would testify.

    LaClair later told me, “When the Utah reports came back, it was like: ‘Holy fucking shit. This is going to suck.’”

    On Oct. 15, 2020, St. Peter’s suspended Weiner and revoked his privileges. Banished from the kingdom he’d built over a quarter century, Weiner told me he felt only “blank.”

    The hospital hired The Greeley Company, a health care consultancy, to scrutinize the records of dozens of additional patients, many of them dead. Weiner would be given an opportunity to defend himself and regain his job at an internal “fair hearing.”

    Word of Weiner’s suspension devastated the nurses at his cancer center, the core group of women who called themselves “Tom’s wives” or his “girls.” They were the envy of nurses in other departments for the prestige of working for Weiner and for the perks. From 2005 to 2020, records show that he gave them at least $140,000 of his own money in bonuses and jewelry. Upon retirement, nurses could expect diamond solitaire earrings worth about $1,500. He invited them to his home for dinners and holiday parties. They messaged him regularly, wishing him well on his extended trips to Italy.

    In the weeks following his suspension, they delivered food and sent supportive notes. They vowed to resist the administration. Weiner told them not to lose their jobs for him.

    “I love you. I’m here. I’m so sorry. I’m praying,” nurse Emily Burton texted him.

    “You can tell the girls I will be fighting,” Weiner responded. “But it will probably get bloody.”

    To others, like nurse Meghan Giovenco, he expressed anger: “They are going for the jugular. Scum.”

    When Weiner heard that Sasich questioned his work in front of his nurses, he texted a hospital administrator, “FYI put a muzzle on Sasich or else.”

    News of Weiner’s suspension spread through social media and Helena’s shops and diners. Patients formed a Facebook group called “We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner.” He saved their lives, their spouses’ lives, they said. He remembered the names of their children and grandchildren. He was kind, brilliant. Dozens more joined, then hundreds and hundreds.

    To those inside St. Peter’s, it resembled the campaigns that forced out the previous CEOs — only worse. Soon, the first of what would be more than a hundred small rallies was held outside the hospital. By ousting the region’s only oncologist, they contended, patients had been abandoned, consigned to long waits and a rotation of travel doctors. One sign proclaimed, “I WANT MY DR. WEINER, NOT THE SECOND STRING.” Their message spread to yard signs, bumper stickers and T-shirts. Supporters caravaned along Helena’s downtown, honking horns.

    Signs of support for Weiner in Helena (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    The hospital fired Weiner on Nov. 17, 2020. Johnson, the CEO, convened a meeting with the cancer staff, telling them Warwick’s death was “the tip of the iceberg.” He barred attendees from recording the meeting, court documents show, and the hospital’s chief nurse paced the room, instructing employees to put their phones away. All of Weiner’s patients should seek second opinions, Johnson said.

    Johnson also told the staff, “Don’t be surprised if black suits show up.” Weiner’s nurses understood this to mean that federal law enforcement or the Department of Health and Human Services would be investigating. “He explained it to be suits — there were going to be suits coming into the office and asking for things,” according to the testimony of nurse Andrea Thies, who, despite Johnson’s orders, took notes during the meeting.

    “You walked out of there feeling like, ‘Was I killing people?’” nurse Fallon Melby would later testify.

    Deposition of nurse Fallon Melby

    Watch video ➜

    Three weeks later, St. Peter’s posted an astonishing disclosure on its website: “The issues we have identified include the following: harm that was caused to patients by receiving treatments, including chemotherapy, that were not clinically indicated or necessary; failure to meet state and federal laws associated with the prescribing of narcotics; failure to refer patients to other specialists for appropriate treatments; and failure to meet requirements associated with clinical documentation.”

    It’s unclear if the hospital referred any of these issues to the state’s medical board or to state and local law enforcement.

    Days later, Weiner sued St. Peter’s and its executives for wrongful termination and defamation.

    Early in 2021, Sasich was pulled aside by Shelly Harkins, the hospital’s chief medical officer. According to Sasich’s court testimony, she apologized for getting him caught up in this mess.

    She next confided a story that rendered him “physically ill.” Hospital administrators had for years harbored suspicion about one case, a 16-year-old girl who died suddenly under Weiner’s care. Sasich remembered Harkins providing few details but saying Weiner was frustrated that another physician was treating his patient. Once he regained control of her treatment, the girl didn’t live long. “She told me that he gave her two doses of propofol,” Sasich testified, “and she died.”

    Sasich hoped it was just a rumor, an exaggeration. But when he asked LaClair about it, the person who knew more than anyone about Weiner’s practice didn’t refute the story but for one correction. It wasn’t propofol.

    “No,” LaClair told Sasich. “He uses phenobarbital.”

    St. Peter’s Health CEO Wade Johnson (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    In the days after Weiner’s termination, dozens of his patients came into the hospital asking for refills of oxycodone, morphine and other opioids. The doctors taking over Weiner’s caseload couldn’t find the prescriptions in St. Peter’s electronic system, according to court records, and Weiner’s patient files were little help. So they turned to a state database that logs all pharmacy opioid sales and discovered he had been writing prescriptions by hand, which bypassed internal hospital controls. To their shock, they found that many of his patients had been on dangerous levels of narcotics for years. The state agency that oversees that drug registry did not respond to a request for comment.

    Often the patients seeking painkillers didn’t have cancer and had no documented need for them. Weiner had ordered them as their primary care physician. Many were struggling with addiction. St. Peter’s created a document for doctors to track the crisis in real time. Their notes included: “nonsensical” and “one of the worst indications for opioids. I’m still piecing this together …” and “Many years on methadone. Not clear why.”

    Weiner told me the hospital manufactured these allegations to justify firing him, and he denied writing prescriptions by hand.

    St. Peter’s assembled a committee of pain management experts to review more than 2,000 patient files. Dr. Kyle Moore, an addiction specialist, led the effort to detoxify patients. He found that Weiner rarely accounted for what doctors call morphine equivalents; essentially, he didn’t do the math to ensure that when patients received drugs at different intervals and strengths they didn’t add up to a lethal dose. Weiner denied this. In the narcotics tracking memo, Moore is quoted as saying Weiner’s prescribing was “a greater danger to the community than coronavirus.”

    The full scope of Weiner’s prescription practices may never be known. The hospital alerted the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which began an investigation, a spokesperson told me. But court records show no attempt by St. Peter’s to quantify the problem beyond its initial scramble to detoxify patients. St. Peter’s would not tell me if it searched for patients in the community who overdosed or died, nor would it say whether it reported what it found to the state medical board.

    While the front-line doctors taking over patients were horrified, court records show hospital administrators and the peer review committee had been warned more than a dozen times, since at least 2018, that Weiner was overprescribing. I learned that staff who raised concerns expected to be yelled at or intimidated by Weiner. In 2019, two nurses and a pharmacist questioned a Weiner order to apply a fentanyl patch on a 93-year-old woman who was already on opioids and bobbing in and out of consciousness. A nurse texted Weiner to ask whether he was sure. Weiner responded, “Tell them put it on or I will rip their lips off.” Weiner told me this was “an inside joke.”

    Federal regulators also failed to address alarming trends. An analysis of Medicare drug data shows that, from 2013 to 2020, Weiner’s volume of opioid prescriptions ranked ninth among all cancer doctors who bill the program. When it came to morphine, Weiner consistently ranked among the top five. In 2017, he prescribed more morphine than any other cancer doctor. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not respond to questions.

    Before St. Peter’s fired Weiner, the hospital sent five pain management cases to The Greeley Company. All were deemed inappropriate. One case was Sharon Dibble, a 75-year-old with many health problems, including kidney failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    On March 6, 2018, for reasons that were unclear to the reviewers, Weiner doubled her extended-release morphine from 30 to 60 milligrams twice a day, on top of an oxycodone regimen. Four days later, Dibble’s daughter found her limp, blue in the face, not breathing. Paramedics rushed Dibble to St. Peter’s, where she was kept on life support for more than two weeks. She died on March 27.

    St. Peter’s said the cause was acute respiratory failure — her body starved of oxygen and shut down. The family believed her mounting ailments overtook her. But that’s not what happened, according to the Greeley review. Weiner’s “excessively large increase” in morphine, it concluded, “led to respiratory arrest and the patient’s demise.”

    When I raised the Greeley review with Weiner, he called it “ridiculous.” He told me that he swapped short-acting pain medicines for long-acting but that Dibble’s morphine equivalent was unchanged — a claim contradicted by medical records and the hospital’s review of her death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions against exceeding the equivalent of 90 milligrams of morphine daily and warns anything above 120 risks overdose. Records show Dibble’s daily regimen equaled 195 milligrams of morphine.

    St. Peter’s never told Dibble’s family what it knew.

    Five years after Dibble’s death, I shared the report with her son and two daughters. During his mother’s last days, Tom Dibble made the decision to stop life-sustaining measures. It was, he thought, her time to go. Now, he feels duped.

    “Not only did this individual cause her death,” he said, referring to Weiner, “but it’s pretty apparent that this whole thing was being covered up. We were never given any knowledge that this took place, and we have to live with this decision.”

    Family photographs of Sharon Dibble (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica) From left to right: Dibble’s children, Cindy White, Tom Stevison and Melba VanSprang, and her husband, Dennis Dibble (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    Six months after Weiner’s firing, the hospital conducted its fair hearing. As in a trial, witnesses testify, attorneys cross-examine, but a fair hearing isn’t public, and the judges are doctors — in this case, a panel of three from St. Peter’s. Held in a hospital conference room, the hearing took six days. On the first night, LaClair spelled out the allegations — Warwick’s death, the numerous misdiagnoses, the narcotics and more.

    But that wasn’t the worst of it. The hospital also accused Weiner of overriding his patient’s dying wishes. If a patient wants CPR or a machine to keep them breathing, they elect to be a “full code.” Weiner, the hospital said, had a pattern of altering, without consent, a patient’s status from full code to a DNR/DNI, do not resuscitate and do not intubate. The hospital would not tell me if it pursued a complete accounting of what the fair hearing panel determined to be “a serious violation of the standard of care and medical ethics.”

    At the hearing, nurse Addie Weidow described two events in which she witnessed a patient’s code status being changed without permission, including one where a patient nearly died before an intervening doctor sent her to the ICU. In another instance, Weidow testified, the chart of a patient who was full code suddenly read DNR/DNI. Following hospital protocol, nurses tried to attach a purple wristband, signifying her wish to die without intervention. When the patient refused the band, Weidow said Weiner told them to “hang the band on the doorknob and leave it be.” In other words, if her heart stops, don’t enter the room. Weiner’s nurses called it “a slow code,” Weidow testified.

    When Weiner left town, Dr. Ashley Coggins managed his patient load, giving her a rare view into his closed system. She testified that “many nurses have come to me in the last several years, telling me that that was a standard practice of his — to just change people’s code statuses once they were doing poorly.” She added: “He was basically using his own judgment as the judgment for people to live or die. It’s horrifying.”

    During the hearing, a hospital attorney asked Dr. Kerry Hale about the 16-year-old girl, the rumor that now haunted Sasich. Hale couldn’t recall the girl’s name but remembered she had a Wilms tumor, a kidney cancer that affects mostly children, and was being treated on the pediatric floor. Then, out of nowhere, Weiner transferred her to his oncology floor “and then orders for DNR, and then three doses of phenobarbital were given, and the patient died, I believe, that evening.” Phenobarbital is a barbiturate commonly used to treat seizures during alcohol withdrawal. In large doses, it is lethal.

    When Weiner’s turn came, his lawyer asked for his account. His answer was clinical and unflinching. “Mom wanted her comfortable,” he said. “So, I transferred her to the oncology floor, and I gave her pain meds, phenobarbital, and she died later.” Neither the hospital nor Weiner’s attorneys pressed him for more details.

    “Comfort” was a word Weiner used often in our conversations. If a patient dies as a result of his treatment, he told me, it’s not unethical if his intent was to provide comfort. In medicine, this is called the principle of double effect. First developed by the Catholic saint and theologian Thomas Aquinas, it’s a set of criteria by which a person can morally justify ending someone’s life. It stipulates that a harmful consequence of a medical treatment, such as death, is permissible if it’s a secondary effect of beneficial treatment, such as alleviating pain with drugs. “It’s for their comfort,” Weiner told me. “It’s not that I euthanize them.”

    At the fair hearing, Weiner denied the hospital’s accusations. “Part of my problem is I have a good memory,” he said, “so I just remember things, and I probably should put more in the chart.” It wasn’t odd that he prescribed high-dose opioids, he said. He’s an oncologist, and his patients were suffering. Why was he giving painkillers to people who didn’t have cancer? For most of his tenure, he said, St. Peter’s didn’t employ a pain specialist.

    As for his end-of-life care, Weiner said he always discussed the options with patients — “tens of thousands,” he estimated — before altering their status.

    The panel unanimously rejected Weiner’s appeal.

    St. Peter’s (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    Despite being fired, Weiner maintained his medical license. The law only required St. Peter’s to report his suspension — not what it knew — to the state medical board and the National Practitioner Data Bank. The medical board would not comment on whether it conducted an investigation into Weiner.

    Rather than go into private practice or retire, Weiner decided to sue St. Peter’s, spending, by his own account, millions of dollars. He told me that he expected the hospital to settle for as much as $20 million because “they can’t let out what they did.”

    By suing, Weiner exposed himself and St. Peter’s to pretrial discovery. Over the next three years, thousands of documents — text messages, patient files, financial statements, the fair hearing transcripts — were entered in court as evidence. Hours of depositions by doctors, nurses, administrators and Weiner were recorded.

    Although at odds in every other way, Weiner and St. Peter’s had one common interest: concealing the evidence. Both parties successfully petitioned the court to seal nearly all the discovery. I was able to obtain it.

    If the residents of Helena had seen those files, they would know how Weiner built a high-volume business that billed as much as possible to public and private insurance, all the while sending numerous patients through a carousel of unnecessary and life-threatening treatments. They would have learned that the hospital had financial incentives to look away.

    Evidence of that high-volume business was hiding in plain sight, in data published by CMS. An analysis of Medicare Part B billing data shows that, from 2013 to 2020, Weiner billed for 40,000 15-minute visits, more than any other doctor — of any specialty — in the nation. The publicly available data offers just a glimpse of what St. Peter’s knew was a much bigger problem. “He’d see 15 patients in 30 minutes,” LaClair told me. This made Weiner rich and apparently missed the gaze of insurance regulators.

    If Weiner was such an outlier, why did he never come to the attention of CMS? I reached out to John Hargraves, a data expert at the Health Care Cost Institute in Washington. CMS investigators, he told me, are looking for obvious fraud, such as doctors billing for more expensive work than they delivered. Instead, Weiner crammed in an extraordinarily high number of less expensive patient visits into each day.

    When I asked St. Peter’s about what I had found, the hospital refuted none of it. It would not answer questions about Scot Warwick or Sharon Dibble or any other patients despite being given health privacy waivers signed by the families. CEO Johnson turned down requests for an interview. Andrea Groom, the hospital spokesperson, emailed a statement that broadly declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. “We believe this situation is isolated to a single, former physician, and we remain confident in the exceptional care provided by St. Peter’s medical staff,” it said.

    In a follow-up email, Groom wrote: “Dr. Weiner was a highly productive physician, but this was not necessarily alarming, given that he was the only medical oncologist treating cancer patients for a large service area during much of his time with St. Peter’s Health.” Patient satisfaction ratings were high, she said, and complaints were rare. Groom added that “there was no reason at the time for St. Peter’s to believe that Dr. Weiner was providing substandard care.”

    In a court filing, the hospital told a judge it expects to be sued by more Weiner patients.

    What the hospital’s response ignores is that St. Peter’s enabled and protected Weiner. As LaClair said in his deposition, Weiner’s colleagues didn’t stop him earlier “because we were afraid of him.” In court filings, St. Peter’s admitted that for years it knew of “serious concerns of physician colleagues and staff members with several patient deaths.” When I asked Weiner why the hospital would publicly accuse him of various types of malpractice but withhold its concerns about his end-of-life care, he said it’s because administrators knew what he was doing and even encouraged it.

    Fifteen months before he was fired, Weiner and his nurses took over the hospital’s end-of-life care. I found an August 2019 text message exchange between the hospital’s chief nurse, Kari Koehler, and Weiner that made it official: “Are you still okay if all end of life patients go to onc[ology] even if they aren’t yours? I just feel like those nurses do it best!”

    Weiner responded: “I agree!!”

    By the summer of 2021, the pro-Weiner Facebook group had about 4,000 members. The hospital CEO was “evil,” “a true devil” and “puke.” The group campaigned successfully to have Weiner named “Helena’s Best Physician” in the Independent Record and raised the money to rent billboards that read “WE STAND WITH DR. WEINER.” When I asked Weiner why the town was cleaved in two over him, he smiled and offered a correction. “I wouldn’t call it 50/50,” he said. “More like 80/20.”

    For Lisa Warwick and her two children, each Weiner sign was a reminder to keep silent. “I was worried about violence against us,” she told me. That summer, the family sued St. Peter’s for Warwick’s wrongful death. In her deposition, the widow said: “My children lost their father. I lost my husband. It wasn’t quick. It was long. And it was torturous. And it was terrible. And I would never, ever wish that on anyone — ever.”

