Nepal Clearing House Limited (NCHL) and

Emirates NBD and...

Lithuania-based iDenfy has introduced an AI-powered Data Crossmatch feature aimed at improving the Know Your Business (KYB) compliance process.

Our technical support group recently received a request for a tool that would convert IBM System/360 hexadecimal floating point numbers to the IEEE-754 format. I am probably the only one left at MathWorks that actually used IBM mainframe computers. I thought we had seen the last of hexadecimal arithmetic years ago. But, it turns out that the hexadecimal floating point format is alive and well.... read more >>

Floating point arithmetic doesn't get the respect it deserves. Many people consider it mysterious, fuzzy, unpredictable. These misgivings often occur in discussion of vector sums. Our provocatively named SuperSum is intended to calm these fears.... read more >>

Shortly after I published the second post about the Mertens conjecture, a reader's comment suggested a new approach to computing Redheffer determinants and the Mertens function. It is now possible to compute a half-million values of the Mertens function in about five hours.... read more >>

A friend is investigating the use of generative AI in his classes. I asked two different popular chatbots to write MATLAB programs for a mathematically nontrivial problem. Both chatbots understood my query and both wrote plausible MATLAB programs, but one of the programs was not correct. My recommendation for coursework: carefully read and test programs produced by generative AI and repair any incorrect ones.... read more >>

Source: Streetwise Reports 11/06/2024

Golden Cariboo Resources Ltd. (GCC:CSE; GCCFF:OTC; A0RLEP:WKN; 3TZ:FSE) has reported encouraging results from its 2024 field campaign. During the exploration, the company collected 16 rock samples from the Halo zone, North Hixon zone, and Pioneer area. These samples revealed promising gold mineralization in the region. Notable highlights from the Halo zone include grab samples from newly exposed outcrops, with assays reaching 8.47 g/t Au (grams per tonne, gold), 6.59 g/t Au, and 2.39 g/t Au. These samples were taken from altered andesite tuff with quartz-carbonate veins located approximately 101 meters northeast of the nearest drill collar.

Sampling near the Pioneer showing, situated one-kilometer north-northwest of the Halo zone, also returned assays of 1.13 g/t Au and 0.40 g/t Au. The fieldwork's findings have significantly extended the strike length of known gold mineralization by one kilometer and expanded the surface footprint of mineralization to the northeast. Despite challenging glacial cover, Golden Cariboo's team continues to uncover significant gold-bearing outcrops.

The report also underscored the strategic advantages of the property's location, infrastructure, and proximity to Highway 97, which reduces exploration and operational costs. Wortel detailed Golden Cariboo's drilling campaign, which includes results such as Hole QGQ24-013, which intersected 136.51 meters at 1.77 g/t gold, including a higher-grade interval of 23.89 meters at 3.32 g/t gold.

Valuation metrics from the report included a projected fair value of CA$0.40 per share, representing a 74% potential upside from the current trading price of CA$0.23, and doesn't include the added value from recent, significant exploration success. Despite acknowledging the high risks associated with early-stage exploration projects, Couloir Capital emphasized the long-term value potential in a Tier 1 mining jurisdiction, reinforced by the company's experienced management team and promising geological trends.

Frank Callaghan, President and CEO of Golden Cariboo, stated in the news release, "Although there is a lot of glacial cover on this project, our geologists still managed to find new gold-bearing outcrops in areas of great significance. We have now expanded the surface footprint of gold mineralization at the Halo zone to the northeast and increased the strike length of our gold trend. We're in a very large gold system that is being demonstrated by multiple, varied work programs."

Mining and Metals Market

On October 29, Kitco reported that gold prices had reached nearly US$2,800. This price represents a 35% increase for the year. The rise was attributed to multiple factors, including "geopolitical conflicts, Federal Reserve interest rate normalization, continued strong demand from global central banks, and uncertainties about the upcoming presidential election and potential fiscal stimulus." Analysts at Kitco described this combination of elements as a "perfect storm." They noted it had driven investor sentiment and reinforced gold's value as a hedge against economic turmoil.

LiveMint, on October 30, highlighted the substantial returns seen in gold over the past year. Despite this impressive performance, some analysts expressed caution regarding gold's future trajectory. Ajay Kedia, Director of Kedia Advisory, suggested that while gold prices may see a short-term rally, "investors may have to remain cautious on the yellow metal in the second half of 2025." Kedia noted that gold prices could experience profit-taking and a slowdown if interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve do not materialize as quickly as expected. Nonetheless, gold has continued to serve as a preferred asset for those seeking stability, especially in times of economic and political uncertainty.

In a November 4 report, Egon von Greyerz, Founder and Chairman of Matterhorn Asset Management, provided a historical perspective on gold's role in preserving wealth. Von Greyerz discussed how gold had consistently retained value, even as fiat currencies depreciated over time. He emphasized, "Gold held in the investor's name in safe vaults and jurisdictions outside the financial system is the ultimate form of wealth preservation." Von Greyerz also pointed to gold's outperformance since the 1970s, stating that gold had increased 78 times since President Nixon ended the gold standard in 1971. He argued that gold's journey was "only starting now," citing the ongoing destruction of fiat money value through global debt expansion and monetary policies.

