Director Michael Apted (L) with Larry Mantle in the AirTalk studio.

This past Wednesday on "AirTalk," film director Michael Apted came in to talk with us about his eighth documentary in the series that's followed the lives of 13 people, beginning in 1964 when the kids were seven.  They've shared their stories with Apted every seven years, and he's clearly invested a lot of emotion into this project.

"56 Up" is wonderful for how it shows the mid-life evolution of the participants.  Apted includes scenes from earlier interviews, so that we see what aspects of today's 56-year-olds were present in childhood and what turns their lives have made over these years. 

"56 Up" is showing at the Nuart in West Los Angeles, and Apted will be doing Q-and-A at some of the screenings.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Police and lifeguards patrol as people walk on the beach south of Newport Pier on May 3, 2020 in Newport Beach, California. ; Credit: Michael Heiman/Getty Images

After the cities of San Clemente and Laguna Beach were given the OK by state officials on Monday to reopen beaches with limited conditions, the California Natural Resources Agency gave Dana Point, Seal Beach and Huntington Beach the green light on Tuesday after approving the plans they submitted for safe reopening.

The plans vary as far as when the beach can be used, but the common thread through each is that leisure activities like sunbathing or large gatherings of people would not be allowed, and that beachgoers will be required to remain active while on the sand. 

The news comes as Orange County Supervisors voted 3-2 on Tuesday to submit a plan to submit to Sacramento that would create a set of uniform rules for reopening beaches countywide. Supervisor Lisa Bartlett spearheaded the proposal, which received pushback from Supervisors Don Wagner and Michelle Steel who argue that after being singled out by Governor Gavin Newsom last week when he ordered a “hard close” on all state and local beaches in Orange County, taking issue with the idea of the county bowing to pressure from the state.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll check back in with Supervisor Bartlett, who joined us Monday on AirTalk, to find out more about the specifics of the county’s plan to reopen its beaches.

Guest:

Lisa Bartlett, Orange County Supervisor representing the Fifth County District, which encompasses South County cities like Aliso Viejo, San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Dana Point and more; she tweets @OCSupBartlett

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

People wait in line to receive food at a food bank on April 28, 2020 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City.; Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

United States unemployment has reached record numbers with more than 30 million Americans applying for benefits in just six weeks, according to the Guardian. Economists expect the labor market to take another unprecedented blow for the month of April. 

Roughly one in five people in California's workforce have applied for initial unemployment insurance benefits, including a "staggering" 37% of workers with no more than a high school diploma. That's the estimate of a  study from the California Policy Lab that analyzed unemployment insurance claims from March 15-April 11. According to the California Economic Development Department (EDD), L.A. County's unemployment rate jumped from 4.3% in February to 6.3% in March. The state of California launched its Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program last week, giving many independent contractors their first chance to apply for benefits.But applicants have had a tough time getting through the system because of technical difficulties with the state's website.

Today on AirTalk we check in on unemployment in the state. Plus, some people are making more money through unemployment benefits than when they were working. We talk to the writer of a recent Wall Street Journal piece that looks at the challenges that presents for businesses as states look to slowly reopen. Do you have questions about unemployment across the state or the application process? Join the conversation by calling 866-893-5722. 

With files from LAist. Read more from David Wagner here. 

Guests:

Eric Morath, labor economics and policy reporter for the Wall Street Journal, he’s based in Washington D.C.; he tweets @EricMorath

George Warner, attorney in the Wage Protection Program at Legal Aid at Work, a San Francisco based nonprofit law firm that assists low-income, working families throughout California; he tweets @readerznriderz

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Opah fish are hauled onto a dock for sale last week in San Diego. Fishermen coming home to California after weeks at sea are finding strict anti-coronavirus measures, and nowhere to sell their catch.; Credit: Gregory Bull/AP

Commercial fishermen in the U.S. who have already faced challenges in recent years to make it in an increasingly globalized and regulated industry, are now struggling to find customers during the coronavirus crisis.

"This is totally unprecedented. This is the biggest crisis to hit the fishing industry ever, no question about that," Noah Oppenheim, executive director of The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations told NPR in a phone interview. The federation is a trade association representing commercial fishermen along the West Coast.

On Tuesday, seafood industry leaders, processors and fishermen sent a letter to House and Senate leaders requesting $4 billion in aid for the industry.

The closings of restaurants due to the coronavirus pandemic has hit commercial fishermen particularly hard.

An estimated 50% to 60% of wild seafood caught in the U.S. is exported, says Oppenheim. Those international markets have dried up. He says, of the seafood that's not exported, around 80% of that is sold to restaurants.

"Both of those sectors of the seafood economy are largely nonfunctional at the moment, so we're going to have to make up for approximately 90% of our markets ... through either new supply pipelines or new sets of customers."

Jerid Rold, a fishermen in Moss Landing, Calif., tells NPR, he's been out of work for a month, since South Korea stopped taking imports of hagfish. Further damaging profits, Dungeness crab prices on the West Coast have fallen from up to $7 dollars a pound to $2, says Oppenheim.

In Eureka, Calif., "there are no buyers purchasing products at the harbor there. You can't move the Dungeness crab out of the Humboldt bay," Oppenheim said. "It's actually extraordinary how similar these impacts are playing out across the country. They are palpable, they are profound and they are severe."

On the North Atlantic coast, Sam Rosen, a 30-year-old lobsterman based in Vinalhaven, Maine, said he and others are "selling lobster for amounts they shouldn't be sold for."

That's been close to $2.50 a pound, compared to a usual $10 a pound this time of year, Rosen said.

"It's definitely a shock to the system," Rosen said. "This is uncharted territory right now. I don't think anyone thought it was going to be as bad as it's getting."

If aid isn't provided to fishermen soon, "I think we could see hundreds to thousands of fishermen leave the industry nationwide," Oppenheim said.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Attorney General William Barris pictured at a coronavirus task force meeting at the White House on March 23. The Justice Department is looking to crack down on coronavirus-related fraud.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the good side of many Americans, but certainly not all Americans. Officials say that fraud related to COVID-19 — like hoarding equipment, price gouging and hawking fake treatments — are spreading as the country wrestles with the outbreak.

"It's a perfect ecosystem for somebody like a fraudster to operate in," said Craig Carpenito, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and the head of the Justice Department's COVID-19 price gouging and hoarding task force.