    In his depositions, and later to me, Weiner maintained that Scot Warwick had Stage 4 lung cancer for 11 years. The April 2020 biopsy that didn’t show cancer? The pathologist missed the spot where the cancer was, he said. In our conversations, Weiner said that the cancer had passed back-and-forth between Warwick’s two lungs.

    “He was pretty advanced, though?” I asked. “Don’t you think it would be hard to miss?”

    “Well, you would think,” he said. “I agree with you. I was kind of pissed off.”

    What about the doctor in Utah who performed the autopsy? He also missed the cancer, Weiner said.

    The Warwicks and St. Peter’s eventually settled the case for an undisclosed amount. Weiner was not held liable because he was a hospital employee. Neither the family nor their attorney have solved the mystery of why three private health insurers paid for 11 years of Stage 4 lung cancer treatment. None of the companies responded when I asked.

    When I shared Weiner’s claim that 80% of Helena residents stood behind him, Sasich didn’t disagree. He drove past the protesters on his way to work. In the hospital, Weiner’s nurses barely looked at him. The billboard gave him chills. He couldn’t understand why people weren’t demanding answers.

    Weiner’s supporters outside St. Peter’s (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    The mystery of the 16-year-old girl tore at him. He replayed the scenes in his head — Harkins, the chief medical officer, telling him that she may have been killed, LaClair confirming it. He asked a hospital attorney if they were investigating; “we’re aware of the case,” he was told. He took what he knew to Helena’s police chief. He had a brief meeting with a fraud investigator at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No one seemed interested in pursuing it, Sasich told me.

    Sasich’s inquiries came back to Weiner, who added him as a defendant in the lawsuit, accusing him of defamation. Sasich has denied the allegation.

    Buried in the thousands of pages of medical records, correspondence and memos that build the hospital’s case against Weiner is a single sheet that summarizes the dying moments of seven people. In broken cursive, someone wrote in pen, “Phenobarbital cases.” Ranging in age from 53 to 77, they represent a small sample of those who died under Weiner’s care.

    The memo tracks the final hours of a 62-year-old woman, admitted for stomach pain on Oct. 3, 2018. Four days later, at 6:01 p.m., she received 260 milligrams of phenobarbital for “terminal agitation.” Two hours passed. She received another 260 milligrams, then another at 10:58 p.m. — a total of 780 milligrams. She died just after midnight.

    Unlike the narcotics and misdiagnosis cases, the hospital didn’t send these for outside review but rather enlisted its chief pharmacist, Starla Blank. During the fair hearing, Blank said the events were alarming because it wasn’t clear whether the patients were near death. “In most of the cases the patients were talking and visited with Dr. Weiner prior to their — prior to them getting the phenobarbital,” she said.

    Still, St. Peter’s, which declined to comment on the phenobarbital cases, chose to ignore Blank’s assessment. In its final written account, the hospital concluded that the seven patients “were at end of life and that there were no remaining viable treatment options for them.”

    One case is conspicuously missing from the phenobarbital memo.

    There is no mention of the 16-year-old girl. In Harkins’ deposition, she recalled the case but not her name. LaClair’s testimony offered few details of an unnamed girl. Under oath, the hospital’s chief nursing officer referred to “a child” who had received so much phenobarbital as to arouse concern with nurses.

    An online search of “Thomas Weiner” produces dozens of obituaries that express gratitude to the oncologist and his nurses for treating loved ones. One shows a photo of a thin girl with a big smile and blonde hair held back with barrettes. It speaks of hot air balloon rides in Arizona and beach trips in Oregon. She and her little brother built a play cabin in the woods and made pocket change selling lemonade. She loved camping and kayaking. At age 6, she was diagnosed with a Wilms tumor, but she didn’t let it rule her life. Her mother, who wrote the obituary, quotes her as saying, “Having cancer is no fun, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t have fun just because you have cancer.”

    Her name was Nadine Long.

    Deposition of Dr. Shelly Harkins

    Watch video ➜

    While I was reasonably sure this was the girl whose memory haunted the halls of St. Peter’s, I decided to knock on the door of the man who finally acted to stop Weiner but, by his own admission, had waited far too long.

    To my surprise, Dr. Robert LaClair welcomed me into his home. Earlier that week in September 2023, a Montana judge had sided with St. Peter’s and thrown out Weiner’s lawsuit. The hospital had a right to enforce quality care under federal law, the judge ruled. In an addendum, the judge explained the hospital had not defamed the oncologist. Weiner vowed to file an appeal with the state Supreme Court. The judge did say, however, that Weiner’s defamation suit against Sasich could go forward. In LaClair’s study, we discussed Scot Warwick, the narcotics, the code status changes — cases he’d no longer have to recount in a trial. A weight seemed to be lifting from him, until I mentioned the name few knew. Taken aback at “Nadine,” his eyes welled. LaClair had read her file but had not sent it for outside review. He exhaled and after a long moment said: “Trust me, it’s so bad. You have no idea. She wasn’t terminal.”

    By June 2024, Weiner and I had talked for many months. Sometimes, he’d offer an anecdote about an anonymous patient, unaware that I could identify their names and compare the stories with medical and court records. Invariably, he portrayed himself as a gifted and dedicated doctor. One was about a moribund young girl who needed him to intervene when a less capable doctor wasn’t keeping her comfortable. It was time to ask what happened to Nadine Long.

    We sat at a long table in a hotel conference room in downtown Helena. Dressed in jeans and a short-sleeved polo shirt, he agreed to be recorded, attached a microphone to his lapel and talked first about a recent trip to Rome. Well into the interview, I presented him with a privacy waiver signed by Nadine’s family, and he told me his version of her final days.

    It was March 2015. He was in New York, on Broadway, waiting with his wife for a matinee showing of “Les Misérables,” when Nadine’s mother called. She said her daughter was “in horrible pain. They won’t take care of her pain. Please come home.” After the show, he flew to Helena, arriving near midnight, and drove straight to St. Peter’s. Nadine was screaming and crying.

    Weiner had treated Nadine since she was a child, when she was first diagnosed with cancer and when it recurred the following year. The cancer had now come a third time. Nadine had a pleural effusion — fluid built up between the lung and the chest cavity — that restricted her breathing. Her mother had talked with the oncologist filling in for Weiner, who was trying to transfer Nadine for further testing at St. Jude Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Weiner reviewed Nadine’s scans. “She was going down like a stone,” he told me. “She had hours to a day or two to live. There were no more cards to play.”

    Hearing this, Nadine’s mother no longer wanted her transferred. “She just wanted her comfortable,” Weiner said. He gave Nadine a choice: a torrent of undignified treatments and pain with no promise of survival or “leave it up to God, and we’re just going to keep her comfortable.”

    At that point, he moved Nadine to his oncology floor, to his nurses, “and she got some pain meds — I don’t remember how much phenobarbital — and she died later.”

    His response mirrored what I had read in the fair hearing transcript. I had by then reviewed Nadine’s medical record, some of which I presented to him.

    Weiner had examined Nadine less than a week earlier. In her file, he wrote, “she looks good … everything looks stable right now.” I asked how he could have missed what he claimed was an advanced and terminal disease.

    “That’s how fast — the nature of that tumor when it comes back, it comes back with a vengeance,” Weiner said. “That fast.”

    With her family’s consent, I had shared Nadine’s records with Dr. Sarah Friebert of Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio. She specializes in pediatric oncology and founded and directs the hospital’s pediatric palliative care center. She wanted to be clear that she was not speaking for her employer.

    I read aloud to Weiner some of her review.

    “Here’s a girl who was skiing and then she’s dead a week later, and that’s — that’s concerning,” Friebert told me. “She ate 75% of her dinner on the night she died. Her vitals were not out of whack.” Nadine should have been sent to another hospital for testing, Friebert said, because nothing definitively showed she couldn’t have been treated. It’s not clear she was going to die, Friebert said.

    Weiner determined she was dying based on a test of the fluid in her lungs, which was insufficient, she said. Neither Friebert nor I could find any evidence in Nadine’s file that Weiner ordered a biopsy that confirmed terminal cancer.

    Friebert uses phenobarbital to calm children as they die of disease, but she told me Weiner “was escalating the phenobarbital in a way that is way out of proportion with what I would ever have done.” The intent, she said, could not have been comfort. “These doses were obscene,” she said. “He killed her with it.”

    That a respected oncologist questioned his care didn’t seem to faze Weiner. She wasn’t there, he told me, and therefore can’t make such judgments. “I completely disagree,” he said. “This is a girl that’s got — her body is riddled with cancer, and she’s in horrible pain. Now did the phenobarbital hasten her death? Yeah, it did.”

    In all our conversations, Weiner insisted his intent is always to provide comfort, never to hasten death, but here he equivocated.

    “Could it have shortened her life?” Weiner asked. “Yes. Again, in most of these cases, could I not give phenobarbital, and would that patient live longer? The answer is yes.” Weiner paused. “But longer in, like, hours? I mean, is that worth being in misery for those hours?”

    “My goal was not to kill Nadine,” he added. “My goal was to make her comfortable.”

    I had shown him the “phenobarbital cases” memo, and we’d discussed the code status changes, Scot Warwick, the narcotics and now Nadine. Finally, I had to ask, “Are you killing your patients?”

    “Well, uh, no. I’m not,” he responded.

    “Why did you hesitate?” I asked.

    “Well,” he said. “It depends on what you mean by killing them.”

    Photos of Nadine Long and her mother, Cheri Long, and father, Dan Beadle (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    Nadine’s parents live outside of Helena, at the end of a cattle road that curls around the peak where their daughter once played and her ashes now rest. Dan Beadle, her father, is an evidence technician for the county sheriff’s office. Her mother, Cheri Long, recently retired as an administrator at Carroll College in downtown Helena. They led me through the mudroom to the kitchen’s farmhouse table, where I asked them to recount the worst days of their lives.

    While on a family vacation in New Hampshire in April 2005, Nadine was diagnosed with a Wilms tumor. She had her left kidney removed and received radiation. When the family returned to Montana, they met with Weiner, who directed her chemotherapy. During those treatments, Nadine bonded with his nurses, “the true loves of her life,” Long said. She appeared to be in remission. But a year later, the cancer reappeared in the spot where her kidney had been removed, Weiner told the family. Nadine received chemo and other treatments until about 2010, when Weiner said she was cancer free. She continued to see Weiner and his nurses for annual check-ups and more.

    “Dr. Weiner always had a policy that once you’re his patient, he’s your primary physician,” Long said. “I don’t know if that’s normal.”

    Nadine attended the same Catholic school as Weiner’s children. Her uniforms were hand-me-downs from his older daughter. The two families were friendly but not close. Nadine’s parents respected Weiner, although, as Long put it, he could be domineering.

    Nadine also had bipolar disorder. When she was 14, a psychiatrist wrote that she struggled with information processing. He said her “insecurities, anxiety, and tendencies toward frustration when challenged dramatically interfered with her critical thinking skills.” But she was also “kind, compassionate, very empathic.”

    In February 2015, Nadine’s parents noticed her hunching forward, struggling to breathe. She came to see Weiner on March 2. As with most of her visits, it lasted just a few minutes. “He listened to her lungs and said, ‘Everything’s good,’” her father recalled. “Then he tried to palpate a little bit, and she was extremely ticklish, so she started squirming around, and then at some point he goes, ‘I think we’re good to go.’”

    Six days later, Nadine buckled and fell while skiing and was rushed to the St. Peter’s emergency room. Her parents were out of town when Nadine called to say: “Mommy, I’m in the hospital. My lung collapsed.” They raced to St. Peter’s, where they learned nurses had inserted a chest tube and drained her lungs of fluid, but no one would tell them more. Weiner was in New York City. For the next five days in the pediatric ward, Nadine vacillated between moments of calm and kicking and screaming, but her vitals were steady.

    They felt they weren’t getting straight answers from Weiner’s backup oncologist. Long asked that Nadine be transferred to St. Jude. But as those arrangements were being made, Weiner appeared. “Finally,” Long remembered thinking, “We were like, ‘Someone who’s going to tell us the truth instead of tiptoeing around us.’”

    She learned later that a St. Peter’s employee had phoned Weiner. His claim that he returned because Long called asking him to provide comfort to her daughter?

    “That’s a flat-out lie,” she told me. “We did not ask for him to come home from his vacation.”

    Weiner told her a large malignant mass was compressing Nadine’s lungs and would soon suffocate her. “How he described it was, ‘It’s doubling every day, and today it’s the size of a soccer ball,’” Long said.

    Soon after, Weiner spoke with Nadine. “He spoke to our daughter, not to us,” Long said, “He told her, ‘You can choose the medical path or the God path.’” The conversation was “between the two of them. We were there, and he would check — he would look at us,” Long said. “Taking the God way was saying, ‘I fought my fight, and I’m ready to meet Jesus.’”

    The teenager who struggled with processing information and critical thinking chose the God path. Her parents, terrified that she might needlessly suffer, didn’t object. On March 13, Nadine was changed from a full code to DNR/DNI, despite the day’s progress report that said, “She is alert and oriented, in no acute distress.” Weiner transferred her to the oncology floor.

    Nadine had been heavily drugged since she’d arrived: Dilaudid, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl. The next day, Nadine’s heart and respiratory rates elevated. She was panicking. “Saturday afternoon, she’s thrashing, she’s fighting, she can’t breathe,” Long said. Her father and a nurse couldn’t hold her down. They believed she was suffocating. The parents agreed to Weiner’s comfort measures.

    Nadine’s medical file shows that he ordered a nurse to inject phenobarbital, which a computer tracked.

    3:45 p.m. — 260 milligrams.

    Nadine was still thrashing around. The nurse later said he was nervous about increasing the phenobarbital and called Weiner into the room. “He came in and stood there and oversaw,” Long said. “He just kept saying, ‘more, more.’”

    5:26 p.m. — 390 milligrams.

    It’s unclear when Nadine fell into sedation. After the initial doses, Weiner left the room.

    7:47 p.m. — 390 milligrams.

    Two of Weiner’s nurses who had doted on Nadine for years stayed late.

    9:54 p.m. — 390 milligrams.

    Relieved she was no longer in pain, her parents held on to her and each other.

    1:45 a.m. — DISCHARGE.

    Her heart stopped.

    Nadine received 1,430 milligrams of a drug whose standard dosage for an adult is 260 milligrams. She weighed 100 pounds.

    Nadine’s parents asked St. Peter’s to investigate the care she received. They wanted to know how Weiner could have missed a massive tumor a week before she died. Two months later, they met with the hospital’s director of risk management, who told them, Long said, “that he was reviewed and provided great care.”

    For nine years, that answer had satisfied them. Believing Weiner had spared Nadine of pain in death, they put up a “We Stand With Doctor Weiner” sign in their yard. But now, having looked at Nadine’s medical file, they wanted to know if they had been manipulated, if she was actually terminal. Citing confidentiality laws, St. Peter’s has refused to provide the family the review, nor would it confirm to me that a review exists.

    Beadle and Long with their son, Levi, on the hillside behind their home in Marysville, Montana (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

    In August, Jesse Laslovich, the U.S. attorney for the District of Montana, and St. Peter’s announced a $10.8 million settlement for numerous violations of the False Claims Act: billing for unnecessary treatments, prescribing unneeded narcotics and more. The settlement, Laslovich said, “is not an indictment on the quality of care being provided by St. Peter’s Health as well as their doctors and their providers.”

    The same day it announced the settlement, the U.S. attorney’s office sued Weiner. It accused him of getting rich by prescribing needless treatments, double billing, seeing patients more frequently than necessary and “upcoding” — billing for more expensive treatments than were delivered. The prosecutor pointed to Weiner’s enormous caseload as evidence that he had little regard for patient outcomes. Weiner’s attorney denied the allegations and has filed a motion to dismiss the case.

    After the hospital reported Weiner’s narcotics practice to the DEA, the agency investigated, according to Steffan Tubbs with its Rocky Mountain field division. He told me investigators brought a potential criminal case to the U.S. attorney’s office but that prosecutors instead decided to pursue civil penalties against Weiner. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney declined to comment.

    In a press release, St. Peter’s commended itself for “acting with integrity” for alerting the DEA and laid blame on a rogue doctor. In settling, the hospital acknowledged that Weiner falsely billed multiple federal health care programs. But it did not acknowledge that his billing practices had been a constant problem and an obvious outlier for at least a decade. The prosecutor was silent on Weiner’s billing practices with private insurance.

    The Montana State Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on Weiner’s appeal. His defamation suit against Sasich continues.

    Weiner’s Montana medical license was renewed in 2023 and is set to expire in March. For now, he is free to practice medicine and prescribe drugs.

    Neither the settlement nor the lawsuit against Weiner focus on the harm he exacted on countless patients. It’s unclear if any state or federal law enforcement agencies are looking into Weiner’s trail of suspicious deaths. Counting Scot Warwick, Sharon Dibble, Nadine Long and the seven documented phenobarbital cases, there are at least 10.