Cariboo Catalysts

According to Golden Cariboo Resources' Q1 2024 investor presentation, the company is advancing exploration on its 3,814-hectare Quesnelle Gold Quartz Mine property, located in British Columbia's historic Cariboo Mining District. The asset benefits from 160 years of mining history and is road-accessible, facilitating year-round exploration. The 2024 exploration program, including trenching and a proposed 2,500-5,000m Phase 2 drilling campaign, aims to delineate the gold system further and complete a National Instrument 43-101 compliant resource estimate.

The property, encircled by Osisko Development Corp. on three sides, holds the potential for high-grade, multi-ounce gold targets. Management is focusing on a multi-phase exploration strategy. This includes trenching to assess shallow overburden and mapping and sampling to refine drill targets. The team's experience and the property's historical and geological significance position Golden Cariboo as a promising exploration venture.

The proposed drilling and development efforts reflect a systematic approach to unlocking value in this underexplored yet historically significant gold camp as the company progresses toward realizing a resource estimate.

Expert Analysis

Golden Cariboo Resources Inc. received favorable coverage from Couloir Capital in a report released on September 3, 2024. Senior Mining Analyst Ron Wortel issued a Buy recommendation for the company, noting the significant potential for discovering a large gold resource at the Quesnelle Gold Quartz property. Wortel highlighted that the property, located in British Columbia's historic Cariboo Mining District, lies along the same geological trend as Osisko Development's projects, suggesting the possibility of tapping into similar high-grade mineralization systems.

The report also underscored the strategic advantages of the property's location, infrastructure, and proximity to Highway 97, which reduces exploration and operational costs. Wortel detailed Golden Cariboo's drilling campaign, pointing out positive early results, such as Hole QGQ24-08, which intersected 263 meters at 0.29 g/t gold, including a higher-grade interval of 200 meters at 0.58 g/t gold. The analyst described these findings as indicative of "bulk-tonnage targets," with visible gold observed in several drill cores, bolstering the outlook for continued exploration success. [OWNERSHIP_CHART-11131]

Valuation metrics from the report included a projected fair value of CA$0.40 per share, representing a 286% potential upside from the current trading price of CA$0.14. Despite acknowledging the high risks associated with early-stage exploration projects, Couloir Capital emphasized the long-term value potential in a Tier 1 mining jurisdiction, reinforced by the company's experienced management team and promising geological trends.

Ownership and Share Structure

According to Golden Cariboo, management and insiders own 30% of Golden Cariboo Resources. President and CEO Frank Callaghan owns 16.45% or 6.93 million shares; Elaine Callaghan has 0.97% or 0.41 million shares; Director Andrew Rees has 0.79% or 0.33 million shares; and Director Laurence Smoliak has 0.3% or 0.13 million shares.

Retail investors hold the remaining. There are no institutional investors.

The company said it has 50.3 million shares outstanding, 24.83 million warrants, and 3.8 million options.

Its market cap is CA$9.7 million. Over the past 52 weeks, Golden Cariboo has traded between CA$0.08 and CA$0.36 per share.

Sign up for our FREE newsletter at: www.streetwisereports.com/get-news

Important Disclosures:

1. Golden Cariboo Resources Ltd. has a consulting relationship with Street Smart an affiliate of Streetwise Reports. Street Smart Clients pay a monthly consulting fee between US$8,000 and US$20,000.
2. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Golden Cariboo Resources Ltd.
3. James Guttman wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor.
4. This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any 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. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

( Companies Mentioned: GCC:CSE; GCCFF:OTC; A0RLEP:WKN;3TZ:FSE, )

Gay and bisexual men in England, Scotland, and Wales can now donate blood, plasma and platelets under certain circumstances without having to wait three months, the National Health Service announced this week.; Credit: Wilfredo Lee/AP

Gay and bisexual men in England, Scotland, and Wales can now donate blood, plasma and platelets under certain circumstances, the National Health Service announced this week in a momentous shift in policy for most of the U.K.

Beginning Monday, gay men in sexually active, monogamous relationships for at least three months can donate for the first time. The move reverses a policy that limited donor eligibility on perceived risks of contracting HIV/AIDs and other sexually transmitted infections.

The new rules come as the U.K. and other countries around the world report urgent, pandemic-induced blood supply issues.

Donor eligibility will now be based on each person's individual circumstances surrounding health, travel and sexual behaviors regardless of gender, according to the NHS. Potential donors will no longer be asked if they are a man who has had sex with another man, but they will be asked about recent sexual activity.

Anyone who has had the same sexual partner for the last three months can donate, the NHS said.

"Patient safety is at the heart of everything we do. This change is about switching around how we assess the risk of exposure to a sexual infection, so it is more tailored to the individual," said Ella Poppitt, Chief Nurse for blood donation at NHS Blood and Transplant, in a statement. "We screen all donations for evidence of significant infections, which goes hand-in-hand with donor selection to maintain the safety of blood sent to hospitals."

People who engage in anal sex with a new partner or multiple people or who have recently used PrEP or PEP (medication used to prevent HIV infection) will have to wait three months to donate - regardless of their gender.

Why did the U.K. make this change?

The NHS moved to alter its blood donation eligibility rules following a review by the FAIR (For the Assessment of Individualised Risk) steering group. The panel determined an individualized, gender-neutral approach to determining who can donate blood, platelets, and plasma is fairer and still maintains the safety of the U.K.'s blood supply.

The findings were accepted in full by the government last December.

Researchers will continue to monitor the impact of the donor selection changes for the next 12 months to determine if more changes are needed, NHS said.

What is the policy in the U.S.?

Despite efforts by advocates to change regulations in the U.S, the ability for gay and bisexual men to donate blood is still restricted.