"People want to believe that there's a magic pill that they can take or that if they buy a certain kind of mask or a certain kind of protective gear that it's going to protect them and their families," he said. "That creates opportunities for the types of people that prey upon scared people. They prey upon their fear."

A month ago, Attorney General William Barr instructed federal prosecutors around the country to aggressively investigate and prosecute scams and other crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also created the price gouging and hoarding task force and put Carpenito in charge of it.

From that perch, Carpenito has one of the best views of virus-related crime nationwide.

"Instead of seeing that tremendous support from all aspects of society, we're still seeing that sliver, that that dark underbelly, that small percentage of folks who instead of putting the interests of the country and support for those medical professionals that are putting themselves at risk in the forefront, they're finding ways to try and take advantage of this situation and illegally profiteer from it," he said. "And it's despicable."

The most prevalent kind of fraud that federal authorities are seeing at this point, he and others say, is tied to personal protective equipment like N95 masks, gloves or face shields.

In one notable case, prosecutors brought charges against a Georgia man, Christopher Parris, for allegedly trying to sell $750 million worth of masks and other protective equipment to the Department of Veterans Affairs but with a sizable advance payment.

The problem, prosecutors say, is the masks and other items didn't exist, at least not in the quantities Parris was offering.

Steven Merrill, the head of the FBI's financial crimes section, says the bureau refers to these sorts of operations as advance-fee schemes.

"We're getting many complaints that different entities are entering into these agreements, paying money upfront, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, and may or may not get any masks or other PPE ordered at all," Merrill said. "So our guidance to the public is to please be wary of these frauds and solicitations."

Other problems, such as hoarding and price gouging, can arise even when the medical gear does exist.

The FBI is trying to identify individuals who are stockpiling protective equipment and trying to sell it at exorbitant markups, sometimes 40 to 70 times the value, Merrill said.

A few weeks ago, the FBI seized nearly 1 million respirator masks, gloves and other medical gear from a Brooklyn man who was allegedly stockpiling them and selling them to nurses and doctors at what officials say was around a 700% markup.

The man, Baruch Feldheim, has been charged with lying to the FBI about price gouging. He's also been charged with allegedly assaulting a federal officer after he coughed on agents and claimed he had COVID-19.

The confiscated items, meanwhile, have been distributed to medical workers in the New York area.

Carpenito said the Justice Department has more than 100 investigations open into price gouging. It has hundreds more, he said, into other crimes tied to the pandemic, including fake treatments and cures.

In one case out of California, prosecutors charged a man who was allegedly soliciting large investments for what he claimed was a cure for COVID-19.

"He was doing so by broadcasting this scheme via, notably, YouTube, where had thousands of hits and views," Merrill said.

In a separate case out of Florida last week, the Justice Department got a court order to stop a Florida church from selling on its website an industrial bleach that was being marketed as a miracle treatment for the virus.

To be clear, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no cure at this point for the virus.

More than a month into this crisis, there's no sense COVID-related crime is going to slow down.

In fact, Carpenito and Merrill say that with the massive $2 trillion economic relief package beginning to be doled out, they expect to see even more fraud in the weeks and months ahead.

"What we're worried about is that not only do we have these existing conditions, but we are awaiting — like everybody in the country — the arrival of $2 trillion to hit the streets," Merrill said. "And anytime there's that much money out there, you can just multiply the amount of frauds that are going to take place. So we're preparing for many more complaints to come in and new schemes to arrive on a daily basis."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, said the federal government must pay health insurers $12 billion under a provision of the Affordable Care Act.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court has told the federal government that it has to pay $12 billion to insurance companies, money that was promised in the Affordable Care Act as part of the start-up costs of Obamacare in the first three years of its existence.

The law, as enacted, promised to limit profits and losses for insurance companies in the first three years of the Obamacare program. Some companies made more money than allowed by the formula, and had to pay some back to the government, and other companies lost money and were owed money by the government under the formula.

But in 2014, the first year that the ACA's plan was in place, the Republican-controlled Congress reneged on the promise to appropriate money for the companies that had lost money. It did the same for the next two years as well, adding to appropriation bills a rider that barred the government from fulfilling the promise in the statute. After President Trump was elected, his administration supported the GOP-led refusal to pay.

The insurance companies sued, and on Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to pay up.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the majority that the decision reflects a principle "as old as the nation itself. The government should honor its obligations."

She noted that the language of the ACA was "rare" in that it permitted lawsuits to enforce the provisions at issue here, provisions that declare the government"shall pay" the losses suffered by insurance companies that participated over the first three years.

The lone dissenter was Justice Samuel Alito, who called the decision "a massive bailout" for the insurance industry, which "took a calculated risk and lost."

Monday's decision was the third involving Obamacare at the Supreme Court. Conservative groups, and now the Trump administration, have consistently sought to invalidate or undermine the law — so far, with limited or no success. But next year, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider once again whether the law is unconstitutional.

Despite repeated efforts by Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration to either undermine or entirely do away with the program, Obamacare has remained popular, likely because it has enabled millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, to obtain medical insurance and medical coverage for the first time.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court; Credit: Mark Sherman/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court begins an extraordinary two weeks of oral arguments Monday. It will be the first time in history that the court has allowed live streaming of its audio, and the first time that the court is hearing arguments via telephone hookup, instead of in the flesh.

The justices are trying to simulate their normal arguments as much as possible, beginning with Chief Marshal Pamela Talkin calling the court to order with a slightly modified version of her usual "Oyez, oyez, oyez...."

After that, very little will be as usual.

Because the arguments are conducted over the phone, the justices and the lawyers cannot see one another, and listeners will all try to imagine where the justices and lawyers are sitting or standing in their homes to hear or present arguments.

While most of the lawyers will be in their homes, the government's lawyers will be making their arguments from the office of the Solicitor General, and in a bow to formality, they plan to wear their usual formal morning coat attire.

The lawyers we sampled, to a person, said they are more comfortable standing, or even standing at a lectern, as they usually do during oral arguments, even though nobody can see them. The arguments are limited to a half hour on each side. And, as usual, each side will get to make an opening argument for two minutes uninterrupted.

After that, under normal circumstances, the justices engage in rapid-fire questioning of the lawyers, interrupting counsel frequently, and even, on occasion, each other.