    How We Reported This Story

    J. David McSwane obtained and reviewed thousands of pages of court documents and medical records. He also obtained text messages and work emails. He visited Helena, Montana, numerous times and interviewed dozens of former patients; current and former St. Peter’s Hospital staff members; Dr. Thomas Weiner and his supporters. He tracked Weiner’s years as director of the hospital’s Cancer Treatment Center and his practice by cross-referencing those records with witness accounts. He identified more than 100 hundred cases in which St. Peter’s staff had expressed some level of concern. He met with the families of patients who died under Weiner’s care and, in several instances, obtained HIPAA waivers so that Weiner and the hospital could speak about those cases. To get some sense of the scope of Weiner’s practice, he and data reporter Haru Coryne analyzed data published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; they looked at billing data in the Medicare Part B program and prescribing data in the Medicare Part D program from 2013 to 2020. They shared their analysis with a data expert and CMS, which did not respond to questions. Research reporter Mollie Simon helped McSwane identify Nadine Long and provided archival material.

    Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

    Mollie Simon and Haru Coryne contributed research and data analysis. Additional design and development by Allen Tan and Zisiga Mukulu.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • When I had my first gender-affirming medical intervention, I was 21 years old. The year was 2005, and at that time, the idea of a trans surgery being covered by health insurers was outlandish. So, I saved up money starting at age 18, and visited psychologists at the free gender clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area where I lived. I told them I had been “living as a man full time” and pretended…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • With Donald Trump’s return to the White House and Republicans taking full control of Congress in 2025, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion is back on the chopping block. More than 3 million adults in nine states would be at immediate risk of losing their health coverage should the GOP reduce the extra federal Medicaid funding that’s enabled states to widen eligibility…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

    One month after Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion, Republican lawmakers in the deeply red state are already working to overturn it — or at least undermine it.

    One measure would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, declaring that embryos are people with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    The result would be to classify abortion as an unlawful killing.

    Another proposal, aimed at repealing the abortion rights amendment, would ask voters to ban gender transition procedures for minors, tying the two issues together, despite the fact that the amendment did not address gender surgery and gender-affirming care for transgender children is already illegal in Missouri.

    Other proposed amendments include stricter abortion limits, such as restricting access to cases of rape, incest, medical emergencies and fetal anomalies. These measures would impose additional requirements, such as mandating that rape survivors file police reports to obtain an abortion.

    GOP lawmakers have also introduced a measure to raise the threshold for amending the state constitution through voter initiatives, which could make it harder to pass similar measures in the future.

    The legislative moves follow the Nov. 5 election, in which the amendment to put abortion rights in the state constitution won by a 51.6%-48.4% margin. Starting Thursday, the right to abortion will be constitutionally guaranteed up to the point of fetal viability, while restrictions on post-viability abortions will remain in place.

    In other states where voters approved abortion rights measures last month, there were no signs yet that lawmakers would also try to counter those measures.

    Even before votes in Missouri had been counted, proponents of Amendment 3, as the measure was called, had anticipated that a victory would be met with efforts to somehow undercut abortion rights.

    “These people will continue to rail against abortion,” said state Rep. Deb Lavender, a Democrat from the St. Louis suburbs.

    Although Missouri already has a law recognizing life as beginning at conception, stating that unborn children have “protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,” the proposed constitutional amendment would go further. It would effectively elevate this principle to the state constitution and potentially complicate not only abortion rights but the legality of in vitro fertilization and the handling of embryos.

    Several states have laws recognizing fetal personhood, but Missouri would be the second — after Alabama — to enshrine it in its constitution. That could create legal and ideological confusion or even conflicts, experts say.

    “You could see voters saying, ‘I support a right to abortion,’ but also saying, ‘Life begins at conception,’ without understanding that you can’t have both of those things at the same time,” said Jamille Fields Allsbrook, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law and a former policy analyst for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

    The author of one of the personhood measures, Rep. Justin Sparks, a Republican from the St. Louis suburbs, said he was emboldened by the narrow margin of the abortion rights vote.

    “A clear mandate has not been achieved,” he said. While the amendment had strong support in metro St. Louis and Kansas City and in the county that’s home to the University of Missouri, “the vast majority of the rest of the state voted in a different direction,” he added. “So I think it’s fair to again bring the question up.”

    But state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat also from the St. Louis suburbs, noted that Sparks was going against the will of voters in the St. Louis area. “I find that even more disrespectful of the voters,” she said. “It wasn’t just voters that tend to vote Democratic that voted yes on Amendment 3. It was also Republican voters and independent voters, and I think that’s getting lost in this discussion.”

    The measure to link abortion and transgender rights reflects the campaign before the election, when abortion opponents conflated these topics. Critics said this strategy seeks to distract from abortion rights, which had strong voter support, by capitalizing on voter discomfort with transgender issues.

    While GOP lawmakers push these measures, the legal landscape around abortion in Missouri is already shifting. On Wednesday, a Jackson County Circuit Court heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri that seeks to strike down Missouri’s near-total abortion ban and other laws that regulate abortion. The lawsuit followed the passage of Amendment 3. Planned Parenthood said if it wins in court it plans to resume abortion services in St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia on Friday.

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has acknowledged that the amendment will legalize most abortions when it goes into effect, but he has said he intends to enforce remaining restrictions, such as a ban on abortions after fetal viability, a 72-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.

    Lawmakers are also pushing to raise the bar for passing constitutional amendments. Now, a simple majority is enough; that has allowed Missouri voters to bypass the legislature and pass progressive amendments that lawmakers oppose. A new bill would ask voters to pass a constitutional amendment requiring not just a statewide majority but also a majority of voters in five of the state’s eight congressional districts — a change critics argued would give disproportionate power to rural areas over urban voters. It would then be harder for voters to approve measures that don’t align with the priorities of the conservative politicians they tend to elect.

    Earlier this year, a similar effort to make it harder to amend the constitution failed after Democrats in the Senate filibustered it.

    Sparks criticized the Republican leadership in the General Assembly for allowing the failure, pointing to a Republican supermajority in both houses that could have passed the measure.

    “We hold all the power,” Sparks said. “We hold all the procedural levers of power, and we can shut down debate in both houses any time, any day, for any bill we choose to.”

    Florida shows how a higher threshold for voter initiatives might play out. In 2006, the state raised the bar for constitutional amendments to 60%. This year, a majority of voters — 57% — supported an abortion rights amendment, an even bigger margin than in Missouri, but not sufficient in Florida.

    It’s not clear yet, though, whether any of the measures have enough support in Missouri’s General Assembly.

    Lavender said that the campaign supporting abortion rights significantly outraised its opposition during the election. “It’s going to be difficult to overturn,” she said. “You’ll have the same money that supported it now going up against you.”

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

    Texas leaders have shown a decadeslong antipathy toward Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program that covers millions of low-income and vulnerable residents.

    They declined additional federal money that, under the Affordable Care Act, would have allowed Medicaid to offer health care coverage to more low-income families. The state was among the last to insure women for an entire year after they gave birth. And when the federal government last year ended a policy that required states to keep people on their Medicaid rolls during the coronavirus pandemic, Texas officials rushed to kick off those they deemed ineligible, ignoring persistent warnings that the speedy process could lead to some people being wrongfully removed.

    Come January, when Donald Trump assumes the presidency for the second time, Texas leaders could get another opportunity to whittle down the program — this time with fewer constraints.

    Trump has not shared any plans to cut Medicaid, which covers about 80 million Americans, and his campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Health care advocates and experts, however, say that his past efforts to scale back the program, as well as positions taken by conservative groups and Republican lawmakers who back him, indicate that it would likely be a target for severe reductions.

    “We expect the Republicans to move very quickly to cut Medicaid dramatically and indeed end its guarantee of coverage as it exists today,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families in Washington, D.C.

    Currently, the federal government picks up, on average, nearly 70% of Medicaid spending, with states assuming the remaining costs. (A state’s share varies based mostly on what percentage of its residents are impoverished.) Any decisions to cut federal spending would likely lead states to shrink the number of people they deem eligible and the care that enrollees are entitled to receive, Alker and other experts said.

    That would be particularly devastating in Texas, which already has one of the country’s lowest percentages of residents covered through Medicaid and where officials lack the political will to make up the difference in funding with state money, experts say. Parents with two children, for example, must earn less than $285 monthly to qualify for Medicaid for themselves.

    “Our elected officials would have to decide whether they want to cut health care for pregnant women, kids, people with disabilities, or seniors because that is essentially who Medicaid covers in Texas,” Adriana Kohler, a policy director for Texans Care for Children, a statewide nonprofit that advocates for families, said in a statement.

    Spokespeople for Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and the state’s Health and Human Services Commission did not respond to repeated requests for comment. During Abbott’s prior role as the state’s attorney general, he helped to lead a successful lawsuit against the federal government, ensuring that states did not risk losing Medicaid funding entirely if they didn’t want to cover more residents as part of the Affordable Care Act.

    Even when Texas does offer Medicaid coverage to its most vulnerable residents, state officials enabled a system that creates often insurmountable barriers to receiving care. A 2018 Dallas Morning News investigation found that some of the insurance companies Texas hired to administer Medicaid benefits systematically denied expensive and, at times, life-saving treatments to bolster profits. Critics say problems with the system persist despite legislative reforms spurred by that series of stories.

    Texas insures more than 4 million residents through Medicaid, which amounts to a smaller percentage of its total population than almost any other state. But given its sheer size, the state still covers the third most people in the nation, behind only California and New York. The program provides health care for 3 in 8 children, 3 in 5 nursing home residents and 2 in 7 people with disabilities in Texas, according to KFF, a national health policy research organization. It is the top funder for nursing homes and long-term care services for the disabled and elderly, and it pays for nearly half of all births in the state.

    Michael Morgan, a 75-year-old retired nurse who lives in Fort Worth, is among those who worry that if Trump caps or cuts the amount of money the federal government spends on Medicaid, the state could make it even harder to get coverage for his daughter Hannah. She has Down syndrome and schizencephaly, a brain malformation, and she is deaf and partially blind, she doesn’t speak, and she needs assistance to walk and eat.

    Morgan is depleting his limited savings to pay for Hannah’s health care expenses after she lost Medicaid coverage earlier this year when she turned 19. He submitted a new application for her in May — she should qualify for Medicaid because of her disabilities. State officials denied her coverage in November, arguing that Morgan did not meet the deadline to return a form providing his consent for the agency to access his daughter’s medical and financial records. Morgan, who plans to appeal the denial, said in an interview that he received the form a day before the deadline.

    “I don’t know how much more they can cut it,” he said of Medicaid in Texas.

    During his first term, Trump tried unsuccessfully to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which provides health coverage to 45 million Americans. His administration also repeatedly supported spending caps for Medicaid, including block grants that would give states a fixed amount of federal funding, no matter how many people needed the insurance or how much their health care cost. Currently, Medicaid covers all people who qualify, no matter the expense.

    While those efforts did not significantly advance during Trump’s first term, Republicans will hold majorities in both the House and the Senate come January, and they have signaled an openness to impose caps on spending and establish requirements that most adults in the program hold jobs. They argue that Medicaid spending is unsustainable and that the program is susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse.

    Republicans who have supported such measures include U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Lubbock Republican who leads the House Budget Committee.

    GOP policy primers — including Project 2025, published by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, and one from the Republican Study Committee, a conservative congressional caucus — have also called for cutting Medicaid.

    Arrington, whose spokespeople did not respond to repeated requests for an interview, told reporters last month that he supported a “responsible and reasonable work requirement.” Harvard University health professors who studied a previous work mandate in Arkansas that Trump allowed during his first term found that most adults using Medicaid were already employed or qualified for an exemption, but thousands of residents still lost health care, at least in part because of the onerous process of continuously proving their eligibility.

    This is not the first time Arrington has pushed work requirements and sought to lower the share of health care costs that the federal government pays to states. He previously proposed cutting federal Medicaid spending by more than a quarter, or $1.9 trillion.

    Cornyn, whose spokespeople also repeatedly declined to comment, said last month that he would not support cuts to Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and the disabled, or to Social Security. Still, he suggested that Medicaid cuts were on the table.

    “We can’t just keep doing things the way we’ve been doing them,” Cornyn told Politico Pro, adding that “block grants make a lot of sense.”

    William T. Smith, a 65-year-old retired construction worker who lives along the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, said that he voted for Trump partly because he agrees that “there’s too much fat” and supports cutting some federal programs.

    Smith has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which affects his lungs and makes it difficult to breathe. He said he also has bipolar disorder, sleep apnea and chronic pain after decades of performing manual labor.

    Smith said Medicaid, which he has been trying to get since the summer, should not be where the federal government looks to reduce expenses. Instead, he said, the federal government should take savings from cutting other programs and put the money toward more people’s care.

    “I don’t think they’re going to yank health care away from people,” he said. “If they do, I’d be really angry.”

    Caught in Texas’ Medicaid and Food Stamp Application Backlog? Know Someone Who Is? Help Us Report.

    Dan Keemahill contributed reporting.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • Carolyn Dickens, 76, was sitting at her dining room table, struggling to catch her breath as her physician looked on with concern. “What’s going on with your breathing?” asked Peter Gliatto, director of Mount Sinai’s Visiting Doctors Program. “I don’t know,” she answered, so softly it was hard to hear. “Going from here to the bathroom or the door, I get really winded. I don’t know when…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

    A string of suspicious deaths. Two cases of infanticide that were nearly labeled as sudden infant death syndrome. A curiously low rate of opioid overdose deaths. These are among the red flags Idahoans have pointed to over the decades as they tried to get those in power to change Idaho’s system for death investigation, which relies on elected county coroners with virtually no state support or oversight.

    Lawmakers have come close a few times to instituting reforms. But every attempt has failed. Often, the reason is simple, current and former coroners and national experts told ProPublica in recent months: Nobody wants to spend money on death.

    But that leaves Idaho with a system where one coroner can choose not to follow national standards while a neighboring county’s coroner does.

    Calls for reform to Idaho’s system have popped up nearly every decade since at least the 1950s. Some of the earliest pleas for change came from local physicians and state health officials, alarmed by Idaho’s refusal to modernize its approach to death investigations.

    November 1951

    The Idaho Statesman highlighted a national magazine article that called Idaho “the best place in the nation for a criminal to ‘get away with murder’ in the literal sense” because the state exemplified “how an antiquated county coroner’s system can contribute to frequent miscarriages of justice.”

    (Idaho Statesman. Highlighted by ProPublica.) March 1959

    A doctor who’d served as coroner of Idaho’s largest county resigned, citing “antiquated and totally inadequate” state law. He said legislators that year declined to introduce a bill that was “a middle of the road endeavor between the abysmal inadequacy of existing law and a central state medical examiners system.”

    September 1965

    Dr. T. O. Carver, state health administrator at the time, told The Associated Press, “I think … if someone wanted to commit a homicide without having it discovered, Idaho would be a good place to do it.” Carver praised Oregon’s medical examiner system and said changing Idaho to a similar setup would cost more, but it would yield evidence and truth.

    (Sandpoint News-Bulletin via Bonner County Daily Bee. Highlighted by ProPublica.) October 1965

    The director of Idaho’s vital records bureau raised alarm about the qualifications of coroners, the state’s autopsy rate and “questionable” death investigations. The director said coroners handled 600 to 700 deaths in Idaho each year, and 10% or less had autopsies.

    Fall of 1976

    A hospital pathologist in rural Idaho called for replacing the state’s “archaic” coroner system with a medical examiner’s office. “Idaho is one state where it would be very easy to commit murder and go undetected,” he said, according to news archives. “With a little intelligence and care, no one would ever know it happened under the present coroner system in our counties.”

    (Times-News. Highlighted by ProPublica.) March 1997

    Following a string of suspicious deaths, the Idaho Statesman again urged reform in an editorial: “Idaho must recognize that the elected coroner system can take it only so far,” the writers said. “Idaho residents need protection. They need coroners, pathologists and medical examiners who can work with law enforcement” to catch criminals.

    (Idaho Statesman. Highlighted by ProPublica.) December 1998

    The Post Register in eastern Idaho produced a series on child deaths that found a dearth of autopsies, including two cases of infanticide that were almost attributed to SIDS. In the five years that followed, legislators mulled coroner reform bills but didn’t pass any. A county prosecutor told the paper, “It’s not working in the late twentieth century, it’s not going to work in the twenty-first century.”

    January 2006

    Ten years after her son’s death was ruled a suicide without an autopsy, a Boise woman who became an advocate wrote in the Idaho Statesman, “Legislators must take a fresh look at laws governing the coroner system in Idaho.”

    February 2019

    A former state senator, family physician and county coroner wrote in his blog that Idaho was “quite likely” underreporting opioid overdose deaths, partly because coroners weren’t detecting and reporting them. “Ever since I was the Latah County Coroner for 15 years I have wondered about the wisdom of the county coroner system for the state of Idaho,” Dan Schmidt wrote. “To all the County Coroners, ask yourselves, are you happy with the system you have for investigating deaths? Are you doing a good job? Are there ways this could be done better?”

    Data reporter Ellis Simani contributed data analysis.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

    Idaho has known for at least 73 years that its frontier-era coroner system does not work. For just as long, the state has failed to make meaningful changes to it.

    In a review of legislative records and news archives going back to 1951, ProPublica found a pattern — repeating almost every decade — of reform-minded legislators, trade groups, members of the public, doctors, lawyers and even some coroners pushing to change how Idaho handles death investigations.