A ban on gay and bisexual blood donors has been in effect since the early 1980s when fears about HIV/AIDS were widespread.

The Food and Drug Administration's current policy states a man who has sex with another man in the previous three months can't donate. Federal rules previously made such donors wait 12 months before giving blood, but due to low blood supplies during the pandemic the federal government changed the policy in April.

The Red Cross said they are participating in a pilot study funded by the FDA using behavior-based health history questionnaires, similar to those used in the U.K.

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

A teen gets a dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine at Holtz Children's Hospital in Miami on May 18. Nearly 7 million U.S. teens and pre-teens (ages 12 through 17) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, so far, the CDC says.; Credit: Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images

It's been a little more than a month since adolescents as young as 12 became eligible in the United States to receive the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19, and nearly all reports have been positive: The vaccine is very effective in this age group, and the vast majority of kids experience mild side effects, if any — the same sore arm or mild flu-like symptoms seen among adults who get the shot.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 12-years-old and older get vaccinated against COVID-19, and the rollout is well underway: According to the CDC, nearly 7 million U.S. teens and pre-teens (ages 12 through 17) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, so far.

Still, soon after the FDA authorized the use of Pfizer's vaccine in young people, federal agencies began receiving reports of mild chest pain or other signs of possible heart inflammation (known as myocarditis) in a very small percentage of recently vaccinated teens.

CDC director Rochelle Walensky said at a White House briefing Friday that there have been more than 300 cases of heart inflammation reported among more than 20 million teens and young adults who have received one of the vaccines made by Moderna or Pfizer. She said that in the "vast majority" of cases, the inflammation went away.

An expert advisory committee to the health agency is expected to review the cases in more depth at a meeting Friday.

So, in the meantime, should parents of teens hesitate to have their kids vaccinated against COVID-19? Vaccine experts and the American Academy of Pediatrics say no, don't hesitate. It's good for doctors and patients to be aware that there might be a connection between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, and to report to their pediatrician anything they see in that first week after vaccination. But it is also important, the CDC notes, to recognize that even if this does turn out to be an extremely rare side effect of the vaccine, "most patients who received care responded well to medicine and rest and quickly felt better." And the serious risks of COVID -19 — even for young healthy people — outweigh the risks of any possible side effects from the vaccine. Here are some questions you may have, and what's known:

What exactly is myocarditis?

Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, also being investigated, is an inflammation of the sac around the heart.

Long before the pandemic, thousands of cases of myocarditis were diagnosed in the U.S. and around the world each year, often triggered by the body's immune response to infections. SARS-CoV-2 can trigger it, and so can cold viruses, and staph and strep and HIV. Other causes include toxins and allergies.

Symptoms include chest pain and shortness of breath. It's often mild enough to go unnoticed, but a full-blown case in adults can cause arrhythmias and heart failure that require careful treatment with multiple medications, and several months of strict rest. In a case study of seven teenagers who got myocarditis following vaccination published last week in the journal Pediatrics, all seven got better after routine treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs.

Pediatric cardiologist Dr. Stuart Berger of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, says vaccine-related myocarditis in teens is not all that worrisome. "Although they appear with some symptoms of chest pain, and maybe some findings on EKGs, all of the cases we've seen have been on the mild end of the spectrum," he says.

So, what's the concern?

Several hundred reports about the inflammation have been filed with the federal government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); that's a repository of reports sent in by health professionals and patients about any health events they spot in the hours or days after vaccinations. Many of the events reported turn out to be coincidental — not caused by a vaccine. The database is just meant as a starting point for further investigation and not proof of cause and effect. But as NPR's Geoff Brumfiel noted this week, "when millions of people are vaccinated within a short period, the total number of these reported events can look big."

That said, anecdotes reported by doctors in medical journals and reports to VAERS suggest that both of the mRNA vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. — the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — might slightly increase the incidence of myocarditis in young people. In 2003, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated the background incidence of myocarditis to be 1.13 cases in 100,000 children per year.

Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of a Food and Drug Administration vaccine advisory committee says there likely is a causal link between the heart inflammation some doctors are seeing in these teens and the second dose of vaccine. "I think it's real," he says, but hastens to add that the effect is exceedingly small – based on the data collected so far, maybe one in 50,000 vaccinees between the ages of 16 and 39. "And the good news is at least so far it looks to be transient and self-resolving."

Still, maybe I should wait to get my teen vaccinated and see how this plays out?

Uhm, no, according to several vaccine experts contacted by NPR. And this is where a little math comes in handy.

"Take a stadium full of 100,000 people between the ages of 16 and 39, which is the subset that appears to be at greater risk," Offit says. "Vaccinate all of them, and two might get myocarditis." But if you don't vaccinate any of the 100,000, he estimates that about 1,300 would eventually get COVID-19. And those numbers are likely to increase this winter.

About one in 1,000 children who get COVID-19 have gone on to develop a condition called MIS-C (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children), says Offit, and most of those kids have had some level of myocarditis. In addition, the new coronavirus has directly caused myocarditis in some children and adults. Which of the two stadiums in Offit's metaphor would have more cases of myocarditis — the vaccinated children or unvaccinated kids — is not known precisely. But Offit says he suspects it would be the unvaccinated group. And there's no doubt that 1,000 unvaccinated children would suffer more COVID-19-related illnesses. "A choice not to get a vaccine is not a choice to avoid myocarditis," he says. "It's a choice to take a different risk — and I would argue a more serious one" — of developing a bad case of COVID-19 or long-COVID or COVID-caused myocarditis.