But starting Monday, the justices will ask questions in order of seniority, for two or three minutes each, with Chief Justice John Roberts starting off, followed by Justice Clarence Thomas — if he has any questions, which he rarely does. (If Thomas asks a question, it will be the first time he has spoken from the bench in over a year, when he broke a three-year silence, which was preceded by a whopping 10-year silence from the bench.)

Next Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often asks the first question in oral arguments, will be at bat, and so on, ending with the court's newest appointee, Brett Kavanauagh. More questions will be permitted if there is time left at the end of the first round of questioning.

Lawyers say there will be big challenges with the new format.

"You lose the ability to read body language. That's No. 1," says Jay Sekulow, who will be representing President Trump in cases testing whether the president can be subpoenaed for his pre-presidential financial records either by Congress or by a state grand jury subpoena in a criminal case.

As Sekulow observes, oral argument is typically a "pretty intimate event when you're actually arguing in the courtroom. You see them. You can see their reactions. You see if they nod to each other. Here you're doing this literally over a telephone line. So you lose the intimacy."

Stanford Law professor Jeff Fisher, who will be arguing a religion case a week from Monday, agrees. "I just feel that not being able to see their faces and body language is going to be a real challenge. It's just a cost for how effective and useful the arguments are going to be."

The audio argument format presents another interesting twist for the court: For the first time ever, oral arguments will be available via livestream. Typically, Supreme Court arguments are followed by a narrow group of lawyers, law students and court watchers. But with millions of Americans stuck at home, and arguments carried live online and on C-Span, the justices will likely have a larger audience than usual.

Monday's case presents a trademark question — not exactly the kind of thing to rivet public attention. And it is the only case of the day. Clearly, the court is using this relatively unimportant case to see how the system is working, and whether it needs to be adjusted in any way — in short, to work out the bugs.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

It was a new day at the Supreme Court, which for the first time ever live-streamed oral arguments.; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court made history Monday. The coronavirus lockdown forced the typically cautious court to hear arguments for the first time via telephone, and to stream the arguments live for the public to hear.

Chief Justice John Roberts was at the court as the telephone session began, one or two other justices were in their offices at the court, and the rest of the justices dialed in from home.

The first and only case heard Monday involved an arcane trademark question only a lawyer could love. Online travel search engine Booking.com is appealing a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refusal to grant a trademark to the company.

With the justices asking questions in order of seniority, the first big surprise was that Justice Clarence Thomas, who in the past has gone years without asking a question, did ask one, several in fact, when it came his turn.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number ... that's a vanity number, 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked Assistant Solicitor General Erica Ross.

Yes, replied Ross, but domain names pose a different problem than phone numbers. Ultimately, she argued "the core problem with Booking.com is that it allows [Booking.com] to monopolize booking on the internet" to the exclusion of other sites like hotelbooking.com.

Justice Stephen Breyer followed up when his turn came: "Same question as Justice Thomas ... good morning, anyway ... You can have a trademark that's an address. You can have a trademark that's a telephone number. So why can't you have a trademark that's a dot-com?"

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the court's prior decision in this area of the law was more than 100 years old, and the statute dealing with trademarks was similarly enacted decades ago.

"How can a rule that makes sense in the internet age be reconciled with the language" in these "pre-Internet era" laws? asked Alito.

Next up to her lectern from her home was lawyer Lisa Blatt. This was her 40th Supreme Court argument and despite being a veteran, she said later that she was, as usual, sick to her stomach beforehand.

But once at the lectern "it's always a rush of excitement," she said, and this time it was a special rush.

"I loved getting a question from Justice Thomas ... I would go to the phone for the foreseeable future if I could get Justice Thomas to ask questions. That was wonderful," she said.

Indeed, despite the new format Blatt and Ross seemed to have had a good time.

"Your client would not object to the registration of any trademark that simply made a slight variation in Booking.com?" asked Alito.

"There's a million booking registrations already," parried Blatt.

Alito: "Would you just answer the question."

Blatt: "They don't and have not and would not."

Not, she added, unless another company ripped off the trademark with no variation. That would be theft, she said.

So, when when the argument was over, what was her reaction?

"After I hung up, I screamed, 'That was hard!' Because you're saying enough to answer, but not too much. And you don't have any like visual feedback, so it was hard."

In the end, she said, the argument felt more like an oral exam than an oral argument.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, had a similar reaction. Goldstein, who has argued 43 cases before the court, said he thought the argument was probably more useful to the public than usual.

"But I bet it was less useful for the justices," he said. "Because there was less opportunity to follow up on lines of questions and less opportunity to influence someone ... so there's much less engagement in the oral argument."

Still there were no major hitches on this first day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor briefly forget to unmute her phone at one point, prompting a "Sorry, chief." Justice Breyer's voice broke up in static for a second or two. But as Goldstein observes, this was a big change for the court.

"Culturally a change, technologically a change. And it could have been a big embarrassment if it didn't go well, but it went fine," he said. "I think they're happy."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug made by Gilead Sciences, has been authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in treating severely ill COVID-19 patients.; Credit: Ulrich Perry/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has authorized remdesivir for emergency use in seriously ill COVID-19 patients, the experimental drug is another step closer to full approval. That's when most drugs get price tags.

Gilead Sciences, which makes remdesivir, is donating its initial supply of 1.5 million doses, but the company has signaled it will need to start charging for the drug to make production sustainable. It's unclear when that decision might be made.

"Going forward, we will develop an approach that is guided by the principles of affordability and access," Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day told shareholders during the company's annual meeting Wednesday.

In a quarterly financial filing made the same day, Gilead said its investment in remdesivir this year "could be up to $1 billion or more," much of it for scaling up manufacturing capacity.

The company also acknowledged that it's in the spotlight. "[G]iven that COVID-19 has been designated as a pandemic and represents an urgent public health crisis, we are likely to face significant public attention and scrutiny about any future business models and pricing decisions with respect to remdesivir," Gilead said in the quarterly filing.

How will the company balance its business calculations with the drug's potential value to society?

"Gilead has not yet set a price for remdesivir," company spokeswoman Sonia Choi wrote in an email to NPR. "At this time, we are focused on ensuring access to remdesivir through our donation. Post-donation, we are committed to making remdesivir both accessible and affordable to governments and patients around the world."