    ProPublica reported last month how a coroner in eastern Idaho didn’t follow national standards to figure out why 2-month-old Onyxx Cooley died in his sleep last winter. As the coroner would later tell ProPublica, Idaho law says nothing about following any standards. The law provides no oversight, no state medical examiner and no other resources to ensure each county has adequate access to autopsies.

    Almost unchanged since the late 1800s, the law does little more than say Idaho’s coroners are responsible for explaining the state’s most inexplicable deaths.

    But for decades, it’s been well known that Idaho’s patchwork of 44 coroner’s offices leaves grief-stricken parents without answers in their children’s deaths; creates disparities in coroners’ investigations based on where a person dies; and may even allow murderers to escape prosecution.

    “The system needs a complete reform, as a whole,” Dotti Owens, former Ada County coroner, told ProPublica this year.

    In the death of Onyxx, the coroner decided not to order an autopsy for the infant, go to the scene or talk with the family. Instead, he deferred to an emergency room doctor’s diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. Frustrated detectives called a neighboring county’s coroner to see if he could intervene.

    In an interview with ProPublica last month, the coroner, Rick Taylor, defended how he handled the death, saying he talked with doctors and police on the scene and looked at Onyxx’s medical records. “We did basically what I call a ‘paperwork autopsy,’” he said.

    Onyxx died weeks before a state agency issued a report to state legislators that warned them of structural failures in Idaho’s coroner system. Legislators said they were stunned by the findings.

    Diamond and Alexis Cooley hold a photo of their son, Onyxx, who died in his sleep in February in eastern Idaho. (Natalie Behring for ProPublica)

    Idaho continues to entrust death investigations to elected coroners, who have no oversight and few rules to follow, and whose budgets can rise and fall on the whims of other county politicians — unlike in places such as Washington, where state funding helps provide some stability.

    There’s no centralized authority to whom Idaho families or prosecutors can appeal when a coroner doesn’t follow standards. And nearly all of Idaho’s counties lack the facilities and pathologists to do their own autopsies, so a coroner must drive a body to a morgue hours away every time they order an autopsy.

    Idaho Child Death Reviewers Point to Coroner System

    There is one statewide group whose sole purpose is to find patterns and safety gaps in deaths that may help save children’s lives in the future.

    The Child Fatality Review Team is among those who have flagged problems with Idaho’s coroner system for decades.

    “Something needs to happen,” the team’s current chair, Tahna Barton, said.

    In its annual reports on child deaths, the team pointed year after year to the inconsistent work by coroners who lack sufficient budgets, staffing, experience and training.

    “We strongly urge the introduction of new legislation to establish a state medical examiner system,” the team’s 1997 report said.

    There have been no significant reforms since then.

    In 2012, the team said it received “problematic” documents from coroners detailing how one infant wasn’t autopsied until after its body was embalmed and how another’s death certificate didn’t match what the autopsy found.

    Nine years ago, the team said Idaho’s population boom put a strain on coroner’s offices, which “historically operated with small staff sizes and lean budgets and have not received additional funding to support ever-increasing caseloads.” Since then, the state has consistently ranked among the fastest growing in the U.S., while few coroners’ budgets have kept pace.

    The Child Fatality Review Team’s most recent report, on 2021 deaths, said the problem lingers: too many cases, not enough time or money.

    Reforms Fail as Officials Refuse Oversight and Spending

    At every turn in the past 50 years, people with a vested interest in keeping Idaho’s coroner system as unregulated as possible have halted efforts to change it.

    It often comes down to money.

    Idaho leaves it up to each coroner to decide whether to follow national standards and up to each county to decide whether the coroner has the funds to do the job right. As long as that hands-off approach by the state holds, as it has for decades, nothing will change, said Owens, the former Ada County coroner.

    “We need to have state statutes that outline the fact that, you know, infants should be autopsied unless there’s a medical diagnosis. The problem with that is, if we go ahead and we mandate that, who’s going to do it all? We don’t have the resources to do it all, which is half of the problem,” Owens said.

    That tension has thwarted reform efforts since last century.

    As reformers worked in January 1975 to draft legislation that would have changed Idaho from an elected coroner system to one headed by a state medical examiner, funeral home directors organized a preemptive strike. A local funeral director warned commissioners of a rural county in northernmost Idaho that lawmakers might approve reforms that would create “prohibitive” costs to local governments. The commissioners “voted to write their legislators opposing this while it is still in legislative committee,” the local newspaper reported.

    It worked. A few weeks later, the legislator behind the proposal backed down, a state senator told the county’s local newspaper.

    A group of law enforcement officials, attorneys and a physician who doubled as county coroner met again in November 1975 to gear up for another try.

    We need to have state statutes that outline the fact that, you know, infants should be autopsied unless there’s a medical diagnosis. The problem with that is, if we go ahead and we mandate that, who’s going to do it all?

    —Dotti Owens, former Ada County coroner

    The group wrote a proposal to scrap the elected coroner system and instead hire a full-time forensic pathologist to serve as Idaho’s state medical examiner. Part-time physicians would be appointed to head district offices, with some medically trained assistants to help them. Gov. Cecil Andrus “endorsed the concept,” according to wire reports at the time. The proposal never gained traction; news reports said it would have required both an act of the Legislature and a constitutional amendment.

    Lawmakers again tried to improve Idaho’s system around the turn of the 21st century.

    Two bills, in 1999 and 2000, would have created a state medical examiner’s office to oversee autopsies, support and train coroners, and provide something Idaho never had before: a “uniform protocol” for death investigations.

    Two other bills, in 2003 and 2004, tried to take a narrower scope: setting an autopsy requirement for sudden unexplained infant deaths.

    None passed.

    One bill sponsor, a Democrat from North Idaho, told a House committee in 2003 of her own baby’s death being ruled SIDS without an autopsy, the committee records show. “She stated that parents deserve to know if the infant died of SIDS and autopsies could relieve some guilt for the parents.”

    A woman whose Idaho grandson’s sudden death was attributed to SIDS also supported reform, saying SIDS “is a horrible explanation to give a parent or grandparent. It is like having your child kidnapped and never knowing what happened to them,” she wrote to lawmakers. “One beginning to find the cause is through autopsies. We need standards set so that a cause can be found to help prevent this death from occurring. No one should experience the pain of losing a child, and especially not knowing why.”

    The reforms had support from local and national groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Medical Examiners and the state pediatric and firefighters’ associations.

    The bills collapsed under pressure from local governments and individual coroners. The state coroner’s association and state association of counties made a contradictory argument: that the mandate to autopsy SIDS deaths was unnecessary because Idaho coroners already were doing autopsies in those deaths; but a mandate to do so would “require an increase in every coroner’s budget.”

    Idaho is at the bottom nationally for autopsies in deaths attributed to SIDS, according to a ProPublica analysis of nationwide death certificate data. Idaho also has the lowest rate of any state for autopsies performed in child deaths from unknown or unnatural causes.

    And in February of this year, Onyxx Cooley became part of that statistic.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • Rana Nabeel Baalousha is a 23-year-old woman with a beautiful face that reflects deep compassion. She is imprisoned in a slender and frail body, clinging to the hope of experiencing just one day of normalcy. Amid the relentless atrocities of war that have ravaged Gaza for more than 400 soul-crushing days, Rana strives to survive. For five long years, Rana has been battling a rare…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After his uncle was first elected president of the United States, Fred C. Trump III wanted to use the access he had to the White House for something positive, he explains in his new memoir, All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way. “I was eager to champion something my wife, Lisa, and I were deeply passionate about, something we lived every day: the challenges for individuals with…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In the two counties around nurse practitioner Samantha Marsee’s clinic in rural northeastern Maryland, there’s not a single clinic that provides abortions. And until recently, Marsee herself wasn’t trained to treat patients who wanted to end a pregnancy. “I didn’t really have a lot of knowledge about abortion care,” she said. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, she watched state after…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • If confirmed to be the next U.S. secretary of health and human services, anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could be working “closely” with another official who’s infamous for his questionable health guidance: Dr. Mehmet Oz, who President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday nominated to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Trump said in a statement that if confirmed…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • For years, it was a mystery: Seemingly out of the blue, therapists would feel like they’d tripped some invisible wire and become a target of UnitedHealth Group. A company representative with the Orwellian title “care advocate” would call and grill them about why they’d seen a patient twice a week or weekly for six months. In case after case, United would refuse to cover care…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Hospitals around the country are conserving critical intravenous fluid supplies to cope with a shortage that may last months. Some hospital administrators say they are changing how they think about IV fluid hydration altogether. Hurricane Helene, which hit North Carolina in September, wrecked a Baxter International facility that produces 60% of the IV fluids used in the U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    For Lincare, paying multimillion-dollar legal settlements is an integral part of doing business.

    The company, the largest distributor of home oxygen equipment in the United States, admitted billing Medicare for ventilators it knew customers weren’t using (2024) and overcharging Medicare and thousands of elderly patients (2023). It settled allegations of violating a law against kickbacks (2018) and charging Medicare for patients who had died (2017). The company resolved lawsuits alleging a “nationwide scheme to pay physicians kickbacks to refer their patients to Lincare” (2006) and that it falsified claims that its customers needed oxygen (2001). (Lincare admitted wrongdoing in only the two most recent settlements.)

    Such a litany of Medicare-related misconduct might be expected to provoke drastic action from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the federal health insurance program that covers 1 in 6 Americans. Given that most of Lincare’s estimated $2.4 billion in annual revenues are paid by Medicare, HHS wields tremendous power over the company.

    Sure enough, as part of the 2023 settlement, HHS placed Lincare on the agency’s equivalent of probation, a so-called corporate integrity agreement. The foreboding-sounding document includes a “death penalty” provision: Any “material breach” of the probation agreement, which runs for five years, “constitutes an independent basis for Lincare’s exclusion from participation in the Federal health care programs.” Such a ban could effectively kill Lincare’s business.

    That sounds dire. Except that before that corporate integrity agreement was signed in 2023, Lincare was under the same form of probation, with the same death penalty provision, from 2018 to 2023, and violated its terms. From 2006 to 2011, Lincare was similarly on probation and also violated the terms, according to the government. And before that — well, you get the picture. Lincare has been on probation four times since 2001. And despite a pattern not only of fraud, but of breaking its probation agreements, Lincare has never been required to do more than pay settlements that amount to pennies relative to its profits.

    This is not an aberration. While HHS routinely imposes the death penalty on small operations, it has never barred a national Medicare supplier like Lincare from continuing to do business with the government. Some companies, it seems, are too big to ban.

    Lincare’s lengthy record of misbehavior isn’t a surprise to people in the medical equipment business. What is surprising is the federal government’s willingness to pull its punches with a company that has fleeced taxpayers and elderly customers again and again.

    Federal officials have never pursued the company executives who oversee this behavior even though two of them, Chief Operating Officer Greg McCarthy and Chief Compliance Officer Jenna Pedersen, have worked at Lincare through all four of the company’s probationary periods. No one has faced criminal charges for activity the government’s own investigators deemed fraud.

    Medicare has continued to pay Lincare billions even as many of the company’s customers revile it. Evaluations on customer-review websites are lacerating, and complaints to state attorneys general abound. On the Better Business Bureau’s website, 888 reviewers gave Lincare an average score of 1.3 out of 5. They cite dirty and broken equipment, charges that continue even after equipment has been returned, harassing sales and collection calls, and nightmarish customer service. As one person wrote in April, Lincare is “running a scam where they have guaranteed income” and “the customer can’t do a thing.”

    Bauer’s oxygen concentrator and Lincare’s Libby, Montana, storefront. The company has 1.8 million customers in 48 states. (Rebecca Stumpf, special to ProPublica)

    HHS has always been reluctant to cut off big suppliers. Medicare’s first objective is to make sure nothing interrupts the flow of medications, devices and services to beneficiaries. And were HHS to seek to ban Lincare, the company would surely launch a long, costly legal war. But even if the cost of such combat reached many millions of dollars, it would still be a tiny fraction of the amount lost to fraud, which is yet another contributor to the soaring medical costs that bedevil the country. “This is taxpayer money,” said Jerry Martin, a former U.S. attorney who represented an ex-Lincare executive in a whistleblower suit against the company. “We need to pay people that don’t have four corporate-integrity agreements.”

    Weak enforcement is not the only problem. Lincare is paid to rent oxygen equipment to patients, with HHS covering most of the monthly bills. But those rental fees often add up to many times what it would cost simply to buy the equipment. “If this were a rational country,” Bruce Vladeck, who ran Medicare from 1993 to 1997, told ProPublica, “the government would buy a million [oxygen] concentrators and pay Amazon or somebody to deliver them.”

    In a seven-month investigation, ProPublica examined how Medicare’s largest provider of home medical equipment has managed to take advantage of its customers for a quarter of a century while fending off meaningful enforcement. ProPublica interviewed more than 60 current and former employees and executives, Medicare and Justice Department officials, patient advocates, and health care experts. ProPublica also reviewed dozens of court cases involving Lincare and thousands of pages of internal company documents, sales presentations and emails.

    The investigation reveals a dismal picture of a company with a sales culture that depends on squeezing infirm and elderly patients and the government for every penny. Lincare employees are pressured to sell — whether a customer needs a product or not — on pain of losing their jobs.

    And the company’s record of misbehavior and conflict extends far beyond its sales and billing practices. Lincare has paid $9.5 million in settlements for data breaches and mishandling patient and employee records. It has faced claims of violating wage rules, harassing customers with sales and collection calls, and tolerating racist comments to an African American employee. (Lincare lost the latter suit at trial and is appealing.) The company has repeatedly sparred in court with former executives, including a 2017 suit in which longtime executive Sharon Ford claimed that the company had cheated her out of a $1 million bonus. (A judge ruled in favor of Ford at trial before the case was overturned on appeal.) Ford testified that Lincare had earned an industry reputation as “The Evil Empire.” And when Lincare’s CEO, Crispin Teufel, resigned last year to become CEO of a rival company, Lincare sued him for breach of contract and misappropriating trade secrets. Teufel ultimately admitted to downloading confidential company records and was blocked from taking the new job. (Teufel did not respond to requests for comment. His replacement, Jeff Barnhard, took over as Lincare’s CEO in July 2023.)

    Lincare declined multiple requests to make executives available for interviews. After ProPublica provided a lengthy document listing every assertion in this article, along with separate such letters to executives McCarthy and Pedersen, the company responded with a three-paragraph statement. It asserted that Lincare is “committed to delivering high-quality and clinically appropriate equipment, supplies, and services” but acknowledged “missteps in the past.” The company said its “new leadership” had “commenced a comprehensive review of our policies and procedures to help ensure we are complying fully with all state and federal regulations” and that “investments and enhancements we have made over the last several months will help prevent these issues from repeating in the future.” Lincare did not respond to follow-up questions requesting examples of the steps the company says it’s taking, including whether it has terminated any executives as part of this push.

    When ProPublica asked a top Medicare enforcer why Lincare had eluded banishment, her answer suggested she views probation as a continuing ed class rather than a harsh punishment. “It’s like taking a college course,” said Tamara Forys, who is in charge of administrative and civil remedies for HHS’ Office of Inspector General. “At the end of the day, it’s really up to you to change your corporate culture and to study, to learn to pass the class … to embrace that and take those lessons learned and move them forward.” A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, declined to comment on Lincare but said the agency “is committed to preventing fraud and protecting people with Medicare from falling victim to fraud.”

    There’s little incentive to refrain from misbehaving in an environment that tolerates bad behavior, said Lewis Morris, who was chief counsel to HHS’ Office of Inspector General from 2002 to 2012. “As long as that [settlement] check is less than the amount you stole, it’s a good business proposition.”

    Indeed, Lincare has counted on the government’s tepid response, two former company executives told ProPublica. Top management, they said, responds to fraud warnings by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. “I’ve sat in meetings where they said, ‘We might have $5 to $10 million risk — if caught,’” said Owen Kirk Staggs, who ran one of Lincare’s businesses in 2017 and fell out with the company. “‘But we’ve made $50 million. So let’s go for it. The risk is worth the reward.’”

    Longtime friends Ben Montgomery and Brandon Haugen worked together in Lincare’s operation in Libby and noticed billing irregularities. (Rebecca Stumpf, special to ProPublica)

    Libby, Montana, provides a glimpse of the way Lincare operates. Oxygen is an urgent need in this mountain town of 2,857. Libby suffers from the lingering effects of “the worst case of industrial poisoning of a whole community in American history,” in the words of the Environmental Protection Agency. An open-pit vermiculite mine, which operated from 1963 to 1990, coated the area — and residents’ lungs — with needle-like asbestos fibers. More than 2,000 Libby citizens have been diagnosed with respiratory diseases since then; some 700 have died.

    Hundreds of ailing residents relied on Lincare for home concentrators, which provide nearly pure oxygen extracted from room air. Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans (which the government also funds) covered 80% of the monthly rental of about $135; patients paid the remaining 20%.

    In 2020, Brandon Haugen noticed something suspicious in Lincare’s bills. Haugen was a customer service representative at the company’s local distribution site, one of 700 such locations around the country. (Lincare serves 1.8 million respiratory patients in 48 states.)

    Lincare was allowed to charge patients and their insurers for a maximum of 36 months under federal rules. After that point, patients could use the equipment without further charge. Lincare, however, kept billing local patients and their Medicare Advantage plans far beyond 36 months — in some cases, for years. To Haugen, this looked like fraud.