Are the experts advising their own kids in this age group to get vaccinated?

Yes. "I understand people having concerns," says Dr. Judith Guzman-Cottrill. She's a parent and professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the Oregon Health and Science University, as well as the senior author on a small study that came out this month in the journal Pediatrics. In the report, Guzman-Cottrill and her colleagues analyzed the cases of seven boys around the country who developed myocarditis within four days of receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

She and her family recently faced the vaccination decision for her own 13-year-old daughter — and said a whole-hearted yes to the shot.

Guzman-Cottrill suspects there may turn out to be a slightly increased risk of heart inflammation from vaccination in young people, but she and her co-authors note in the Pediatrics report that a direct cause-and-effect connection — even in these seven cases — has yet to be established. And she's impressed that despite the millions of doses that have so far been delivered to teens, no clear and serious post-vaccination problems have shown up. "The emergency departments and urgent care clinics are not filled with teenagers complaining of chest pain," she says.

She's treated unvaccinated teens who developed severe myocarditis from an infection with the COVID-19 virus, and others who developed COVID-19 pneumonia and respiratory failure. Seeing those teens struggle — teens who lacked the powerful immune protection the vaccine provides — was enough for her to suggest vaccination to her daughter, who got her second vaccination earlier this week.

"She saw it as a pathway back to a normal post pandemic life," Guzman-Cottrill says.

And that's where public health comes in. "We really need a highly vaccinated student body when kids return to the classroom this fall," says Guzman-Cottrill, "so we don't see surges in COVID-19 cases."

Joanne Silberner, a former health policy correspondent for NPR, is a freelance journalist living in Seattle.

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

The dangerous Delta variant of the coronavirus is spreading so quickly in the United States that it's likely the mutant strain will become predominant in the U.S. within weeks, according to a new analysis.

The variant, first identified in India, is the most contagious yet and, among those not yet vaccinated, may trigger serious illness in more people than other variants do, say scientists tracking the spread of infection.

The Delta variant apparently already accounts for at least 14% of all new infections, according to the research analysis posted online Monday of more than 242,000 infections nationwide over the last six months.

Another reason to get vaccinated

"It definitely is of concern," says William Lee, the vice president of science at Helix, which is under contract with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help track the variants.

"Just the fact that it's so transmissible means that it's it's dangerous," Lee says, "and so I think you'll see outbreaks of Delta around the country and more people will get sick from it."

Helix launched the study when researchers spotted a drop in the prevalence of the Alpha variant, a contagious strain first spotted in the U.K. that had quickly become the dominant variant in that country and the U.S.

The researchers discovered the drop in relative frequency of the Alpha variant in their spot checks of strains circulating in the U.S. was due to a rapid increase in two other variants: the Gamma variant, first spotted in Brazil, and the Delta variant. The Gamma variant may be slightly better than the original strain at outmaneuvering the vaccines, researchers say.

"It looks like both of them are going to slowly push out Alpha," says Lee, whose study has not yet been peer-reviewed but has been posted on a pre-print server.

How Delta could prompt another U.S. COVID-19 surge

All the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. appear, in general, to provide powerful protection against all the variants, including Delta. But the rapid spread of the variants is still raising concern because of the large number of people who remain unvaccinated.

"There still are big portions of the country where the rates of vaccination are quite low," notes Dr. Jeremy Luban, a virologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. "And, in fact, the Helix paper shows that this Delta variant is increasing in frequency — the speed at which it's increasing in frequency is greatest in those areas where vaccination rates are lowest."

The Delta variant could trigger yet another moderate surge of infections through many parts of the U.S. because of these pockets of unvaccinated people, according to a recent set of projections from the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which is helping the CDC plot the future course of the pandemic.

The projections indicate that infections could start to rise again as soon as some time in July, especially if the vaccination campaign continues to stall.

"For the most part, it's a moderate resurgence," says Justin Lessler, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University who is helping coordinate the hub.

"We're not having massive epidemics at a national level, but we have this kind of continuation of the virus just sticking around and keeping us on our toes," Lessler says. "And in specific places there could be substantial epidemics still."

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

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, leads some of the Biden administration's efforts to expand Medicaid access.; Credit: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag

The Biden administration is quietly engineering a series of expansions to Medicaid that may bolster protections for millions of low-income Americans and bring more people into the program.

Biden's efforts — which have been largely overshadowed by other economic and health initiatives — represent an abrupt reversal of the Trump administration's moves to scale back the safety-net program.

The changes could further boost Medicaid enrollment — which the pandemic has already pushed to a record 80.5 million. Some of the expansion is funded by the COVID-19 relief bill that passed in March, including coverage for new mothers.

Others who could also gain coverage under Biden are inmates and undocumented immigrants. At the same time, the administration is opening the door to new Medicaid-funded services such as food and housing that the government insurance plan hasn't traditionally offered.

"There is a paradigm change underway," said Jennifer Langer Jacobs, Medicaid director in New Jersey, one of a growing number of states trying to expand home-based Medicaid services to keep enrollees out of nursing homes and other institutions.

"We've had discussions at the federal level in the last 90 days that are completely different from where we've ever been before," Langer Jacobs said.

Taken together, the Medicaid moves represent some of the most substantive shifts in federal health policy undertaken by the new administration.

"They are taking very bold action," said Rutgers University political scientist Frank Thompson, an expert on Medicaid history, noting in particular the administration's swift reversal of Trump policies. "There really isn't a precedent."