Among potential treatments for COVID-19, remdesivir, an intravenous drug that was once studied for Ebola, is one of the furthest along.

"It's hard to imagine a situation in which there will be more public scrutiny," said Michael Carrier, a professor at Rutgers School of Law who specializes in antitrust and pharmaceuticals. "On the one hand, Gilead will try to recover its R&D in an atmosphere in which it is able to potentially make a lot of money. On the other hand, the pressure will be intense not to charge what's viewed as too high a price."

Breaking with its usual practices, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, or ICER, an influential nonprofit that analyzes drug pricing, issued an expedited report on remdesivir.

"Under normal circumstances, we would be unlikely to do a report when the evidence is this raw and immature," ICER President Steven Pearson said in an interview with NPR. "But it was quite clear that the world is moving at a much quicker pace."

If the price is based just on the cost of making the drug, then a 10-day course of remdesivir should cost about $10, according to the ICER report. (Gilead said results of a recently completed study suggest a five-day course of treatment may be just as effective.)

But if the drug is priced based on the drug's effectiveness, ICER estimates it should cost around $4,500 — assuming the drug is proven to have some benefit on mortality. If it doesn't and the drug only shortens hospital stays, that value-based price goes down to $390.

Results from a federally funded study described by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that remdesvir could reduce recovery time by a median of four days — 11 days to recovery for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who got a placebo. A potential survival benefit is less clear.

Rutgers's Carrier said he expects Gilead to set the remdesivir price somewhere between the $10 and $4,500 that ICER estimated. The company has already shown that it can respond to public pressure when it asked the FDA to rescind the orphan drug status it won for remdesivir, he pointed out.

"When you see that $10 figure, that sets a benchmark for a figure that is eminently affordable," Carrier said. Ultimately, he said a price more than $1,000 per treatment course would be unpopular.

Gilead "will be watched very carefully," he said, because of its prior history of pricing. He referred to two other Gilead drugs that drew scrutiny over high price tags. The company charged $1,000 per pill for Sovaldi, a cure for hepatitis C. And its HIV drug Truvada can cost $22,000 per year.

But there is such a thing as pricing remdesivir too low, said Craig Garthwaite, who directs the health care program at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

"We don't think this is the only drug we need," he said, adding that remdesivir doesn't appear to be a "home run" against the coronavirus, based on existing data. "The thing that would worry me the most is that we're somehow telling people that if you take the risky bet to try, and you'll go after a coronavirus cure and you do it, you're not going to get paid."

Instead, he said he would like to see acceptance of a generous price for remdesivir to send the message to drug companies that the best thing they can do is "dedicate every waking moment to trying to develop that cure, and that if they do that, we will pay them the value they create," he said.

During a Gilead earnings call on April 30, analysts asked executives whether they could expect similar financial returns on remdesivir as they've seen with Gilead's other drugs.

"There is no rulebook out there, other than that we need to be very thoughtful about how we can make sure we provide access of our medicines to patients around the globe," Gilead CEO O'Day said. "And do that in a sustainable way for the company, for ... shareholders, and we acknowledge that."

On May 1, the FDA authorized remdesivir for emergency use, meaning it will be easier to administer to hospitalized patients with severe disease during the pandemic, but the drug is not yet officially approved. The federal government is coordinating distribution of the treatment.

Day acknowledged on the recent earnings call that the company "could" charge for remdesivir under an emergency use authorization, but he stressed that Gilead is donating its current supply, which should last through "early summer."

To date, the National Institutes of Health said it has obligated $23 million toward its COVID-19 remdesivir trial. And the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases did some of the early in vitro and animal studies with the medicine prior to the pandemic.

"Taxpayers are often the angel investors in pharmaceutical research and development, yet this is not reflected in the prices they pay," Reps. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., wrote in a April 30 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Concerned about remdesivir's price, they asked for a full breakdown of taxpayer funds that have gone toward the development of the medicine. "An unaffordable drug is completely ineffective," they wrote in the letter. "The substantial taxpayer investments in COVID-19 pharmaceutical research must be recognized."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A woman wearing a mask walks past closed store fronts in the Astoria neighborhood of Queens on April 15 in New York City. States are beginning to implement phased reopening plans, in part to help businesses hit hard by the coronavirus.; Credit: Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump wants states to begin relaxing stay-at-home orders and reopen businesses after the spread of the coronavirus pummeled the global economy and killed millions of jobs.

The White House coronavirus task force released guidelines on April 16 to encourage state governors to adopt a phased approach to lifting restrictions across the country. Some states have moved ahead without meeting the criteria.

The task force rejected a set of additional detailed draft recommendations for schools, restaurants, churches and mass transit systems from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it considered "overly prescriptive."

A number of states have already begun to lift restrictions, allowing for businesses including hair salons, diners and tattoo parlors to once again begin accepting customers. Health experts have warned that reopening too quickly could result in a potential rebound in cases.

States are supposed to wait to begin lifting any restrictions until they have a 14-day "downward trajectory" of influenza-like illnesses and confirmed virus cases, as well as sufficient hospital capacity and testing for health care workers.

Below is a summary of the three phases as outlined by the task force (read the full guidance here):

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

COVID-19 Research and Development Sean's pick this week is COVID-19 Research and Development by MathWorks. We were recently introduced to this page which highlights uses of... read more >>

Pedestrians walk by the Castro Theatre that has a marquee announcing that they are closed due to a statewide ordinance banning gatherings of more than 250 people in San Francisco, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Hollywood has come to a stand still. The film and entertainment industry has been hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak as theaters close, film releases and events are being postponed, and studios are putting a pause on film production.

The gravity of the coronavirus is being felt all throughout the country and Hollywood is not coming out of the outbreak unscathed. Social distancing measures being enforced to help control the outbreak has studios and theatres taking a huge hit. It’s predicted that about 170,000 people in the film industry will lose their jobs. Many of the lowest-paid positions and freelance jobs have been the first to go. From events to films, the industry is trying to strategize around the outbreak with no clear picture on how long these conditions could last. Hollywood unions, activist groups and nonprofits are coming together to help provide some kind of emergency relief for workers who are getting hit the hardest. It’s been a period of economic shock for the entertainment industry and it’s still too early to see what Hollywood could look like after the outbreak is over.