    Haugen conferred with center manager Ben Montgomery. The two, who had grown up in the area, had been buddies since seventh grade, after getting to know each other at summer Bible camp. Then 38, earnest and just beginning to gray out of their boyishness, the two men were concerned. The patients the men dealt with were their neighbors.

    A regional Lincare manager assured them that charging beyond 36 months for Medicare Advantage patients “is the correct way to bill.” Skeptical, Montgomery raised the issue with Lincare’s headquarters in Clearwater, Florida. Lincare’s compliance director told him, according to Montgomery, that “it’s the patients’ problem to fix it if they want it to stop”; that was “just how it worked.” Further questions, sent to Lincare’s chief compliance officer, Pedersen, went nowhere. “It seemed pretty obvious they were well aware of this,” Montgomery told ProPublica. “For me, these were my customers that you were screwing over.”

    Among them was Neil Bauer, now 80, who lives in a ramshackle house “out in the boondocks,” as he put it, 38 miles southeast of Libby. Bauer spent his career as a barber, head of investigations for the county sheriff’s department and a member of the local school board. He’s been on oxygen for more than a decade and quickly gets short of breath. “I can’t do stuff so much now,” he said. His wife is on oxygen, too. “We just have a sick family,” Bauer said.

    How Lincare Billed Over $16,000 for a Breathing Device that Costs $799

    Neil Bauer needed an oxygen concentrator to cope with asbestosis. Rather than buying one — which costs about $799 today — Medicare Advantage rented one from Lincare and paid 80% of the monthly charges. Bauer covered the remaining 20%. Companies can bill for a maximum of 36 months, after which patients are entitled to use the equipment without further charge.

    *This calculation undercounts the amounts Lincare billed; $27.35 for Bauer (and $109.40 for Medicare) represent the amounts Lincare was charging at the end of the time Bauer was billed. The monthly charges were higher earlier in the period, but ProPublica could not gain access to all of Bauer’s account statements, so we used the lower, more conservative figures.

    Lincare had kept billing Bauer for his concentrator for seven years after it was supposed to stop. The monthly copays weren’t huge, but they added up to $2,325 that he shouldn’t have been charged over that period, a daunting sum for Bauer, who lives on a fixed income — and a hefty mark-up over the cost of the equipment, which can be purchased online for $799. For its part, Medicare Advantage paid Lincare $9,299 for Bauer’s concentrator during this period, along with another $5,760 for the months Lincare was legally permitted to bill. All told, the rental payments to Lincare, during authorized and unauthorized periods, were $16,547 for that one $799 piece of equipment. “We paid forever,” said Bauer. “Never was I told that we could have one without having to pay anything.”

    Haugen and Montgomery studied billing records. Among the customers in their tiny office, Lincare was improperly charging at least 33 people and their Medicare plans. The two began to wonder how far this problem extended. An employee in Idaho confirmed the same practice was occurring there. “In my mind,” Montgomery said, “I went, ‘This is Libby, Montana. Multiply that by every center in the country. This is obviously a lot bigger deal.’”

    Montgomery and Haugen had seen enough. On Jan. 18, 2021, they emailed a joint resignation letter to Lincare’s top management, recounting their concerns about billing that “likely affects thousands of patients company wide.” Citing the lack of response from corporate officials, they wrote, “we can only conclude that this is a known issue that is being covered up by Lincare.”

    Haugen had 10 children. Montgomery had four. Neither man had another job lined up. “Had this not happened,” said Montgomery, who had been at the company for 13 years, “I would have seen myself retiring from Lincare.”

    Instead, they became whistleblowers. They retained a law firm and sued Lincare in Spokane, Washington, the site of Lincare’s regional headquarters. After federal prosecutors decided to back the case, Lincare settled in August 2023. The company admitted to overbilling Medicare plans and patients across the country for years and paid $29 million to settle the matter, with $5.7 million of that going to Montgomery, Haugen and their lawyers. Dan Fruchter, the assistant U.S. attorney leading the government’s case, told ProPublica that the overbillings likely involved “tens of thousands” of patients.

    Lincare agreed to its fourth stint of probation with HHS; the new corporate-integrity agreement took effect on the day after the previous one expired. The conduct Montgomery and Haugen flagged had gone on for years while the company was already on probation. But Lincare got the government lawyers to agree that nobody would try to impose the Medicare death penalty. Lincare asserted in the settlement that it had installed software (which it did only after learning of the government investigation) that will prevent billing beyond 36 months. Lincare promised to ensure “full and timely” compliance with the agreement and prevent future wrongdoing.

    “We paid forever,” said Bauer, seen at his house outside Libby. He didn’t realize at the time that Lincare had been wrongly billing him for years. (Rebecca Stumpf, special to ProPublica)

    Medicare fraud, including in the “durable medical equipment” category that Lincare operates in, has long been an intractable problem. It cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $60 billion in 2023 alone.

    The government deploys large sums to try to stop it. HHS’ inspector general’s office has a $432 million budget and a staff of 1,600. Those resources are effectively extended by whistleblowers — most of the cases against Lincare have been such suits — who can receive a percentage of a civil settlement if they reveal wrongdoing, and by federal prosecutors, who can also bring cases or join those filed by whistleblowers. Last year HHS recovered $3.2 billion from fraudulent schemes.

    But the agency’s enforcers have wielded their biggest deterrent almost entirely against small perpetrators. In 2023, they banned 2,112 small firms and individuals from Medicare reimbursement.

    HHS hasn’t done the same with companies that operate on a national scale. Forys, the agency enforcer, said she worries that expelling a big provider from Medicare could leave customers in the lurch. In April, Inspector General Christi Grimm defended her office’s work in congressional testimony but also asserted that its resources are inadequate. A lack of staff keeps it from even investigating “between 300 and 400 viable criminal and civil health care cases” annually, she testified, as well as more than half the fraud referrals from Medicare’s outside audit contractors.

    A different reason for going easy on big companies was suggested by Vladeck, the former Medicare chief. Seeking to bar a large supplier for repeatedly violating probation would require exhaustive documentation and years of litigation against squadrons of well-paid corporate lawyers. As a result, Vladeck said, “there’s a real incentive, from a bureaucratic point of view, to just slap their wrist, give them a kick and make them apologize. … It’s a cost of doing business.”

    There are steps enforcers could take, but almost never do, that would make companies take notice, according to Jacob Elberg, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Seton Hall Law School. (Among his publications is a 2021 law review article titled “Health Care Fraud Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry.”) Elberg’s research shows that HHS and prosecutors tend to negotiate far smaller civil settlements than the law allows, and they rarely prosecute company executives. They also almost never take cases to trial. In short, enforcers have long signaled to companies that they’re looking for a smooth path to a cash payment rather than a stern punishment for a company and its leaders. “It is generally a safe assumption,” Elberg said, “that the result will be a civil settlement at an amount that is tolerable.”

    For its part, Congress may soon be weighing a new law that would reshape how the oxygen industry is paid by Medicare. But rather than clamp down on corporations, the legislation seems poised to do the opposite. A new bill called the SOAR (Supplemental Oxygen Access Reform) Act would hand companies like Lincare hundreds of millions more, by raising reimbursement rates and eliminating competitive bidding among equipment providers. Advocates say the legislation will help patients by making some forms of oxygen more available and improving service. But along the way it will reward Lincare and its rivals.

    Congress has a history of treating oxygen companies generously. For years, lawmakers set Medicare reimbursements for oxygen equipment at levels that even HHS, in 1997, characterized as “grossly excessive.” Over the succeeding decade and a half, Lincare took advantage, snatching up hundreds of small suppliers and becoming the industry’s largest player.

    In 2006, under pressure to reduce costs, Congress approved steps to curb oxygen payments, including the introduction of competitive bidding and the 36-month cap on payments for equipment rentals. But even those strictures were watered down after the industry poured money into political contributions and lobbyists, who warned that cuts would harm elderly patients.

    Lincare compensated by amping up strategies that generated profits, with little apparent regard for Medicare’s rules, which say it will reimburse costs for equipment only when there is evidence of “medical necessity.” The company aggressively courted doctors and incentivized sales, through bonuses the company paid for each new device “setup.” According to a 2016 commission schedule, reps could earn $40 for winning an order for a new sleep apnea machine, $100 for a new oxygen patient and $200 for a noninvasive ventilator. The entire staff of each Lincare center could receive a small bonus for signing up a high percentage of new patients for automatic monthly billing. Patients who refused auto-billing, a company document advised, should be warned they might face “collection activity” and service cutoffs. “Sales is our top priority!” declared a 2020 PowerPoint to train new hires.

    Once it had a customer, Lincare would pitch them more costly products and services. One way Lincare did this was through a program called CareChecks. Promoted as a “patient monitoring” benefit, CareChecks were aimed, according to a company presentation, at generating “internal growth.” If a patient exhibited a persistent phlegmy cough, Lincare could persuade their doctor to prescribe a special vibrating vest to loosen chest mucus. Nebulizer patients might be candidates for home oxygen. Patients using apnea devices were potential candidates for ventilators. “We’d make patients think we were coming in clinically to assess them,” a former Lincare manager said, “when really it was to make money off of them.”

    Selling replacement parts could also be lucrative. At Lincare call centers that sold items like hoses, masks and filters for CPAP machines (used to treat apnea), hundreds of commissioned agents in Nashville, Tennessee, and Tampa, Florida, were equipped with programs displaying what items each patient was eligible for under Medicare. By law, patients had to request replacement parts. But frequently, that wasn’t what happened, according to Staggs, who oversaw the CPAP business in 2017. He discovered that top salespeople, whose bonuses could total $8,000 a month, averaged just a few minutes on the phone per order. That wasn’t nearly enough time to identify what items, if any, customers actually needed. Staggs listened to recorded calls and found that, after reaching customers, agents often placed them on hold until they hung up, then ordered them every product that Medicare would cover.

    At Lincare, results were closely tracked and widely shared in weekly emails displaying the best and worst performers in each region. Notes taken by one manager show supervisors’ performance demands during weekly conference calls: “Unacceptable to miss goal … stop the excuses … If this is not being done, wrong [center manager] in place … If you’re not getting O2 and not getting Care Checks — you shit the bed. Stop accepting mediocre, lazy responses ….”

    “If we didn’t meet our quota, they were going to chop our heads,” said former Illinois sales rep Sandra Gauch, who worked for Lincare for 17 years before joining a whistleblower suit and quitting in 2022.

    One salesperson was so fearful of missing her quota, according to Gauch, that she signed her mother up for a ventilator that she didn’t need. A company audit in 2018 found that only 10 of 56 ventilator patients at one center were using them consistently. Some patients hadn’t used their devices for years. Yet Lincare kept billing Medicare.

    Lincare has 700 locations around the country, including this one in Libby, where widespread asbestos contamination left thousands with serious breathing problems. (Rebecca Stumpf, special to ProPublica)

    Only one thing mattered as much as maximizing new equipment rentals, according to former employees and company documents: minimizing customers’ attempts to end rentals. A call to retrieve breathing equipment meant that it was no longer wanted or being used, and Lincare was supposed to retrieve it and promptly stop billing Medicare and the patient. The person’s health might have improved. They might have gone into the hospital — or died. The reason didn’t matter; at Lincare, “pickups” were a black mark, deducted from employees’ performance scores, jeopardizing their bonuses and jobs.

    As a result, employees said, such requests were dreaded, delayed and deterred. Clinical staff were sent to “reeducate” customers to keep using their devices. Patients were told they’d need to sign a form stating they were acting “against medical advice.”

    Lincare managers made it clear that pickups should be discouraged. In a 2010 email, an Ohio center manager instructed subordinates: “As we have already discussed, absolutely no pick-ups/inactivation’s are to be do[ne] until I give you the green light. Even if they are deceased.” In 2018, an Illinois supervisor emailed her deputies that pickups were barred without her explicit approval: “Not even Death that I don’t approve first.”

    In February 2022, Justin Linafelter, an area manager in Denver, responded to the latest corporate email celebrating monthly “Achievement Rankings” for oxygen sales by pointing out that almost all of the centers atop the rankings had at least 150 “pending pickups,” customers who weren’t using their equipment but whom the company appeared to still be billing. “Some of these centers are just ignoring pickups to make this list.”

    That was only one of Linafelter’s concerns. In July of that year, he emailed headquarters, saying he no longer had “the resources to be successful at my job.” The customer service staff in Denver had been cut in half, Linafelter explained, and he’d been barred from hiring replacements. Denver’s remaining staff was “at a point of exhaustion,” threatening patient care.

    The morning after Linafelter expressed concerns to Lincare in 2022, he was summoned to a conference call with the head of HR and fired, for what he was told was a “corporate restructuring.” Linafelter, who had worked at Lincare for nine years, said, “I got thrown away like a piece of trash.”

    Other former employees offer similar accounts. In 2020, Jillian Watkins, a center manager in Huntington, West Virginia, repeatedly alerted supervisors that Lincare was improperly billing for equipment that patients weren’t using. Lincare blocked her from firing a subordinate who’d falsified documents supporting the charges, then fired Watkins, citing “inadequate direction and leadership.”

    Then came a series of turns. Pedersen, the chief compliance officer, effectively confirmed Watkins’ assertions, belatedly alerting the government about $486,000 in improper billings by Lincare. But Pedersen blamed the billings on Watkins, writing to Medicare that the company had “terminated” her to “prevent [the problem] from recurring.” After Watkins sued, Pedersen admitted in a deposition that Watkins’ firing “had nothing to do with the overpayment.” In April 2024, a federal judge ruled that Watkins had presented “a prima facie case of retaliation.” The suit was privately settled in mediation.

    Staggs, too, was ousted, he said, after he warned top Lincare executives about improper practices at the CPAP call centers. Staggs emailed a Lincare HR officer: “Patients are being shipped supplies that they never have ordered. … This is fraud and I have gotten zero support or attention to this matter when I raise the issue to my leadership.” Only months after starting, he was fired in November 2017. He later filed a whistleblower suit; Lincare denied wrongdoing. After the U.S. attorney’s office in Nashville declined to join the case in 2022, Staggs withdrew the action.

    Staggs’ account of improper billings matches an industry pattern that appears to continue to this day. In a 2018 report, HHS’ inspector general estimated that Medicare had paid more than $631 million in improper claims for CPAP and other supplies over a two-year period. Another HHS analysis identified an additional $566 million in potential overpayments for apnea devices.

    The agency’s oversight “was not sufficient to ensure that suppliers complied with Medicare requirements,” the 2018 report concluded. Six years later, HHS has not taken public action against Lincare relating to CPAPs.

    Today, fraudulent billing among Medicare equipment providers remains a “major concern,” according to the inspector general. The agency says it continues to review the issue.

    Doris Burke contributed research.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

    A police officer heard wailing as he approached the house in a farming community near Idaho Falls, Idaho. It was freezing cold in the predawn darkness of 6:10 a.m. on Feb. 1, and Alexis Cooley was “hysterical,” the officer wrote later. He followed her into the house.

    To Alexis, nothing felt real in that moment. It was like her eyes were a video screen playing a movie. More officers and sheriff’s deputies arrived. An ambulance pulled up. When Alexis called 911 minutes before, she’d said between sobs and frantic pleas for help that the baby wasn’t breathing and his body was cold. Medics performed CPR on her newborn son’s 12-pound body, though it was futile.

    Still, the medics asked: Would you like us to take him to the hospital? Yes, save my baby, Alexis remembers saying, and soon she was in her husband Diamond’s pickup truck, following the ambulance to the hospital.

    The doctor pronounced Onyxx Cooley dead two minutes after arrival.

    In the hours that followed, as Alexis and Diamond Cooley sat with their baby’s body, the search for answers about what took his life was supposed to begin. The person whose job is to find those answers, the elected coroner of Bonneville County, failed to do so.

    He never asked Alexis and Diamond about the days preceding Onyxx’s death, never visited the scene, never performed a reenactment of the infant’s sleeping position, never ordered an autopsy. Some or all of these steps are prescribed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American Academy of Pediatrics when an otherwise healthy infant dies.

    The guidelines exist to help coroners identify accidental suffocation, abuse or medical disorders that went undetected. The guidelines also make it possible to flag risks that, if discovered, may help keep other children alive.

    “If you don’t look, you’re not going to find,” said Lauri McGivern, medicolegal death investigator coordinator in Vermont’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, chair of the National Association of Medical Examiners’ medicolegal death investigation committee and past president of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators. “We need to know why infants are dying.”

    But nothing in Idaho law says an elected county coroner must follow any national standards for death investigations. So, many of them don’t.

    A child who dies unexpectedly or outside of a doctor’s care in Idaho is less likely to be autopsied than anywhere else in the United States.

    In the case of baby Onyxx, without a word to Alexis or Diamond, Bonneville County coroner Rick Taylor simply decided the death was an unsolvable mystery.

    A Frantic Moment

    Alexis Johnson and Diamond Cooley met on Tinder shortly after high school and became parents to Jasper in 2019, Stohne in 2021 and Onyxx in 2023.

    The Cooleys got married after Jasper was born. They separated a few years later, while Alexis was pregnant with Onyxx. The breakup wasn’t painless, but they worked through it. These days, they still speak in the shorthand of old friends and try to comfort each other; when Alexis starts to cry while talking about Onyxx, Diamond cracks a joke at his own expense, and she laughs.