The Biden administration seems unlikely to achieve what remains the holy grail for Medicaid advocates: getting 12 holdout states, including Texas and Florida, to expand Medicaid coverage to low-income working-age adults through the Affordable Care Act.

And while some of the recent expansions – including for new mothers -- were funded by close to $20 billion in new Medicaid funding in the COVID relief bill Biden signed in March, much of that new money will stop in a few years unless Congress appropriates additional money.

The White House strategy has risks. Medicaid, which swelled after enactment of the 2010 health law, has expanded further during the economic downturn caused by the pandemic, pushing enrollment to a record 80.5 million, including those served by the related Children's Health Insurance Program. That's up from 70 million before the COVID crisis began.

The programs now cost taxpayers more than $600 billion a year. And although the federal government will cover most of the cost of the Biden-backed expansions, surging Medicaid spending is a growing burden on state budgets.

The costs of expansion are a frequent target of conservative critics, including Trump officials like Seema Verma, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, who frequently argued for enrollment restrictions and derided Medicaid as low-quality coverage.

But even less partisan experts warn that Medicaid, which was created to provide medical care to low-income Americans, can't make up for all the inadequacies in government housing, food and education programs.

"Focusing on the social drivers of health ... is critically important in improving the health and well-being of Medicaid beneficiaries. But that doesn't mean that Medicaid can or should be responsible for paying for all of those services," said Matt Salo, head of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, noting that the program's financing "is simply not capable of sustaining those investments."

Restoring federal support

However, after four years of Trump administration efforts to scale back coverage, Biden and his appointees appear intent on not only restoring federal support for Medicaid, but also boosting the program's reach.

"I think what we learned during the repeal-and-replace debate is just how much people in this country care about the Medicaid program and how it's a lifeline to millions," Biden's new Medicare and Medicaid administrator, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, told KHN, calling the program a "backbone to our country."

The Biden administration has already withdrawn permission the Trump administration had granted Arkansas and New Hampshire to place work requirements on some Medicaid enrollees.

In April, Biden blocked a multibillion-dollar Trump administration initiative to prop up Texas hospitals that care for uninsured patients, a policy that many critics said effectively discouraged Texas from expanding Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. Texas has the highest uninsured rate in the nation.

The moves have drawn criticism from Republicans, some of whom accuse the new administration of trampling states' rights to run their Medicaid programs as they choose.

"Biden is reasserting a larger federal role and not deferring to states," said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow at the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

But Biden's early initiatives have been widely hailed by patient advocates, public health experts and state officials in many blue states.

"It's a breath of fresh air," said Kim Bimestefer, head of Colorado's Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.

Chuck Ingoglia, head of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, said: "To be in an environment where people are talking about expanding health care access has made an enormous difference."

Mounting evidence shows that expanded Medicaid coverage improves enrollees' health, as surveys and mortality data in recent years have identified greater health improvements in states that expanded Medicaid through the 2010 health law versus states that did not.

Broadening eligibility

In addition to removing Medicaid restrictions imposed by Trump administration officials, the Biden administration has backed a series of expansions to broaden eligibility and add services enrollees can receive.

Biden supported a provision in the COVID relief bill that gives states the option to extend Medicaid to new mothers for up to a year after they give birth. Many experts say such coverage could help reduce the U.S. maternal mortality rate, which is far higher than rates in other wealthy nations.

Several states, including Illinois and New Jersey, had sought permission from the Trump administration for such expanded coverage, but their requests languished.

The COVID relief bill — which passed without Republican support — also provides additional Medicaid money to states to set up mobile crisis services for people facing mental health or substance use emergencies, further broadening Medicaid's reach.

And states will get billions more to expand so-called home and community-based services such as help with cooking, bathing and other basic activities that can prevent Medicaid enrollees from having to be admitted to expensive nursing homes or other institutions.

Perhaps the most far-reaching Medicaid expansions being considered by the Biden administration would push the government health plan into covering services not traditionally considered health care, such as housing.

This reflects an emerging consensus among health policy experts that investments in some non-medical services can ultimately save Medicaid money by keeping patients out of the hospital.

In recent years, Medicaid officials in red and blue states — including Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland and Washington — have begun exploring ways to provide rental assistance to select Medicaid enrollees to prevent medical complications linked to homelessness.

The Trump administration took steps to support similar efforts, clearing Medicare Advantage health plans to offer some enrollees non-medical benefits such as food, housing aid and assistance with utilities.

But state officials across the country said the new administration has signaled more support for both expanding current home-based services and adding new ones.

That has made a big difference, said Kate McEvoy, who directs Connecticut's Medicaid program. "There was a lot of discussion in the Trump administration," she said, "but not the capital to do it."

Other states are looking to the new administration to back efforts to expand Medicaid to inmates with mental health conditions and drug addiction so they can connect more easily to treatment once released.

Kentucky health secretary Eric Friedlander said he is hopeful federal officials will sign off on his state's initiative.

Still other states, such as California, say they are getting a more receptive audience in Washington for proposals to expand coverage to immigrants who are in the country without authorization, a step public health experts say can help improve community health and slow the spread of communicable diseases.

"Covering all Californians is critical to our mission," said Jacey Cooper, director of California's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. "We really feel like the new administration is helping us ensure that everyone has access."

The Trump administration moved to restrict even authorized immigrants' access to the health care safety net, including the "public charge" rule that allowed immigration authorities to deny green cards to applicants if they used public programs such as Medicaid. In March, Biden abandoned that rule.