Today on AirTalk, we check-in with people in the entertainment industry who have been impacted by the outbreak and where might Hollywood go from here. If you work in entertainment, we'd like to hear from you! How are you coping as most productions are shut down? Join the live conversation by calling 866-893-5722.

Guest:

Andrew Wallenstein, co-editor-in-chief at Variety; he tweets @awallenstein

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) listens during a news conference in front of the U.S. Capitol.; Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

As we discussed last week on FilmWeek, entertainment industry professionals are among the hardest hit amid the stoppage of everyday work and life due to COVID-19. Whether you’re on camera or stage, or behind it, above the line or below it, production shutdowns mean that industry professionals who already rely on sporadic work as it’s available are left with few to no options for sustainable income. 

Last week, Congressman Adam Schiff and other members of Congress who represent areas with large constituencies that work in the entertainment industry sent a letter to House leaders asking them to provide relief for both freelance and contract entertainment industry workers. “The unique freelance nature of work in film, television, theater, and live music means that a large number of the professionals who make these productions possible work only sporadically—often with extended periods between paying jobs—and count on income from each project to make ends meet,” the letter said in part. “As a result, many of them can’t qualify for traditional unemployment benefits or paid emergency leave, yet will now be unable to cover their basic expenses due to lost work.” 

Today on AirTalk, Congressman Schiff joins us to talk about what relief both freelance and contract entertainment industry professionals can expect if the House passes the stimulus package that would provide financial aid to Americans during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Guest: 

Adam Schiff, U.S. Congressman representing California’s 28th Congressional District, which includes Burbank, parts of Pasadena, and Glendale, and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; he tweets @RepAdamSchiff

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Circus of Books storefront.; Credit: Netflix/Circus Of Books (2020)

Rachel Mason had, to a certain extent, the normal upbringing you’d imagine a family of five with small business owner parents would have. But in her documentary, ‘Circus of Books’, she pulls the curtain on the double-life her parents led as modest business owners and pillars of the LGBTQ community.

Karen and Barry Mason established West Hollywood’s Circus of Books on Santa Monica Boulevard in the 1980s. What seemed like an unassuming bookstore was actually a gay porn shop that became an institution in the LGBTQ community during a time when homosexuality was still largely unaccepted. The store was far from being a “bookstore with a circus theme”. The Los Angeles-based shop was the central hub for gay pornography around the country, once one of the main distributors for adult films. 

While the store was becoming a home for gay culture and pride, the Masons largely kept their business a secret from colleagues, friends, family, even their own children. It’s a central conflict that Rachel Mason explores throughout the film as the daughter of two shop owners caught between the pressures of maintaining a traditional family image and making a living as gay pornography distributors.

Today on FilmWeek, we’re joined by ‘Circus of Books’ director Rachel Mason for a conversation on her documentary and the experience of creating a film with her parents and their secret as the subject.

‘Circus Of Books’ is currently streaming on Netflix. For more on the film from LAist’s Mike Roe, click here.

Guest:

Rachel Mason, director of the Netflix documentary ‘Circus of Books’ and daughter of Circus of Books owners Karen and Barry Mason; she tweets @RachelMasonArt

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A still from "Spaceship Earth".; Credit: Neon/"Spaceship Earth" (2020)

Two months is a long time to be quarantined in one place. Just ask, well, pretty much anyone in the era of COVID-19. But imagine if you were quarantined for two years instead of two months, all in the name of science, and it was by choice!

In 1991, eight researchers did exactly that in Oracle, Arizona as part of a first-of-its-kind mission called BIOSPHERE 2. No, there was no failed BIOSPHERE 1 mission -- BIOSPHERE 1 is planet Earth. The mission’s goal was to create a living ecosystem inside a massive glass and steel facility to show that human life could be sustained in outer space. The idea was that whenever humanity finally did gain the ability to travel deeper into space and colonize another planet, a biosphere would need to be built first so that life could be sustained. But what started as a science experiment quickly evolved into a cultural phenomenon, and while some watched with bated breath to see whether the researchers could really create a living ecosystem in a controlled environment, others saw the project and those who were involved as a cult of sorts. Director Matt Wolf explores BIOSPHERE 2  the researchers (“biospherians”) who carried the mission out, what ultimately happened and the good and bad ways in which it became a cultural phenomenon.

Today on FilmWeek, “The Frame” host John Horn talks with Wolf about the making of the film and what can be learned from the biospherians about our current situation staying at home because of COVID-19.

Guest:

Matt Wolf, director of the documentary “Spaceship Earth"

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

New research has shed light on the factors needed to successfully implement pilot projects designed to reduce the dumping of unwanted fish by fishermen. The analysis of 15 European projects highlights the importance of involving the fishing industry in developing and implementing pilot projects.

File photo: Customers enter a Home Depot store on May 21, 2013 in El Cerrito, Calif.; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The Home Depot says it has eliminated malware from its U.S. and Canadian networks that affected 56 million unique payment cards between April and September.

The Atlanta-based home improvement retailer said Thursday it has also completed a "major" payment security project that provides enhanced encryption of customers' payment data in the company's U.S. stores.

Home Depot also is confirming its sales-growth estimates for the fiscal year and expects to earn $4.54 per share in fiscal 2014, up 2 cents from its prior guidance.

In this file photo, job seekers line up to enter Choice Career Fair at the Los Angeles Convention Center on December 1, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. Overall, the number of unemployed Californians ticked up by 1,000 over the month to nearly 1.4 million for August 2014, but the rate remained unchanged, at 7.4 percent. The national unemployment rate is down to 6.1 percent.; Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

California's unemployment rate is unchanged for a third month, holding at 7.4 percent in August.

The California Employment Development Department reported Friday that the state added 44,200 nonfarm jobs during the month, bringing the state total to 15.5 million in August.

Last month's gains mean the state has added 1.4 million jobs since February 2010, when the jobless number hit a peak of 12.4 percent.

Overall, the number of unemployed Californians ticked up by 1,000 over the month to nearly 1.4 million. The national unemployment rate is down to 6.1 percent.

Construction posted the largest increase over the month, adding 13,600 jobs. Manufacturing, financial activities, business services, education, health, leisure and government all added jobs in August.

Trade, transportation and utilities, along with information, posted job losses of 8,300.

Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug made by Gilead Sciences, has been authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in treating severely ill COVID-19 patients.; Credit: Ulrich Perry/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has authorized remdesivir for emergency use in seriously ill COVID-19 patients, the experimental drug is another step closer to full approval. That's when most drugs get price tags.

Gilead Sciences, which makes remdesivir, is donating its initial supply of 1.5 million doses, but the company has signaled it will need to start charging for the drug to make production sustainable. It's unclear when that decision might be made.

"Going forward, we will develop an approach that is guided by the principles of affordability and access," Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day told shareholders during the company's annual meeting Wednesday.

In a quarterly financial filing made the same day, Gilead said its investment in remdesivir this year "could be up to $1 billion or more," much of it for scaling up manufacturing capacity.

The company also acknowledged that it's in the spotlight. "[G]iven that COVID-19 has been designated as a pandemic and represents an urgent public health crisis, we are likely to face significant public attention and scrutiny about any future business models and pricing decisions with respect to remdesivir," Gilead said in the quarterly filing.

How will the company balance its business calculations with the drug's potential value to society?

"Gilead has not yet set a price for remdesivir," company spokeswoman Sonia Choi wrote in an email to NPR. "At this time, we are focused on ensuring access to remdesivir through our donation. Post-donation, we are committed to making remdesivir both accessible and affordable to governments and patients around the world."

Among potential treatments for COVID-19, remdesivir, an intravenous drug that was once studied for Ebola, is one of the furthest along.

"It's hard to imagine a situation in which there will be more public scrutiny," said Michael Carrier, a professor at Rutgers School of Law who specializes in antitrust and pharmaceuticals. "On the one hand, Gilead will try to recover its R&D in an atmosphere in which it is able to potentially make a lot of money. On the other hand, the pressure will be intense not to charge what's viewed as too high a price."

Breaking with its usual practices, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, or ICER, an influential nonprofit that analyzes drug pricing, issued an expedited report on remdesivir.

"Under normal circumstances, we would be unlikely to do a report when the evidence is this raw and immature," ICER President Steven Pearson said in an interview with NPR. "But it was quite clear that the world is moving at a much quicker pace."

If the price is based just on the cost of making the drug, then a 10-day course of remdesivir should cost about $10, according to the ICER report. (Gilead said results of a recently completed study suggest a five-day course of treatment may be just as effective.)

But if the drug is priced based on the drug's effectiveness, ICER estimates it should cost around $4,500 — assuming the drug is proven to have some benefit on mortality. If it doesn't and the drug only shortens hospital stays, that value-based price goes down to $390.

Results from a federally funded study described by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that remdesvir could reduce recovery time by a median of four days — 11 days to recovery for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who got a placebo. A potential survival benefit is less clear.

Rutgers's Carrier said he expects Gilead to set the remdesivir price somewhere between the $10 and $4,500 that ICER estimated. The company has already shown that it can respond to public pressure when it asked the FDA to rescind the orphan drug status it won for remdesivir, he pointed out.

"When you see that $10 figure, that sets a benchmark for a figure that is eminently affordable," Carrier said. Ultimately, he said a price more than $1,000 per treatment course would be unpopular.

Gilead "will be watched very carefully," he said, because of its prior history of pricing. He referred to two other Gilead drugs that drew scrutiny over high price tags. The company charged $1,000 per pill for Sovaldi, a cure for hepatitis C. And its HIV drug Truvada can cost $22,000 per year.

But there is such a thing as pricing remdesivir too low, said Craig Garthwaite, who directs the health care program at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

"We don't think this is the only drug we need," he said, adding that remdesivir doesn't appear to be a "home run" against the coronavirus, based on existing data. "The thing that would worry me the most is that we're somehow telling people that if you take the risky bet to try, and you'll go after a coronavirus cure and you do it, you're not going to get paid."

Instead, he said he would like to see acceptance of a generous price for remdesivir to send the message to drug companies that the best thing they can do is "dedicate every waking moment to trying to develop that cure, and that if they do that, we will pay them the value they create," he said.

During a Gilead earnings call on April 30, analysts asked executives whether they could expect similar financial returns on remdesivir as they've seen with Gilead's other drugs.

"There is no rulebook out there, other than that we need to be very thoughtful about how we can make sure we provide access of our medicines to patients around the globe," Gilead CEO O'Day said. "And do that in a sustainable way for the company, for ... shareholders, and we acknowledge that."

On May 1, the FDA authorized remdesivir for emergency use, meaning it will be easier to administer to hospitalized patients with severe disease during the pandemic, but the drug is not yet officially approved. The federal government is coordinating distribution of the treatment.

Day acknowledged on the recent earnings call that the company "could" charge for remdesivir under an emergency use authorization, but he stressed that Gilead is donating its current supply, which should last through "early summer."

To date, the National Institutes of Health said it has obligated $23 million toward its COVID-19 remdesivir trial. And the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases did some of the early in vitro and animal studies with the medicine prior to the pandemic.

"Taxpayers are often the angel investors in pharmaceutical research and development, yet this is not reflected in the prices they pay," Reps. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., wrote in a April 30 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Concerned about remdesivir's price, they asked for a full breakdown of taxpayer funds that have gone toward the development of the medicine. "An unaffordable drug is completely ineffective," they wrote in the letter. "The substantial taxpayer investments in COVID-19 pharmaceutical research must be recognized."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A woman wearing a mask walks past closed store fronts in the Astoria neighborhood of Queens on April 15 in New York City. States are beginning to implement phased reopening plans, in part to help businesses hit hard by the coronavirus.; Credit: Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump wants states to begin relaxing stay-at-home orders and reopen businesses after the spread of the coronavirus pummeled the global economy and killed millions of jobs.

The White House coronavirus task force released guidelines on April 16 to encourage state governors to adopt a phased approach to lifting restrictions across the country. Some states have moved ahead without meeting the criteria.

The task force rejected a set of additional detailed draft recommendations for schools, restaurants, churches and mass transit systems from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it considered "overly prescriptive."

A number of states have already begun to lift restrictions, allowing for businesses including hair salons, diners and tattoo parlors to once again begin accepting customers. Health experts have warned that reopening too quickly could result in a potential rebound in cases.

States are supposed to wait to begin lifting any restrictions until they have a 14-day "downward trajectory" of influenza-like illnesses and confirmed virus cases, as well as sufficient hospital capacity and testing for health care workers.