    They agreed to share custody of the boys. Diamond moved in with his mother in Idaho Falls, while Alexis stayed at her parents’ house in Shelley, about 20 minutes away.

    Alexis and Diamond separated before Onyxx was born, but they agreed to co-parent and remained friendly, including after the loss of Onyxx. “I think that the most support that we have gotten for Onyxx has been between us,” Alexis said. “I knew that I wasn’t going through this alone, and I hope that he felt the same way.”

    Based on prenatal ultrasounds, they weren’t surprised when Onyxx was born with a cleft palate and lip. It required road trips to see specialists in Salt Lake City and made feeding a little more complicated. Onyxx couldn’t breastfeed. He needed a special bottle. After a couple of scares — Onyxx choked on spit-up when she put him on his back — Alexis talked with his doctors and learned she should keep his upper body elevated for 30 minutes after he ate, to leave time for him to digest the formula.

    But otherwise, Alexis couldn’t believe what an easy baby he was. He almost never cried — just smiled, cooed and kept his eyes on his big brothers. Alexis loved to watch Jasper or Stohne get up close to Onyxx, hold his hands and play with him; he would burst into kicks and smiles. Diamond remembers that as soon as Onyxx figured out how to smile, he never seemed to stop.

    Onyxx Cooley (First image: Courtesy of Alexis Cooley. Second image: Courtesy of Diamond Cooley.)

    What happened during the baby’s final hours is captured in police reports, 911 dispatch logs, a 911 call recording, Onyxx’s hospital records and Alexis’ recollections.

    The night of Jan. 31, after putting their two older sons to bed, Alexis sat in the living room feeding Onyxx until he dozed off around 11 p.m. She carried him downstairs to their basement bedroom, where he lay propped on her legs facing her, while she sat playing Fortnite in bed.

    As she lay down to sleep, Alexis propped a swaddled Onyxx in the crook of her outstretched arm. She woke expecting to feed him again around 3 a.m., but for the first time in his 10 weeks of life, Onyxx wasn’t ready for another meal. He was sound asleep, so she moved him off her arm and onto his back. She scooted over to the other side of the king-size bed, checked her phone, took a puff from an e-cigarette on her nightstand, then went back to sleep.

    When she woke again around 6 a.m., Alexis rolled over to find Onyxx in the same position, swaddled. He was cold. A half-inch of yellowish-white foam came from his mouth. It looked like saliva with a little bit of blood in it.

    Alexis tried to clear his airway — first with her finger, then by turning him over and doing the Heimlich maneuver she learned in a health care course. She ran upstairs with Onyxx, screaming for help. She called 911 and got some words out before handing the phone to her mother. Then Alexis called Diamond, who jumped in his truck and got to the house as the ambulance doors closed.

    With Alexis and Diamond following behind in the pickup, the ambulance carrying Onyxx arrived at the emergency room of Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center at 6:43 a.m. An ER doctor looked at the baby’s heart through an ultrasound. There was no life. Onyxx’s parents walked through the ER doors and, minutes later, the doctor delivered the news.

    In an hour, at most, the doctor gave Onyxx a best-guess diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, according to the medical chart.

    This was not supposed to be the final word, however.

    Idaho law says when a child dies “without a known medical disease” like Onyxx did, a coroner must investigate.

    As the ER doctor was finishing with Onyxx, a nurse made a phone call to the coroner for Bonneville County, where the hospital was located, to let him know a baby had died in his jurisdiction.

    The Part-Timer

    Rick Taylor, Bonneville County coroner, in the morgue in Idaho Falls

    Rick Taylor considers himself a part-time coroner, even if his annual pay is $95,928 and the county payroll lists the position as full-time. He said he spends at least five hours a day in the office and is on call the remainder of the day.

    If the county told him to work full time right now, “I’d send in my resignation,” he said. His hands are full attending to the health needs of his family, he said. He also travels often.

    At age 68, his voice is reedy and soft. He has a full head of gray hair and wears a trim mustache to match. In a recent interview at work, he wore knee-length jean shorts and a short-sleeve plaid shirt. In contrast to the casual look, he rarely smiled and came off as reserved, even a bit stern at times.

    Taylor works out of a squat, grayish building on a residential street near the railroad tracks. It doubles as the county morgue, with a walk-in cooler to store bodies. Taylor says visitors expect it to smell like death; it smelled like mint when a reporter stopped by in July.

    During this visit, Taylor logged on to the state’s online portal for managing death certificates and worked through his list for the day, clicking electronic approvals for cremation and other paperwork. He took a phone query about a missing parolee who might have died. On his desk sat a file on the death of a man, reported missing in 1986, whose DNA was recently matched to a tibia bone found in 2009.

    Taylor grew up in East Idaho, joined a local fire department in the early 1980s, got married and raised six children. Coroner seemed like a logical career progression; most Idaho coroners are first responders or morticians, jobs that already require them to evaluate people’s injuries and talk with grief-stricken families.

    A Republican, Taylor was appointed to the office in 2012 after about 11 years as the coroner’s chief deputy. The job back then was part time and paid $18,000 a year. He said that when he recently persuaded commissioners to make it a full-time job at higher pay, he was merely setting up the office for future coroners to make a living wage.

    Although some states hire licensed forensic pathologists as medical examiners, many others, like Idaho, have elected coroners who often have no medical degree.

    But even states that elect coroners have some oversight. Some have professional boards that write regulations. Some require autopsies for all unexpected or unexplained child deaths. Some offer funding to ensure a baseline level of service. Some offer state money to transport bodies, a big expense in the vast expanses of the West.

    Not Idaho.

    One of its few requirements is to attend “coroner’s school” within a year of taking office and 24 hours of training every two years after that. There’s no penalty for failure, unlike in neighboring states, where consequences can be severe: suspended pay, forfeiture of the office or a misdemeanor charge. One in 4 Idaho coroners have repeatedly fallen short, according to records provided by the state coroners association. Those same records indicate Taylor hasn’t come close to hitting 24 hours since 2017-18; he didn’t respond to emails asking about the apparent shortfalls.

    Taylor’s office doubles as the county morgue. The property is flanked by rental houses. Next to the building is a trailer-sized garage where Taylor parks the Chevrolet Suburban that he and his employees use to transport bodies.

    The lack of regulation may help explain why the state has the nation’s lowest autopsy rate in child deaths attributed to unnatural or unknown causes — a category that includes suicides, homicides, crashes, drownings, overdoses and sudden infant deaths. A review by the state’s Office of Performance Evaluations this year found 49% of those deaths were autopsied in Idaho from 2018 through 2022, far below the national average of 79%.

    A logbook that Taylor provided to ProPublica in response to a records request shows an even lower rate in Bonneville County during those years. He ordered autopsies in 33% of the 39 child deaths whose causes were, based on his notes, unnatural or unknown.

    The unautopsied deaths included a 17-year-old girl found hanged at a juvenile detention center, which Taylor ruled a suicide. Taylor said he needed to look at his case file to comment on why he didn’t order an autopsy, when national guidelines say all deaths in detention should prompt one. He didn’t respond to subsequent requests to discuss it.

    Taylor said he always orders autopsies in a sudden infant death without an obvious explanation, even when a parent is suspected of rolling over on the baby. But he makes exceptions, like if police don’t suspect a crime and the parents object to having an autopsy. Or if a doctor has already offered up a cause of death.

    “Then we go with that,” he said. “There’s no reason to second-guess the doctors. I’m not a doctor.”

    Guidelines from the National Association of Medical Examiners say an autopsy from a forensic pathologist is needed. The guidelines say nothing about an ER doctor’s examination sufficing.

    Barrett Hillier, a former police detective who ran for coroner against Taylor in 2022, said police and coroners have different jobs to do when a baby dies — and one of those jobs isn’t getting done in Bonneville County.

    “There’s nobody really out there investigating these deaths,” said Hillier, noting that police investigate “the criminal side” but that not all deaths are crimes, and the police aren’t always right. “There should be checks and balances.”

    Taylor addressed such criticism in a 2022 campaign Facebook post praising the presence of law enforcement at death scenes, “doing what they do best.”

    “The Coroner on scene is doing what is required and what we do best!” Taylor’s post said. “There is no need for duplication!”

    Tensions With the Coroner

    In the weeks leading up to baby Onyxx’s death, Bonneville County had come very close to losing its access to autopsies altogether.

    Ada County, home to the state’s largest urban center, does autopsies under contract with Taylor and more than 30 other coroners around the state. With Taylor, this relationship was badly fraying.

    Rich Riffle, the elected Ada County coroner and a fellow Republican, wrote a letter in January to the Bonneville County board of commissioners saying there were “multiple issues” with Taylor’s death investigations.

    Taylor’s office “consistently furnishes inadequate information” ahead of autopsies, he wrote. Riffle said Taylor’s office sent over “mere summaries of the case, sometimes just a few sentences on homicide cases.”

    For example, the only photographs Ada County was getting from death scenes were those taken by law enforcement officers. Their job is to document a possible crime scene, not to capture the details that a trained coroner would, like how a person’s skin color changes after they die.

    Riffle’s pathologists needed more than Bonneville County was giving them to decipher deaths at an autopsy table 300 miles from the death scene.

    Riffle said his staff made numerous attempts to tell Taylor what they needed and why, but Taylor’s response was “backlash and, at best, temporary cooperation.”

    All of Riffle’s senior staff agreed “that this relationship, under the current circumstances, must end,” he wrote.

    Taylor, in an interview, said his reports were brief because he didn’t see the point of duplicating the work of police. Riffle has been “real hard to work with since he got elected,” Taylor said.

    In the end, Riffle relented — at the behest of police.

    Local law enforcement officers, worried about the fate of their criminal cases if they had to go without autopsies, reached out to Riffle’s office: Would Ada County keep serving Bonneville County if officers volunteered to get coroner-style training?

    Ada County contacted Taylor to see if he was interested, and he told them he was. Ada County sent three people to eastern Idaho to teach some basics. The police were enthusiastic about the training. Taylor attended. Riffle was satisfied and sent another letter to Bonneville’s commissioners, this time saying his office would continue to do their county’s autopsies.

    “However,” Riffle wrote, “I must make this clear, we will not tolerate any reports that fall short of the basic level industry standards.” Sending the pathologists complete reports in preparation for autopsies was Taylor’s job, Riffle wrote, not law enforcement’s.

    Riffle’s letter to Bonneville County happened to be dated Feb. 1, the same day Onyxx died. Taylor took the nurse’s call about Onyxx early that morning.

    Taylor told the nurse he “would probably rule the cause of death as SIDS and would not be responding to the hospital,” according to a detective’s report. Nor did Taylor plan to order an autopsy.

    But detectives from neighboring Bingham County, who’d just arrived at the hospital to question Alexis and Diamond, were not ready to let Taylor’s decision go unchallenged.

    They decided to look for a second opinion.

    A Matter of Public Health

    Jimmy Roberts, Bingham County coroner, in his office in Blackfoot, Idaho

    An hour after Onyxx was pronounced dead, a detective from Bingham County called Jimmy Roberts, according to Roberts’ phone records.

    Roberts remembers the detective telling him what Taylor planned to do — or not do — including the decision to forgo an autopsy. Could Roberts try to change Taylor’s mind?

    Roberts is the elected coroner of Bingham County, where Alexis lived and where medics, police and detectives had responded to her call about Onyxx’s lifeless body. But the baby was pronounced dead in a hospital 10 miles away, in Taylor’s county. Had Alexis opted not to send Onyxx to the hospital in a desperate grasp at the impossible, had he been pronounced dead at the scene, it would have been Roberts’ case without question.

    Roberts, 57, has a different way of approaching his work than Taylor. Death investigations in Roberts’ office are consistent with national guidelines, a review of his reports shows. He sends most child and infant deaths to Ada County for autopsy.

    Personal tragedy planted the seed in Roberts’ mind to become a coroner. He spent most of his adult life as a military corpsman, civilian emergency medic and firefighter. But in 2004, his father died of a gunshot wound to the chest in Boise County. Authorities at the time said they found the death suspicious but hadn’t ruled out the possibility of suicide.

    The coroner’s written report, obtained by ProPublica through a records request, noted clues from the scene that contradicted statements of the man later convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the death. But Roberts didn’t like what he saw of the process. He was frustrated that Idaho entrusted death investigations to laypeople, elected coroners who can take office without any medical or legal training.

    Roberts eventually took a job as a deputy coroner and later ran successfully for coroner of Bingham County in 2022, vowing to give every death its due. He worked 50 hours a week, using retirement pay from his past careers to supplement the coroner’s part-time salary, which was about $22,000 when he took office. He reopened old cases when families asked him to review a prior coroner’s work and he found it lacking.

    Roberts has asked county commissioners for more money so that, when faced with two suspicious deaths, he wouldn’t have to decide which was more worthy of a full investigation.

    Roberts asks Bingham County commissioners for a budget increase during a July meeting in Blackfoot, Idaho. After questioning his office’s expenses and criticizing the need for more investment, the board ultimately granted Roberts a portion of the new funding he sought.

    His tenure has not been without controversy or criticism. Roberts was charged in 2022 with sexual battery, accused of grabbing a woman’s breasts. The allegation prompted county officials to call for his resignation and his deputy coroners to quit. A jury found him not guilty in 2023.

    Roberts argues that getting sound answers in unexplained deaths is a matter of public health and safety. It’s a case he makes to anyone who will listen, and it’s why he joined the state’s child fatality review team, a volunteer group that meets year-round, under a governor’s executive order, to spot patterns that could save lives.

    Taylor, in Bonneville County, has failed to provide any records to that committee for at least eight years. He’s been too busy, he told ProPublica. “It’s time, just, you know, to sit down and do it,” he said. (It took three months, and intervention from the county’s attorney, for Taylor to fulfill ProPublica’s request for his records of child death investigations.)

    Roberts said the coroner’s job is to piece together a person’s final days to make sense of what happened. It honors a person’s life and ensures their death isn’t a black box from which no knowledge can ever be gained.

    If the death of an infant or anyone else is written off as a senseless tragedy, Roberts said, “who the hell are you helping?”

    The moment that Roberts understood what the Bingham County detective was telling him about Taylor and the death of Onyxx Cooley, he felt helpless.

    “Somebody rolls into the emergency room with an infant, and they say, ‘Well, everything looked fine.’ The ER doc looks at him and says, ‘Oh, yeah, I can’t determine why they died.’ And the coroner decides not to send them to autopsy but sign it out as SIDS?” Roberts said in an interview. “That’s 100% bullshit.”

    He knew that no one can call something SIDS without a full autopsy, toxicology testing, scene investigation, interviews with caregivers and reenactments with the people who saw the infant right before and after the death. “You cannot make that diagnosis without all of that information,” Roberts said.

    Roberts wanted to help in the Onyxx Cooley case. He simply didn’t have the authority to override Taylor.

    “Paperwork Autopsy”

    Alexis with her and Diamond’s two other children, 5-year-old Jasper, left, and 3-year-old Stohne

    At the hospital, Alexis and Diamond Cooley were talking with police. Family members had started to arrive, and everyone sat in a hospital room as the young parents reckoned with reality. Diamond remembers police asking a series of questions about their marriage and separation, which sounded to him like a suggestion that Alexis harmed Onyxx.

    Alexis couldn’t shake the feeling that everyone was watching her, looking at her, eyeing her as the only person in the room when Onyxx died of some unknown cause.

    The Cooleys remember nurses trying to help them cope with the grief, letting them sit with Onyxx until about 6 p.m., when it was time to take his body away. The hospital gave the family Onyxx’s handprints and footprints and plaster casts of his hands and feet.

    By the time they walked out of the hospital, it was nightfall.

    An officer that day had told Alexis that the coroner might want to do a reenactment of Onyxx’s sleeping environment, using a doll. She said she’d do it.

    But the Cooleys learned from a funeral-home employee later that week that Taylor decided he didn’t need to do that part of the investigation. He had closed the case. He’d never contacted them.

    The question of why Onyxx died lingered.

    “It didn’t make any sense to me, right?” Diamond says. “He was a super healthy baby. And I was like, I don’t understand how it could be SIDS. Like, what else could it have been?”

    The reenactment of the baby’s sleeping position that Taylor opted to skip might have offered clues. It is considered so crucial that Idaho’s coroners were offered specialized training in it in 2019. The class came with a doll for coroners to use in their counties. Taylor did not attend.

    Here is what we know.

    Safe sleep guidelines say babies should be placed on their backs in a crib or bassinet, with a firm mattress and no blankets, loose sheets, pillows or stuffed animals.

    Onyxx was in an adult bed when he was found unresponsive. But Alexis said he was several feet away from her with no suffocation hazards nearby. Onyxx had suffered from dangerous reflux when sleeping on his back, but typically it happened immediately after a feeding; four hours had passed between when he last ate and when he was laid on his back.

    The opportunity to understand what went wrong vanished when Onyxx was cremated.

    In a one-page form labeled “Death Investigation,” provided in response to a record request, Taylor noted Onyxx’s cleft palate, recorded that Onyxx was last seen alive at 3 a.m. in bed with his mom and estimated the time of death as 4 to 4:30 a.m. Taylor’s handwritten narrative consisted of this: “found in bed w/mom — ‘foam’ in airway — unresponsive. Fed @ 23:30 — arrived ER in assystole — no response — EMS or ER.”