KHN correspondent Julie Rovner contributed to this report.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

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

Housing activists erect a sign in front of Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker's house in Swampscott, Mass., on Oct. 14, 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has extended a moratorium on evictions until the end of July.; Credit: Michael Dwyer/AP

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has extended a moratorium on evictions until the end of July. The ban had been set to expire next week, raising concerns that there could be a flood of evictions with some seven million tenants currently behind on their rent.

The Biden administration says the extension is for "one final month" and will allow time for it to take other steps to stabilize housing for those facing eviction and foreclosure. The White House says it is encouraging state and local courts to adopt anti-eviction diversion programs to help delinquent tenants stay housed and avoid legal action.

The federal government will also try to speed up distribution of tens of billions of dollars in emergency rental assistance that's available but has yet to be spent. In addition, a moratorium on foreclosures involving federally backed mortgages has been extended for "a final month," until July 31.

In announcing the extension of the eviction moratorium, the CDC said that the COVID-19 "pandemic has presented a historic threat to the nation's public health. Keeping people in their homes and out of crowded or congregate settings — like homeless shelters — by preventing evictions is a key step in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19."

The CDC first issued the moratorium last September. It was extended once already in March, until June 30.

But landlords have been pushing back, arguing that they've taken a huge financial hit over the past year, losing billions of dollars a month in rent. Several business groups have sued the CDC and won, though court decisions to lift the moratorium have been stayed pending appeal.

The Alabama Association of Realtors, which brought one of the cases, argued that the CDC exceeded its authority in issuing the ban. The group is seeking relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices have yet to respond.

In its petition, the Realtors association called the CDC's "continued insistence that public-health concerns necessitate that landlords continue to provide free housing for tenants who have received vaccines (or passed up the chance to get them)...sheer doublespeak."

Housing advocates have argued that the moratorium is still very much needed. They note that $46 billion in emergency rental assistance approved by Congress has been slow getting into the hands of those it was intended to help. The money is supposed to cover rent that tenants currently owe.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that in some states, less than five percent of the funds have been distributed so far. The group pushed the administration to extend the ban to give states and localities more time to get the money out.

Despite the moratorium, thousands of renters have still faced the threat of eviction because of loopholes in the law. Many are the lowest income tenants and disproportionately people of color. A new study by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University has found that communities with the lowest vaccination rates tend to have the highest eviction filings, raising additional health concerns.

"Allowing the moratorium to expire before vaccination rates increase in marginalized communities could lead to increased spread of, and deaths from, COVID-19," a group of more than 40 House lawmakers wrote in a letter this week to President Biden and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, urging them to extend the moratorium.

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

Patrick Doherty volunteered for a new medical intervention of gene-editor infusions for the treatment of genetically-based diseases.; Credit: /Patrick Doherty

Patrick Doherty had always been very active. He trekked the Himalayas and hiked trails in Spain.

But about a year and a half ago, he noticed pins and needles in his fingers and toes. His feet got cold. And then he started getting out of breath any time he walked his dog up the hills of County Donegal in Ireland where he lives.

"I noticed on some of the larger hill climbs I was getting a bit breathless," says Doherty, 65. "So I realized something was wrong."

Doherty found out he had a rare, but devastating inherited disease — known as transthyretin amyloidosis — that had killed his father. A misshapen protein was building up in his body, destroying important tissues, such as nerves in his hands and feet and his heart.

Doherty had watched others get crippled and die difficult deaths from amyloidosis.

"It's terrible prognosis," Doherty says. "This is a condition that deteriorates very rapidly. It's just dreadful."

So Doherty was thrilled when he found out that doctors were testing a new way to try to treat amyloidosis. The approach used a revolutionary gene-editing technique called CRISPR, which allows scientists to make very precise changes in DNA.

"I thought: Fantastic. I jumped at the opportunity," Doherty says.

On Saturday, researchers reported the first data indicating that the experimental treatment worked, causing levels of the destructive protein to plummet in Doherty's body and the bodies of five other patients treated with the approach.

"I feel fantastic," Doherty says. "It's just phenomenal."

The advance is being hailed not just for amyloidosis patients but also as a proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat many other, much more common diseases. It's a new way of using the innovative technology.

"This is a major milestone for patients," says Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, who shared a Nobel Prize for her work helping develop CRISPR.

"While these are early data, they show us that we can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically so far, which is being able to deliver it systemically and get it to the right place," Doudna says.

CRISPR has already been shown to help patients suffering from the devastating blood disorders sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia. And doctors are trying to use it to treat cancer and to restore vision to people blinded by a rare genetic disorder.

But those experiments involve taking cells out of the body, editing them in the lab, and infusing them back in or injecting CRISPR directly into cells that need fixing.

The study Doherty volunteered for is the first in which doctors are simply infusing the gene-editor directly into patients and letting it find its own way to the right gene in the right cells. In this case, it's cells in the liver making the destructive protein.

"This is the first example in which CRISPR-Cas9 is injected directly into the bloodstream — in other words systemic administration — where we use it as a way to reach a tissue that's far away from the site of injection and very specifically use it to edit disease-causing genes," says John Leonard, the CEO of Intellia Therapeutics, which is sponsoring the study.

Doctors infused billions of microscopic structures known as nanoparticles carrying genetic instructions for the CRISPR gene-editor into four patients in London and two in New Zealand. The nanoparticles were absorbed by their livers, where they unleashed armies of CRISPR gene-editors. The CRISPR editor honed in on the target gene in the liver and sliced it, disabling production of the destructive protein.