Below is a summary of the three phases as outlined by the task force (read the full guidance here):

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

With the supply/demand balance moving in favor of miners, the outlook for uranium stocks is the brightest it has been in years, according to McAlinden Research Partners.

Finding affordable apartments is especially tough in Los Angeles, where 52 percent of people are renters, according to a new study.; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

You need to earn at least $33 an hour — $68,640 a year — to be able to afford the average apartment in Los Angeles County, according to Matt Schwartz, president and chief executive of the California Housing Partnership, which advocates for affordable housing. 

That's more than double the level of the highest minimum wage being proposed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, which he argued would make it easier for workers to afford to live here. “If we pass this, this will allow more people to live their American Dream here in L.A.," Garcetti proclaimed when he announced his plan to raise the minimum wage to $13.25 by 2017. 

The $33 an hour figure is based on the average L.A. County apartment rental price of $1,716 a month, from USC's 2014 Casden Multifamily Forecast. An apartment is considered affordable when you spend no more than 30 percent of your paycheck on rent.

To earn $33 an hour or more, you'd need to have a Los Angeles job like one of the following occupations: 

• Marketing manager: $66,538 (average in L.A., according to Payscale.com)
• LAUSD teacher: $70,000 (average salary, according to LAUSD)
• Software engineer: $82,669 (average according to Payscale.com)
• Lawyer: $104,249 (average according to Payscale.com)

But many occupations typically earn far below that $33 an hour threshold in L.A. County, according to the California Housing Partnership:

• Secretaries: $36,000 ($17 an hour)
• EMT Paramedics: $25,00 ($12 an hour)
• Preschool teachers: $29,000 ($14 an hour)

That's why L.A. residents wind up spending an average of 47 percent of their income on rent, which is the highest percentage in the nation, according to UCLA's Ziman Center for Real Estate.

Naturally, people who earn the current California minimum wage of $9 an hour ($18,720 a year) would fare even worse in trying to afford an average apartment.

Raising the minimum wage to $13.25 would equal a $27,560 salary; raising it to $15.25 an hour totals $31,720 a year.

What about buying a home?

In order to afford to purchase the median-priced home in Los Angeles, you'd need to earn $96,513 a year, according to HSH.com, a mortgage information website. 

The median home price in Los Angeles is $570,500, according to the real estate website, Trulia.com.

But consider that the median income in Los Angeles is about half that: $49,497, according to census numbers from 2009-2013.

So it's no surprise that Los Angeles has been rated as the most unaffordable city to rent in America by Harvard and UCLA. 

The cost of housing has gone up so much that even raising the minimum wage to $15.25 an hour – as some on the city council have proposed doing by 2019– would not go very far in solving the problem.

“Every little bit helps, but even if you doubled the minimum wage, it wouldn’t help most low-income families find affordable rental housing in Los Angeles,” said Schwartz.

What percentage of your income to you spend on housing in Los Angeles? Let us know in the comments, on our Facebook page or on Twitter (@KPCC). You can see how affordable your neighborhood is with our interactive map.

An earlier version of this story incorrectly calculated the hourly pay rate, based on the estimated $68,640 annual pay needed to afford the average rent in L.A. County. KPCC regrets the error.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Walter Flores was unemployed for 8 months in 2014 but is now working in sales for Workforce Solutions in Compton; Credit: Brian Watt/KPCC

California's unemployment rate continued its decline in December, ending the year at 7 percent, according to figures released Friday by the state Employment Development Department.

But in Compton, Willowbrook and the Florence-Graham section of Los Angeles County, it remains about double that, data show.

“You might have work this week. But next week, you won’t have work,” said James Hicks, 36, 0f Compton. He's worked in warehouses through staffing agencies, but said the jobs have always been temporary.

Statewide, California has added jobs at a faster rate than the United States for three straight years, according to Robert Kleinhenz, Chief Economist with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. He pointed out the statewide unemployment rate is now where it was June 2008. 

"All in all, with the recession now five years back in our rearview mirror, we’re finally at the point where we can say that we have shrugged off quite a bit of the pain that occurred back during those times," Kleinhenz said.

The Los Angeles County metro area saw a net gain of almost 71,000 jobs in 2014.  The County's overall unemployment rate has fallen to 7.9 percent from 9.2 percent a year ago.

But Compton's unemployment rate was 13 percent in December.

“I’d rather have a  full-time type of gig, working 40 hours a week, but right now, even if you get 25 hours, it’s a blessing,” said Hicks, the warehouse worker in Compton.

On Thursday, he interviewed to be a guard with a security firm, but was told there weren’t any positions available. He had another security guard job six months ago that he thought might become full time and permanent. 

"It was going all right for about two to three months, until they cut my hours and days," Hicks said. 

Walter Flores lives in La Mirada but currently works as an account executive in the Compton office of Workforce Solutions. He was unemployed for about eight months last year after a car accident.

"Losing what you love to do is a tough one, but I'm back," he said. "2015 is going to be a great year."

Flores said most major warehouse and logistics companies prefer to hire temporary workers through industrial staffing firms like the one where he's working because their needs are sporadic.  

But he said it's still a potential opportunity.

"It doesn't matter that it's a temporary position, as long as you put your foot in the door, and then you let the employer know how much value you are for the company," Flores said.  

Hicks, who's earned a GED, wants to find a program to study physical therapy. But first, he’d like to find a job. 

He said you can't judge Compton’s residents by its unemployment rate.

"Some of us out here who [are] looking for jobs, but sometimes it’s the luck of the draw," he said. "It’s kind of scarce out there.” 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Coda Payments and Riot Games have announced that players...

Source: Streetwise Reports   04/28/2020

News Flash: On May 7, CloudMD announced that it is partnering with IDYA4 Corp. for it to resell the health technology firm's Livecare technology in the U.S.. Read more here.

News Flash: On May 4, CloudMD announced that it is partnering with Save-On-Foods grocery stores and Pure Integrative Pharmacy to pilot on demand, integrated virtual patient care through telemedicine kiosks placed in pharmacies' existing consult rooms. Read more here.

As people are avoiding going to doctor's offices and hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic, telemedicine has taken off. Two investment professionals, Bruce Campbell and Keith Schaefer, have called CloudMD Software & Services Inc. (DOC:CSE; DOCRF:OTCQB; 6PH:FSE), a small-cap Canadian telemedicine firm, a top pick.