    “We did basically what I call a ‘paperwork autopsy,’” Taylor said in a recent interview.

    Asked about the fact that national guidelines require true, physical autopsies and other investigative steps when an infant dies suddenly, Taylor said Idaho law doesn’t require those guidelines to be followed. He didn’t see a need to go out to the hospital, visit the house where Onyxx died or speak with Onyxx’s parents. He’d talked with the doctor and with law enforcement officers who were at the scene.

    “I don’t try to not figure things out. I don’t try to do the easy thing,” he said. “I haven’t been in this damn work for 23 years by just doing what is the easiest and the fastest way out.”

    Less than a month after Onyxx died, 275 miles away at the state Capitol in Boise, a legislative committee heard about the structural problems plaguing Idaho’s coroner system.

    An evaluator from the Office of Performance Evaluations, a nonpartisan watchdog agency, told the panel Idaho’s coroner system has fallen behind the U.S. for years and that the gap is widening as the state grows and forensic science matures.

    The evaluator’s report suggested legislators consider policies used in other states, like requirements and state funding for autopsies in child deaths. Two efforts to require autopsies for SIDS deaths in Idaho failed 20 years ago, according to legislative records.

    Alexis keeps Onyxx’s ashes in a butterfly-shaped necklace and has a tattoo of his handprint. After Onyxx died in February, Alexis didn’t hear from the county coroner responsible for investigating the baby’s cause of death. The coroner reached out to her for the first time in October, prompted by a reporter’s inquiry into his handling of the case. “It’s hard to just feel like my son wasn’t given the proper attention that he should have gotten,” she told ProPublica.

    Alexis no longer blames herself for her baby’s death. Her therapist encourages her to avoid the “what if” questions because “it will just eat at me,” and no answer is capable of bringing Onyxx back.

    Still, she said, had the facts of Onyxx’s death been properly examined, it might have helped spare another set of parents from what she and Diamond are going through.

    It also might have answered one of the primary questions that drive the need for an autopsy: Are the other children at risk of dying from whatever killed the baby?

    These days, after she puts the boys to bed, an alarm will go off six or seven times a night in Alexis’ traumatized brain: time to confirm her surviving children are still alive.

    Diamond Cooley does it, too, on nights the boys are with him.

    He stands there and watches 5-year-old Jasper and 3-year-old Stohne until their chests rise and fall. Stohne is a light breather, which means Diamond has a moment of panic until he can get a hand on the toddler’s chest.

    While he’s there, sometimes Diamond adds another blanket. He can’t stand the feeling of cold skin anymore.

    Diamond checks in on Jasper and Stohne after putting them to bed.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • A Supreme Court case that will decide whether Tennessee can continue to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth could imperil the ability of all Americans to make decisions about their health care, experts say. The outcome depends on how far the court is willing to stretch its ruling that overturned federal abortion rights. In United States v. Skrmetti, the court has agreed to take up…

    Source

  • Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023. Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Thousands of pregnant people are being impacted by Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Lebanon, according to the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency, with pregnant people facing fewer and fewer options for care and shelter as Israeli forces attack huge swaths of the country’s civilian infrastructure. An estimated 11,600 pregnant people in Lebanon have been affected by Israel’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Thursday, Israeli forces struck what was, just days ago, northern Gaza’s last fully operational hospital, destroying a cache of UN-delivered medical supplies amid a “critical” shortage of supplies in the besieged facility. Palestinian officials reported that the Israeli planes bombed the third floor of Kamal Adwan Hospital on Thursday morning. The strike led to the burning of a warehouse…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In an appearance at a political event in the key swing state of Pennsylvania earlier this week, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) suggested that, if Republicans win the White House and Congress in next week’s elections, there would be a “very aggressive” first 100 days of policymaking, including major changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes referred to as Obamacare.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, starts nationwide this week, a group that had previously been barred from signing up will be eligible for the first time: The “Dreamers.” That’s the name given to children brought to the United States without immigration paperwork who have since qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Monday, Oct. 21, 2,400 behavior health workers at Kaiser Permanente’s Southern California locations walked off the job in their ongoing struggle for a fair contract. Over the summer, negotiations between the health system and the bargaining committee, represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, failed to close the gap between their proposals, opening the door for a strike. The workers are now well into their second week on strike.

    The healthcare giant refuses to bargain seriously with the workers, offering paltry raises instead of agreeing to the workers’ demands for better pay, pensions, and safer staffing levels at the Kaiser mental health clinics in and around Southern California. These gains, the union believes, would allow Kaiser to compete with other health systems, drastically improve patient care quality, and solve many of the scheduling issues that have plagued the health system since before the start of the pandemic.

    The union hopes that by striking, they can show management that they are serious about securing a fair contract for their members. Last week, on the first day of the strike, Mel sat down with Chris Reeves and Lisa Caroll, two behavioral health workers who work in Los Angeles and San Diego, respectively, to talk about the state of negotiations, what workers are demanding, and how it feels to be out on the picket line in the struggle for a fair contract.

    Additional links/info below:

    Permanent links below:

    Featured Music:
    Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song
    Studio Production: Max Alvarez


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Lisa Carroll:

    I am Lisa Carroll. I’m a licensed clinical social worker. I work at San Diego Medical Center in the ICU. I also am on the executive board for NUHW, the Southern California division, and I also am the medical steward for all the medical social workers that are in the San Diego area, both inpatient and outpatient. I also have a wonderful partner over in Care at home. She’s a new steward and I’ve been mentoring her this past year just because the work is so important, ensuring people up is so important. I’ve been with Kaiser 17 years and I’ve been a steward for 15 of those years.

    Chris Reeves:

    My name is Christian. I am a registered nurse at Kaiser. I’ve worked there for about six years. I’m a union steward and I’m also a member of the bargaining committee.

    Mel Buer:

    Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of Working People. I’m your host, Mel Buer. Working People is a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Brought to you in partnership within these Times magazine and the Real News Network produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like You. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast network. If you love what we do and are looking for more worker and labor focused shows like ours, follow the link in the show notes and go check out the other great shows in our network and please support the work we’re doing here at Working People because we can’t keep going without you. Share our episodes with your coworkers, friends and family members. Leave positive reviews of the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts and reach out to us if you have recommendations for working folks you’d like us to talk to.

    And please support the work we do at The Real News by going to the real news.com/donate, especially if you want to see more reporting from the front lines of struggle around the US and across the world. On October 21st, after contract talks broke down, 2,400 behavioral health workers with Kaiser Health System in Southern California walked off the job on strike in a bid to bring their employers back to the table and negotiate a decent contract. In the first week of the strike, the union joined two bargaining sessions with the healthcare provider in an attempt to close the gap between proposals while workers continue to walk the picket lines at multiple locations in Los Angeles and San Diego. Chief among their demands is for Kaiser to secure safe staffing levels and reduce appointment wait times for their patients, as well as bring parity between the Southern California workers and their Northern California counterparts in pay retirement benefits and scheduling.

    As it stands, SoCal workers are suffering under worse working conditions than their counterparts in the north. Bargaining for these gains however, has been difficult with the employer consistently bringing unsatisfactory proposals to the table. In a recent press release sent to the media on Monday October 28th, the union provided an update after bargaining once again broke down with Kaiser on the 25th contract. Bargaining has broken off after Kaiser Permanente negotiators on Friday. Once again invited workers to the table only to offer practically nothing new. While Kaiser’s nearly 2,400 mental health professionals are seeking the same amount of time as their counterparts in Northern California for critical patient care responsibilities that can’t be done during appointments, as well as the same pension benefits that Kaiser provides nearly all of its other California employees. Kaiser’s primary new proposal in bargaining on Friday was an additional 25 cents per hour for bilingual workers With me today to discuss the contract negotiations and the strike are Chris Reeves, a psychiatric RN with Kaiser and Lisa Carroll, a licensed clinical social worker and medical social worker with Kaiser. Thanks for coming on the show.

    Chris Reeves:

    Thank you for having us. Yes, thank you for having us.

    Mel Buer:

    You guys have been on the picket line all day. How are you feeling after the first day on strike?

    Lisa Carroll:

    Think physically a little challenged, but I think mentally and emotionally. It was for in San Diego, it was really good turnout, really good energy, really good media coverage, really good political support. So I would say it was a great first day and we even had nurses come out from Unac and a couple clerks come out from Local 30 to walk with us, picket with us during their clocked out time. So it was a really positive first day.

    Mel Buer:

    Great. How about you, Chris? How was your first day?

    Chris Reeves:

    I completely agree. It was actually very invigorating. Even though I’m extremely tired, I feel fired up. I think a lot of us really just kind of fed off of each other and really just felt the energy. There was a lot of energy, a lot of passion out there, a lot of frustration that we were able to get out, but it was very inspiring to see everyone come together. We had a really awesome turnout at LAMC today, and a lot of support from the public as well, so that was really nice to see and experience.

    Mel Buer:

    That’s really great. I think before we get too far into the weeds of the strike itself, I think it would be a really good place to start perhaps maybe to kind of discuss the makeup of the unit. So there are 2,400 behavioral health professionals in this Southern California unit. Can you kind of speak to the types of job titles, professions, what kind of your day-to-Day work looks like within the unit?

    Lisa Carroll:

    In medical social work, you’ll have people that are social workers in a hospital, you’ll have social workers that are in an outpatient clinic. You’ll have social workers that are working with hospice, home health, palliative care. So one of the reporters today said to me, because I work in the ICU, well what does an ICU social worker do? And I said, all the things that the doctors and nurses don’t do and shouldn’t be doing. I mean, they have medical things that they need to do, but if somebody’s ended up in an ICU, needless to say, either they’ve had an acute event or they have a chronic condition that has brought them there. And so they need social, emotional, financial, legal, psychiatric, behavioral health support as does their family because while the medical folks are putting the person back together again with a plan for stability, I have to do that for their life. So that coincides so that when they leave the hospital, they’re able to see a pathway to supporting themselves, their families, things like that.

    Chris Reeves:

    Yeah, so I work in the Pan City area. It’s a pretty large service area and it’s made up of two clinics. And among inside those two clinics, it’s an outpatient behavioral health centers and addiction medicine as well, which is made up of licensed clinical social workers, marriage, family therapists, psychiatric nurses, psychologists who are used in a very specific and specialized capacity as well as I think I mentioned psychiatrists, the physicians. So it’s a huge team. It’s everything under the sun. We also have medical social workers as well. And so we’re divided in teams. We have a team of what we call return therapists who are seeing patients. Usually it should be weekly or biweekly, but because of the poor access that our clinic has chronically suffered for many, many years, most patients are only able to be seen once every four to six weeks, sometimes eight weeks, sometimes longer by those return therapists.

    We also have a BIOS group who really sees the patients who are more acute. We’ve seen some changes to that too because all those programs are very impacted. And so those are the providers, the social workers, therapists who are providing group services, case management for ongoing and more frequent follow up care for addiction medicine. There are addiction medicine counselors also. We do have physicians that work in that department managing the gamut of substance abuse and obviously psychiatric and substance abuse. A lot of times they go hand in hand. Those are very complex patients. I personally work more so directly with the psychiatrist and supporting them. They have extremely large caseloads. They actually have no caps on their caseloads. And so we have pediatric and adult psychiatrists, some who also have more specialized care such as eating disorder. And so the psychiatric nurses there really support patient messaging specifically all of the messages that are coming in via telephone or call centers as well as the physician emails.

    And so our primary role is to complete assessments to provide education, to also do follow-up medication, follow-up, answer questions and address issues. Patients who are experiencing acute episodes, especially if they’re having exacerbations of their symptoms, patients whose symptoms are not well managed on their medications and really in the last several years doing a lot of care management through the phone and through messaging because a lot of our patients are on wait lists and are not able to see their providers. And so that is the bulk of our job. We do work with the interdisciplinary team and we get messages from our therapists and social workers, and we do provide follow-up for patients who have seen their therapists who are having untreated symptoms as related to medication or side effects, things of that nature. So we also have to follow up on those things. And last, I don’t think I mentioned, we do have a team of crisis therapists as well who work in the department, so we also work closely with that group as well.

    So just from hearing both of you describe your respective spaces in behavioral health within the Kaiser system, that’s a lot of work to have to pay attention to. That’s a lot of focus on patient care as it should be. Right. I think this is a good place to sort of hone in on what’s been going on in your negotiation since July. So you’ve been negotiating a contract since the end of July, and what you’re asking for in regards to some of your proposals, especially as it relates to caseloads, as it relates to better quality of patient care without, I dunno, burnout ruining the caregiver’s life in terms of just time spent and pay for that kind of work. Lisa, can you kind of speak to some of those proposals and what the union is asking for?

    Lisa Carroll:

    I think one of the things that I wanted to start with is even before bargaining, the union leadership met with Kaiser leadership and Kaiser initiated that meeting and they asked us, what will it take to restore the partnership with your union? And we were very clear with the same three asks that were consistently repeating, which is in 2015, they unilaterally took away all of our new hires pensions as a punitive action because we had raised the mental health access and denial and lack of care and all the suicides and everything to Sacramento. And so we had to be, I guess, taught a lesson. They refer to it as bad behavior. They think we’re behaving badly again right now. The second part of that is that we are not asking for anything that any of the other labor unions don’t already have. So whether it’s the service and tech units or the nurses units, we’re asking for the same type of wage increases that they’ve received.

    And there have been multiple periods of time where we’ve been given nothing five years here a year here. So over time, our wage scale has really eroded. So I know one of the things Kaiser has said in the news is that they’re paying us, I think 18% over market rate. I have no idea what numbers they’re talking about because we have to compete for the same group of people to come work for Kaiser, as does Sharp Scripps and UCSD in San Diego, and they have all equal or exceeded Kaiser’s wage scale. So either somebody’s not doing their job or I don’t know how to explain that, but that’s a real problem. UCSD still offers a pension, so we’re not able to attract, recruit, retain people. One of the things we did in a past contract, which Chris would remember, is we set these pathways so that you could bring in people who weren’t licensed, who could work on their license and earn their hours, and then hopefully that would be a way of attracting and recruiting and retaining employees.

    But the workload is so horrific, and the competition is so good that they get their licenses and they leave and they feel really badly about it because they’ve been a part of a team. I think the only thing that we really have going for us is sort of lifeboat mentality. We all have been in this lifeboat together. We have all fought together. We all want to stay together and we want to navigate this lifeboat into better waters, but I can’t stand in the way of somebody choosing to leave where they’re going to get better compensation and a better work life. So for myself as an example, I cover an ICU and a step down unit that’s roughly 40 beds when the pediatric social worker who also covers a telemetry unit is off, I also cover her beds. So I’m expected to cover anywhere from 40 to 80 beds on any given day. And so that’s child abuse reporting. That’s a PS reporting, that’s finding a representative for somebody who no longer can cognitively designated representative and getting access to their funds to pay for long-term care. That’s getting people connected to dialysis centers. That’s getting people connected to transplant coordinators.

    We also do a lot of goals of care conversations in my particular area as well as pediatrics, depending on how ill they are. And we have to be able to refer to our home care partners in home health, our palliative care or hospice, their staff has been cut in half as a savings effort for that department, which just means profit. There’s no savings. Kaiser members pay for these benefits and then they’re denied care. And they wanted, Christopher will remember this from the bargaining table, they wanted the hospice people to see five patients a day. Well, I don’t know if you’re aware of how big San Diego County is, but unless they live in the same cul-de-sac, that would actually be physically impossible. And the way the regulations read is that they must be seen by a licensed clinical social worker that there is an assessment that’s required within 30 days, actually really within the first week to 10 days of service.

    And so those things are not happening. So that’s actually Medicare fraud, and I don’t know what part of being investigated, they don’t understand, but they’re making this whole thing so very public that we will make things very public too. And it all could have been avoided. We were happy to have this conversation at the bargaining table, but the proposals, well, I wouldn’t even say Kaiser has come back. They’ve maybe proposed two or three things that they’ve spent time on that are fit onto a half of a page. Not a lot of thought went into that. And those offerings are very, wouldn’t you say, Chris? Very 2020 2021. I mean, they don’t reflect the economy that we have in Southern California or the wages necessary to maintain housing and live in Southern California. So that’s what’s been going on at the bargaining table. Our group, NUHW, has just done such a fantastic job working on proposals, trying to come back with counter proposals, trying to achieve agreement.

    And pretty much what we get from Kaiser is deny, deny, deny. This is something they keep repeating. We’re happy with the way things are. So they’re happy with three month waits for medical appointments, three week waits, six week waits, three month waits in psychiatry for appointments. This is viewed, our professional group is viewed as a non-money maker. So it’s okay that it’s a factory that churns out and spits out labor people because they don’t want to spend the money. And that sends a very distorted and hurtful message to Kaiser’s members because their purchasing a benefit that they’re not going to receive its deception.

    Chris, do you want to speak more about the conditions that you’re seeing in Los Angeles and really about this? Let’s hone in on this conversation about Kaiser’s members are paying for this benefit, and Kaiser itself is making access to this benefit for its membership nearly impossible, while also making the ability for the providers themselves to be able to do their jobs just as impossible. So you would think going to the bargaining table that they would be willing to listen to what I’m sure is quite a bit of negative feedback from their own members as well as these proposals to try and solve these issues from its union membership in order to create a better space of care, right?