Within weeks, the levels of protein causing the disease plummeted. Researchers reported at the Peripheral Nerve Society Annual Meeting and in a paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

"It really is exciting," says Dr. Julian Gillmore, who is leading the study at the University College London, Royal Free Hospital.

"This has the potential to completely revolutionize the outcome for these patients who have lived with this disease in their family for many generations. It's decimated some families that I've been looking after. So this is amazing," Gillmore says.

The patients will have to be followed longer, and more patients will have to be treated, to make sure the treatment's safe, and determine how much it's helping, Gillmore stresses. But the approach could help those struck by amyloidosis that isn't inherited, which is a far more common version of the disease, he says.

Moreover, the promising results potentially open the door for using the same approach to treatment of many other, more common diseases for which taking cells out of the body or directly injecting CRISPR isn't realistic, including heart disease, muscular dystrophy and brain diseases such as Alzheimer's.

"This is really opening a new era as we think about gene-editing where we can begin to think about accessing all kinds of different tissue in the body via systemic administration," Leonard says.

Other scientists who are not involved in the research agree.

"This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine,"
agree Fyodor Urnov, a professor of genetics at the University of California, Berkeley. "We as a species are watching this remarkable new show called: our gene-edited future."

Doherty says he started feeling better within weeks of the treatment and has continued to improve in the weeks since then.

"I definitely feel better," he told NPR. "I'm speaking to you from upstairs in our house. I climbed stairs to get up here. I would have been feeling breathless. I'm thrilled."

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

Advocates for expanding Medicaid in Kansas staged a protest outside the entrance to the statehouse parking garage in Topeka in May 2019. Today, twelve states have still not expanded Medicaid. The biggest are Texas, Florida, and Georgia, but there are a few outside the South, including Wyoming and Kansas.; Credit: John Hanna/AP

There are more than 2 million people across the United States who have no option when it comes to health insurance. They're in what's known as the "coverage gap" — they don't qualify for Medicaid in their state, and make too little money to be eligible for subsidized health plans on the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges.

Briana Wright is one of those people. She's 27, lives near Jackson, Miss., works at McDonalds, and doesn't have health insurance. So to figure out her options when she recently learned she needed to have surgery to remove her gallbladder, she called Health Help Mississippi, a nonprofit that helps people enroll in health insurances.

Because she lives in Mississippi, "I wasn't going to be eligible for Medicaid — because I don't have children [and] I'm not pregnant," she tells NPR. When she had her income checked for Healthcare.gov, it was just shy of the federal poverty line — the minimum to qualify for subsidies. "It was $74 [short]. I was like, oh wow," she says.

Wright's inability to get a subsidized policy on Healthcare.gov is related to how the Affordable Care Act was originally designed. People needing insurance who were above the poverty line were supposed to be funneled via the federal and state insurance exchanges to private policies — with federal subsidies to help make those policies affordable. People who were under the poverty line were to be funneled to a newly-expanded version of Medicaid — the public health insurance program that is jointly funded by states and the federal government. But the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion essentially optional in 2012, and many Republican-led states declined to expand. Today, there are 12 holdout states that have not expanded Medicaid, and Mississippi is one of them.

So, Wright is still uninsured. Her gallbladder is causing her pain, but she can't afford the surgery without shuffling household bills, and risking leaving something else unpaid. "I'm stressed out about it. I don't know what I'm going to do," she says. "I'm going to just have to pay it out of pocket or get on some payment plan until it all gets paid for."

Hoping to finally find a fix for Wright and the millions like her who are in Medicaid limbo, several teams of Democratic lawmakers have recently been hashing out several options — hoping to build on the momentum of the latest Supreme Court confirmation that the ACA is here to stay.

OPTION 1: Sweet-talk the 12 holdout states

The COVID-19 relief bill passed in March included financial enticements for these 12 states to expand Medicaid. Essentially, the federal government will cover 90% of the costs of the newly eligible population, and an additional 5% of the costs of those already enrolled.

It's a good financial deal. An analysis by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the net benefit for these states would be $9.6 billion. But, so far — publicly, at least — no states have indicated they intend to take the federal government up on its offer.

"If that is not getting states to move, then that suggests that the deep root of their hesitation is not about financial constraint," says Jamila Michener, a professor of government at Cornell University and author of the book Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid Federalism And Unequal Politics.

Instead, Michener says, the reluctance among some Republican-led legislatures and governors to expand Medicaid may be a combination of partisan resistance to President Obama's signature health law, and not believing "this kind of government intervention for these groups of people is appropriate."

What's Next: When asked about progress on this front in an April press briefing, Biden's press secretary Jen Psaki said "the President is certainly supportive of — and an advocate for — states expanding Medicaid," but did not answer a follow up about whether the White House was directly reaching out to governors regarding this option.

OPTION 2: Create a federal public option to fill the gap

Some have advocated for circumventing these holdout states and creating a new, standalone federal Medicaid program that people who fall into this coverage gap could join. It would be kind of like a tailored public option just for this group.

This idea was included in Biden's 2022 budget, which says, in part: "In States that have not expanded Medicaid, the President has proposed extending coverage to millions of people by providing premium-free, Medicaid-like coverage through a Federal public option, paired with financial incentives to ensure States maintain their existing expansions."