Bruce Campbell, founder and portfolio manager of Stonecastle Investment Management, spoke about CloudMD on April 27 on BNN:

"The first top pick is CloudMD Software, a technological medical play. We've tried to look at opportunities that are really going to be able to take advantage of Covid and this is one of the ones that we think is; what they do is telemedicine.

"The jumping off point for TeleHealth is here and I think CloudMD is the best pure-play TeleHealth stock right now." - Keith Schaefer

If you look back at a year ago, where everyone had to go to the doctor, and now all of the different provinces have opened up billing codes, so that now we don't have to go into a doctor's office. We can do a virtual doctor's visit and the doctor gets paid just like they do with an in-house appointment. Obviously with everything that has happened with this crisis, people really don't want to go into a doctor's office and they need a prescription renewal or something like that.

If you look at CloudMD's peers in the U.S., there is a company called Teladoc, which is a big U.S. company that does the same thing. Obviously, the size of the market is different, but the multiple it trades at is multiple times higher than where CloudMD is.

CloudMD is just starting to gain adoption. They started off here in BC, they have moved to Ontario, and they are going to be rolling out really across the country, so tons of opportunity for a company like this. They will probably change the way that we view our doctor and our healthcare visits going forward."

Keith Schaefer, editor and publisher of Oil & Gas Investments Bulletin, is also following CloudMD, and wrote:

"An entirely new—and highly profitable—industry is being borne out in 2020—TeleHealth. CloudMD Software & Services Inc. (DOC:CSE; DOCRF:OTCQB; 6PH:FSE) is my favorite way to play TeleHealth. It's growing quickly with over 100,000 patients registered on its app and over 3000 doctors in 8 provinces in its Electronic Medical Records—EMR—system. It has MULTIPLE revenue streams and it just moved into Canada's largest market—Ontario—setting up an even faster growth rate.

The recent spread of coronavirus is only accelerating this. Covid-19 has forever changed how we all will think about visiting a hospital or seeing our doctor. We really don't want to do that at all, if possible. It will have a very positive and long lasting impact on TeleHealth.

TeleHealth companies in Canada are getting paid more money for services than bricks-and-mortar clinics, and have a fraction of the costs. Doctors want more of it, patients want more of it, government wants more of it—and the Market REALLY wants more of it. Everybody wins here; there is no downside.

The rapid scale-up and profitability is key for investors.

CloudMD is established, growing quickly and trading at a fraction of its peers. The average multiple of competitors in the sector trade at 5-7x revenue, and CloudMD is trading way below that at 2.5x per revenue. But realize that the Canadian use of telemedicine is still just a fraction of where it is in the U.S—so the quick, early upside is even bigger.

The market desperately wants to own TeleHealth right now. I see CloudMD as the best way to do that in the junior sector (where the leverage is!).

For this stock to have a major run all that needs to happen is for institutional investors to wake-up to the fact that the company exists. That's happening now with the company entering the province of Ontario—which has 14.5 million people—over one-third of Canada's population.

CloudMD is a fully integrated health care company—kind of like a hospital-in-the-sky. They do have five bricks-and-mortar clinics, but they also own their own EMR—Electronic Medical Records—system that operates in eight provinces and is used by over 3,000 doctors and is supported by an in-house 25 person development team. They have their own CloudMD app—which has over 100,000 registered patients already.

The EMR gives CloudMD a recurring monthly revenue stream, which The Street loves. The app gives them high-margin fees from doctors, specialists and groups like massage therapists & counselors. These people are revenue, not costs. As I said, full hospital-in-the-sky. Multiple revenue sources with lower costs.

To schedule a virtual doctor's appointment all that a patient has to do is download the free CloudMD app and then arrange an appointment with one of the doctors. There is zero charge for the patient and they can see a doctor very quickly.

CloudMD can scale up the number of patients VERY quickly—and they are. Every aspect of healthcare that's very fractured and disjointed will now be in the one CloudMD ecosystem.
Everyone wins with this system. Patients, doctors, the medical system, society, even investors. Everyone.

Doctors who have signed up with CloudMD work remotely from home or wherever they are (like their winter home down south). The rapid scale-up potential excites me. CloudMD can add in unlimited number of doctors and patients—so it has a virtually unlimited ability to scale quickly with little incremental cost.

Profit margins are wide and there is no cap on the number of customers that can be handled.

After a patient has an appointment, CloudMD bills the government directly just like every bricks-and-mortar clinic in Canada does. CloudMD records 100% of the revenue and gets to keep 30% of the billing for every patient that is seen through telemedicine, which is actually 10% more than what a bricks-and-mortar clinic receives. That is because the governments are trying to push TeleHealth. The doctor gets the other 70% and doesn't have to deal with any headaches of commuting or running a business.

Without the overhead of a bricks-and-mortar clinic, AND more revenue, CloudMD will be much more profitable than traditional healthcare stocks. Faster scale, more cash flow. And they just entered Canada's largest market. This is the right stock in the right market at the right time. That's the great thing about this business model. It's very scalable, very easy, and it grows very quickly.

CloudMD has been growing its recurring SAAS (Software-as-a-Service) revenue by 30% YoY with its EMR system. But this year the company is expecting that doctor growth to be much much higher—with a new full time sales team and the coronavirus pandemic. SaaS revenue is highly lucrative!

The jumping off point for TeleHealth is here and I think CloudMD is the best pure-play TeleHealth stock right now."

Read Keith Schaefer's entire article here.

Watch Bruce Campbell of StoneCastle Investments share his top picks: CloudMD, Lightspeed and Viemed.

Disclosure:
1) Keith Schaefer: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own shares of the following companies mentioned in this article: CloudMD. I personally am, or members of my immediate household or family are, paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: CloudMD. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this article: None. Additional disclosures are listed below.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees. As of the date of this article, an affiliate of Streetwise Reports has a consulting relationship with CloudMD. Please click here for more information. An affiliate of Streetwise Reports is conducting a digital media marketing campaign for this article on behalf of CloudMD. Please click here for more information.
3) Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The author is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. The author was not paid by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
4) This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of CloudMD, a company mentioned in this article.

Additional Disclosures