    Chris Reeves:

    Yes. Yeah. So as Lisa mentioned, we prepared vigorously months before we actually were able to get bargaining dates from Kaiser. We actually tried to engage with Kaiser in bargaining in early spring because the conditions for our workers were so bad and for our employees were so egregious, and they did not give us any bargaining dates until basically the start of fall, so July 31st. And so since meeting with them, we’ve brought forward many proposals. And like Lisa said, it’s usually met with either complete silence, rejection, not interested, or we like things the way we are. We’d like to keep the current contract language, but the thing that Kaiser is failing to recognize is the things that they’re doing, it’s not working. Them being fined that record 50 million fine. And I believe it was $50 million, right, Lisa from DMHC, that hasn’t changed much in the last year.

    And so to be honest, things have gotten worse. I really truly feel like that has just, it started started things getting worse. It was already bad, but things went from bad to worse because then Kaiser was under the microscope and they started implementing all these different tools to kind of get by and manipulate the system. And so that actually put a lot of hardship on our providers because they had to start doing a lot more documentation and doing all of these tools basically to provide protection to Kaiser, but not necessarily to improve patient’s care, their access to care or the quality of care that they’re receiving. And so you’re right, access is impossible. They are paying for, our patients are paying for memberships, and they’re not able to see providers when they want to as often as they need to. Even they’re not able to see the providers according to the standards their own providers have set.

    So the provider might say, please come back to me in two months or three months or six months. And you’re seeing patients who are going well beyond that because there’s no appointments right now, the clinic books appointments about three months out and every Monday a new schedule opens up for the providers on a week by week basis. And by Monday morning we’re completely out of appointments because the patients learn that that’s the day you need to call. And they’re basically fighting in line trying to get that appointment. So by Monday afternoon, they’re all gone, which that shouldn’t be the case. I mean, we’re talking about all the appointments are gone for the next three months. And so that’s when we get messages because those clerks are, they don’t know what to do. They don’t want to tell the patient, we can’t do anything for you.

    And so they say, oh, talk to the nurse. Maybe they can get you a sooner appointment, but we don’t have any magic keys or access to appointments that just don’t. So what happens is we end up having to assess them and really say, how sick are you and what can we do right now to put a bandaid on it? I often say that, which has truly been the most difficult thing for me and my job, is putting a bandaid over a bullet wound because I realized as important as the work that we do, it’s just a very small piece. And there are just critical things within the foundation of Kaiser mental health system that is just broken and it’s not working. And so as a result of that, we’ve seen a mass exodus between all medical professionals. We’re talking a lot of therapists, there have been doctors, there have been nurses, people who have come on, they’re like, forget this.

    Especially the ones who haven’t been invested and trying to see things get better or who have been here long enough to say, you know what? Things just haven’t gotten better. I’ve been here for a long time. It’s not changing. I’m out. But we’ve had a huge high turnover rate, including providers who have left Southern California to go to Northern California because there are a little bit better staffing and retention tools there, including the pension that was maintained. So it’s very interesting, the ability to do our jobs have gotten significantly more difficult. One of the things that Kaiser has done to address their access is to try and take away patient management time. And they want to tell people, the public, that the clinicians are saying, oh, we want to see our patients less. But the truth is, is that they need that time to do their job.

    And we’re not asking for anything different than what Kaiser gives to our colleagues, our counterparts, because that time is important to be able to call patients back and answer their messages to address case management things, whether that’s following up with family or facilities coordinating care, filing the necessary and mandated reports such as filing a child protective service report or an adult protective service report. There’s a lot of things that go that are, it’s a part from the things that we do with the patient. And so our clinicians are really having to choose, am I going to sit there and look at my patient and make eye contact and engage, or am I going to try to do both and try to get this note done because I know I don’t have enough time and we’re basically being treated like an assembly line. We’re really working in these factory-like conditions where they don’t have enough time to do their work.

    And so with the time that they’re given and they have to make those decisions, but yeah, it’s pretty terrible. Our patients are waiting months to see their doctors sometimes after they’ve gotten their medication adjustment over the phone, that still doesn’t get them an appointment. It gets what they need address maybe in the moment, but it doesn’t mean that it’s going to get them a face-to-face with their provider. And so we’re seeing burnout everywhere, and that’s the reason why we asked Kaiser to come to the bargaining table early on, why we did a lot of preparation on proposals to help address the staffing issues, the workload issues. And then lastly, we are trying to take care of ourselves and our families. We’ve had five years basically of wage increases. We are behind everyone else, and I completely agree with Lisa. I don’t know who is doing the math at Kaiser, but they need to hire someone else.

    Mel Buer:

    Well, someone who just moved from Los Angeles and who I have a decent job and it’s difficult to plan for a future when you don’t know if you’re going to be able to have a salary that is comparable to the rising cost of living every year over year. I don’t know, man, as kind of a lay person. My mom is in healthcare. And so all throughout my life there have been these sort of at-home conversations about you take care of the workers and the patient care gets better all the time. Right? And it just seems to me as a sort of lay person that this is a logical solution to a serious problem. We’ve seen this problem explode in the age of Covid and what the pandemic did to an already stressed out healthcare system, and especially to the sort of explosion in mental health crises that was accompanied by extreme isolation and these crises both within the workforce at these hospitals and outside of it.

    It just seems logical to me that if you want to solve this problem, you would do whatever you could to retain good staff to solve this problem. It just doesn’t. Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think I’m sure, and let’s talk about this a little bit, but I’m sure that you’ve had these conversations with folks who are interested in coming to talk to you at the picket line and perhaps before, and any sort of the sort of messaging campaigns that you’ve done about these negotiations. Are you getting that same sense that you’re coming from a rational position from these folks who are outside of the union who are supporting you on the picket line?

    Lisa Carroll:

    Absolutely. I mean, every single media person that I’ve talked to, every single political party, union party, every single person is like, yeah, we don’t believe Kaiser. We know that they have abundant resources, that they’ve made significant profits and that they’re making a choice not to support their workers. What we did the math today when we were on the line that what they’re paying a scab to come in, one person to come in and do one of our jobs would pay for six people to have the pension. That’s a clear choice.

    Mel Buer:

    It’s a hard choice. And it’s always a power move, isn’t it? Right. Because when it comes down to it, they can plead poverty all the time. And I hear this on picket lines all over the place that these giant corporations from Kellogg’s to John Deere, from the studios who were throwing rider under the bus last summer and the summer before,

    All of them are pocketing obscene profits, like more money than I could ever possibly imagine to have in my life ever. Right? Yeah. In order to do what? So that they can continue to be the bosses really and not seed any power in the workplace, even though consistently across the board, Chris, as I’m sure the workers are the ones who understand the job most intimately and also understand how to fix the problems at the job, not someone sitting in an administrative boardroom at the top of the hospital choosing who to fire. You know what I mean?

    Lisa Carroll:

    So at the bargaining table, we gave them a calculation on how to plan for how much time a person needs to do these other activities that aren’t the immediate face-to-face therapy session. It was a simple math formula. I mean, I’m not a mathematician. I could understand it. And here you have a table full of people going, I don’t understand. And we’re looking at them going, how do you have your jobs and not understand this? So you’re either lying or you really shouldn’t have the job

    Chris Reeves:

    That you have. Right, Chris? Totally. And honestly, I really have taken it as I think they’re feigning ignorance. I honestly think that they’re playing games because it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. And I think that it’s really important for people to realize really what the numbers are, because in math ain’t math, and it really isn’t. Kaiser is the Goliath of healthcare organizations. They have abundant resources and they to fix the issues, and we have given them so many proposals and really have painted a very clear picture of what’s happening within their mental healthcare system. And it really begs the question of, do you really, and to me it’s very clear that they don’t. It’s very clear that they prioritize everything else over mental healthcare for their patients and their members, but they’re not lacking in resources. We did the math for them that it would literally cost them about $2,000 to restore the pension for about 1700 members who don’t have it so that we can be like the 96% of Kaiser members who do have it.

    But I think at this point, really it is really begging the question, do you actually care about your employees? And I think that Mel, you made a good, great point because we did really see a significant demand in mental health care and addiction medicine services with the pandemic. It was very interesting because of course there was a critical short staffing in the hospitals, so we did need providers to take care of those patients who were coming in medically ill. And so at one point they were trying to pull the few of us that were working in psychiatry, the nurses to put us in the hospital, which was fine. A lot of us were willing to go if they did the training, but it was like, who’s going to take care of our patients? Because at the end of the day, we saw our first patient before any of these hospitals saw their first patient because people were getting anxious and they were fearful.

    And so our demand and our volume had already started increasing before that virus had really reached even our shores, if you will. And so since then, it’s just kind of skyrocketed. People have not only because of the isolation and the different things that happen socially, but they had time on their hands. And social media I think also has been a big influence. And so the things that we were hearing people calling in and saying, I want to get evaluated for anxiety and depression and all these disorders. They heard it on social media. We knew something was happening, we felt the shift. I always go to management and say, Hey, something’s happening here. We’re getting a lot of calls. We let them know our patients are much sicker. We’re having a lot of patients who are struggling with addiction. A lot of people started drinking and using substances during the pandemic to cope, and they just didn’t listen.

    We warned them because a lot of times we’re getting those calls first. We’re already seeing it. We have a lot of patients who are learning about A DHD, autism, things like that from social media. We started seeing an uptick, A DHD evaluation started a huge portion of our access. So we absolutely do tell Kaiser about these things very early on. Do they listen? No. Do they prepare for it? No. Do they plan properly or have any insight? No. Things are always rolled out in our department without proper planning. Things that just make absolutely no sense for the workers or for the patients. It’s egregious. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand how such a huge organization has such major problems and how things move very slowly. It’s very interesting.

    Mel Buer:

    Well, everyone’s a number instead of a person instead of a human being, right? From the patients to the workers who are taking care of the patients, everyone is a number and that number brings in a certain amount of profit. And if you can’t bring in that profit, then your number that gets shoved off the end of the Excel spreadsheet, which is just a horrendous way to look at healthcare in this country. And we could have a long, maybe we’ll have you back on with the other healthcare providers that I talked to and just have a long conversation about broadly what this type of system has done to reducing humanity in this country and into these sort of unique, not unique little boxes, check boxes for how much money they can get out of us on an individual basis without actually providing anything in return. Absolutely.

    And I don’t mean to be so cynical about it, but it is something where I benefit greatly from mental health services myself and I did during the pandemic and will continue to do, and I did before the pandemic. And I understand how important and crucial this work is. If I didn’t have it then I wouldn’t feel like I could land on my feet after 2021. And I know many, many people in my life just from individuals that I talked to all over the country on picket lines or elsewhere, that also benefit from these services. It’s a no fucking brainer to fund them. And what that means is if you, the workload, frankly, pay the employees a competitive wage, increase the staffing levels, allowing for individuals to feel comfortable in a career where they don’t need to give in to these high turnover rates, then you’re going to see more patients offer more services, make more money.

    If that is what you’re concerned about as an administrator is getting butts in seats and people coming through the doors and all of that nonsense to everyone but them, it makes perfect sense to listen to you at the bargaining table and find a way to solve these problems. But as we know, and again, I don’t mean to sound so cynical, but as we know about Kaiser, they don’t listen to their workers and they always end up pushing their workers out on strike to the detriment of everyone involved, which sucks. So I think maybe a good way to sort of end this conversation before we get to the what can my audience do to support you is what is Kaiser’s kind of response to the strike? Are they beyond just the full blown PR machine that always comes out of the corporation when you walk out, have you received any sort of indication in bargaining or otherwise that they’re hearing you and that they want to solve this sooner? Or is it just they shut the doors and you got

    Lisa Carroll:

    To, we’ll find out on Wednesday when we go back over the weekend, because I’m on the executive board, there is some internal medical advocacy in Southern California and it sounds like they’re willing to make some movement on the wages and also patient management time. But I will believe it when I see it because I feel like this is Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football, but they’re still taking a hard line with the pension because of our bad behavior. That’s literally what they say. And we’re not asking for anything that their unions don’t have. We’re just asking for equity.

    Mel Buer:

    Yeah. How does that not just immediately tip off some lawyers to honest to God retaliation?

    Lisa Carroll:

    Honestly unfair labor practice?

    Mel Buer:

    Yeah. I dunno. Maybe they’ll shoot themselves in the foot and give you guys an upper hand with that because that’s obscene. That’s outrageous. Outrageous.

    Lisa Carroll:

    And I think they like that tear in the fabric. If you can kind of think about that as a piece of clothing, because as long as they maintain that tear, then they can do the same thing to the other unions. They haven’t, but they want to.

    Mel Buer:

    Yeah, they can threaten that, look what we did to these professionals that we can do to you tell the line kind of thing.

    Chris Reeves:

    Yeah, I still think, I just feel like their response, to be honest, I’ve been hopeful throughout this whole thing, even in their first talks that they wanted to work with us, but I’ve seen the complete opposite. And so like Lisa said, I’ll believe it when I see it because right now all we’ve seen is them just to try to cover up what’s going on. Them being very deceitful them trying to be very confident saying, oh, we got this patients, don’t worry if your provider’s out on strike, we’re going to have other places where you can go for your care. In our vast external provider network, they’re calling patients and they’re saying, oh, well, do you want to just wait for your provider to come back? They’re doing the documentation that they think is going to protect them, but I feel like they’re doing all the things except for actually doing what.

    They’re exactly everything except for the right thing. I think that’s well said because they can end this very quickly, but it doesn’t seem like they want to. They’re closing schedules for weeks out. They’re telling patients about their comprehensive plan. They’re buckling down telling people that they’ve actually, they haven’t taken any things away and they’ve offered all of these things, but they haven’t addressed the issues. They haven’t brought anything meaningful to the table at all whatsoever. Many days they come to bargaining without absolutely nothing. We ask them, do you have anything for us? No, it’s very curt and it’s very obvious that they’re not taking it seriously. But I think today, I think that we show them that we’re forced to be reckoned with. I don’t think that they anticipated the number of workers that said enough is enough. I did want to mention too, one thing that everyone can do, because this is a huge sacrifice for everyone.

    And so if they want to help and support our cause, they can go to home.nw.org. That’s the main page for our campaign website. And there is a way to donate to hardship funds for Kaiser patients. There is a way for them to share their stories and a link to Kaiser Deny website so they can really actually tell the public exactly what’s been going on, how hard it’s been, how hard it has been to get appointments or services that they’ve requested or that they need. So that’s a huge way for people to support and bring awareness to what’s really truly going on at Kaiser.

    Mel Buer:

    Lisa, is there anything else you wanted to add? Is there a strike fund for striking workers or do you not have

    Lisa Carroll:

    Something? It’s all through the exact same resources that Chris just reviewed.

    Mel Buer:

    Okay.

    Lisa Carroll:

    Great. And I always say just call Greg Adams and tell him what you think. The more people that blow up his phone, the better.

    Mel Buer:

    That’s great. That’s great. Honestly, that would be great. Final thing, picket locations for anyone who wants to come join you on the picket line, there’s one in la, at least one in LA and one in San Diego.

    Lisa Carroll:

    Aren’t those also on the website?

    Chris Reeves:

    Yes, those will be on the website tomorrow. We are going to be in Woodland Hills, and so we’re expecting a large turnout in Woodland Hills, but that will also be every location. That’s going to be a day of action. It’ll be listed on our website tomorrow, will Beland Hills.

    Mel Buer:

    Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to share with our audience before we break for the night?

    Lisa Carroll:

    Oh, thank you. It was a nice conversation. I really appreciate your awareness.

    Mel Buer:

    Thanks.

    Chris Reeves:

    That’s my dog giving the last two raw. Yeah.

    Mel Buer (44:31):

    And as always, I want to thank you all for listening and thank you for caring. We’ll see you all back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go subscribe to our Patreon and check out the awesome bonus episodes we’ve got there for our patrons and go explore all the great work that we’re doing at The Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism, lifting up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the real newsletter so that you can never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. Once again, I’m Mel Buer and with much love and solidarity, I’ll see you next time.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Israeli forces have arrested all but one of the medical staff at the only operational hospital left in north Gaza, the Gaza Health Ministry said on Monday, after a days-long siege left the facility in ruins. Only one pediatrician remains at the Kamal Adwan Hospital, which was treating hundreds of patients and serving as a shelter to more than 600 Palestinians, after Israeli forces “arrested…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israeli soldiers attacked UN peacekeepers at an observation post in south Lebanon who were observing the military’s nearby raids, the UN said Friday, as Israeli forces appear to be targeting people documenting their assault on the country. In a statement, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said that peacekeepers were at a permanent observation post near Dhayra on Tuesday…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The health of hundreds of thousands of forcibly displaced children in Lebanon is at risk, Save the Children warns, as health officials have detected a case of cholera and Israel continues attacking health care centers and workers in its assault on civilians in the country. On Tuesday, Save the Children reported that overcrowding in shelters and a lack of resources for basic hygiene are…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Scholars and activists are increasingly turning to international law frameworks — such as sexual rights, the right to health and anti-torture human rights law — to hold the U.S. accountable for escalating human rights violations toward cisgender women and transgender people. “There is a distinct connection with abortion rights and gender-affirming care. They both are being attacked by the far…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.