But it wouldn't be simple. "That can be quite complex — to implement a federal program that's targeted to just these 2.2 million people across a handful of states," says Robin Rudowitz, co-director of the Medicaid program at the Kaiser Family Foundation, who wrote a recent analysis of the policy options.

It also may be a heavy lift, politically, says Michener. "Anything that expanded the footprint of the federal government and its role in subsidizing health care would be especially challenging," she says.

What's next: This idea was raised as a possible solution in a letter last month from Georgia's Democratic senators to Senate leaders, and Sen. Raphael Warnock said this week he plans to introduce legislation soon.

OPTION 3: Get around stubborn states by letting cities expand Medicaid

Instead of centralizing the approach, this next idea goes even more local. The COVER Now Act, introduced by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, would empower local jurisdictions to expand Medicaid. So, if you live in Austin, Texas, maybe you could get Medicaid, even if someone in Lubbock still couldn't.

The political and logistical challenges would be tough, policy analysts say. Logistically, such a plan would require counties and cities to create new infrastructure to run a Medicaid program, Rudowitz notes, and the federal government would have to oversee how well these new local programs complied with all of Medicaid's rules.

"It does not seem feasible politically," Michener says. "The legislators who would have to vote to make this possible would be ceding quite a bit of power to localities." It also might amplify geographic equity concerns, she says. People's access to health insurance would not just "be arbitrarily based on what state you live in — which is the current state of affairs — It's also going to be arbitrary based on what county you live in, based on what city you live in."

What's next: Doggett introduced the bill earlier this month. There's no guarantee it would get a vote on the House floor and — even if it did — it wouldn't survive a likely filibuster in the evenly divided Senate.

OPTION 4: Change the ACA to open up the exchanges

A fourth idea, Rudowitz says, is to change the law to remove the minimum cutoff for the private health insurance exchanges, since "right now, individuals who are below poverty are not eligible for subsidies in the marketplace." With this option, states wouldn't be paying any of the costs, since the federal government pays premium subsidies, Rudowitz says, but "there are issues around beneficiary protections, benefits, out-of-pocket costs."

What's next: This idea hasn't yet been included in any current congressional bills.

Will any of these ideas come to fruition?

Even with a variety of ideas on the table, "there's no slam dunk option, it's a tough policy issue," Rudowitz says. All of these would be complicated to pull off.

It's possible Democrats will include one of these ideas in a reconciliation bill that could pass without the threat of a Republican filibuster. But that bill has yet to be written, and what will be included is anyone's guess.

Even so, Michener says she's glad the discussion of the Medicaid coverage gap is happening, because it's sensitizing the public, as well as people in power, to the problem and potentially changing the political dynamic down the line. "Even in policy areas where you don't have any kind of guaranteed victory, it is often worth fighting the fight," she says. "Politics is a long game."

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

Many hospitals around the country, including Medstar Washington Hospital in Washington DC., have started sharing their prices online in compliance with a recent federal rule.; Credit: DANIEL SLIM/AFP via Getty Images

A colonoscopy might cost you or your insurer a few hundred dollars — or several thousand, depending on which hospital or insurer you use.

Long hidden, such price variations are supposed to be available in stark black and white under a Trump administration price transparency rule that took effect at the start of this year. It requires hospitals to post a range of actual prices — everything from the rates they offer cash-paying customers to costs negotiated with insurers.

Many have complied.

But some hospitals bury the data deep on their websites or have not included all the categories of prices required, according to industry analysts. A sizable minority of hospitals have not disclosed the information at all.

While imperfect and potentially of limited use right now to the average consumer, the disclosures that are available illustrate the huge differences in prices — nationally, regionally and within the same hospital. But they're challenging for consumers and employers to use, giving a boost to a cottage industry that analyzes the data.

While it's still an unanswered question whether price transparency will lead to overall lower prices, KHN took a dive into the initial trove of data to see what it reveals. Here are five takeaways from the newly public data and tips for how you might be able to use it to your benefit

1) As expected, prices are all over the map

The idea behind the requirement to release prices is that the transparency may prompt consumers to shop around, weighing cost and quality. Perhaps they could save a few hundred dollars by getting their surgery or imaging test across town instead of at the nearby clinic or hospital.

Under the Trump-era rule, hospitals must post what they accept from all insurers for thousands of line items, including each drug, procedure or treatment they provide. In addition, hospitals must present this in a format easily readable by computers and include a consumer-friendly separate listing of 300 "shoppable" services, bundling the full price a hospital accepts for a given treatment, such as having a baby or getting a hip replacement.

The negotiated rates now being posted publicly often show an individual hospital accepting a wide range of prices for the same service, depending on the insurer, often based on how much negotiating power each has in a market.

In some cases, the cash-only price is less than what insurers pay. And prices may vary widely within the same city or region.

In Virginia, for example, the average price of a diagnostic colonoscopy is $2,763, but the range across the state is from $208 to $10,563, according to a database aggregated by San Diego-based Turquoise Health, one of the new firms looking to market the data to businesses, while offering some information free of charge to patients.

2) Patients can look up the information, but it's incomplete

Patients can try to find the price information themselves by searching hospital websites, but even locating the correct tab on a hospital's website is tricky.

Typically, consumers don't comparison-shop, preferring to choose convenience or the provider their doctor recommends. A recent Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker brief, for instance, found that 85% of adults said they had not researched online the price of a hospital treatment.

And hospitals say the transparency push alone won't help consumers much, because each patient's situation is different and may vary from the average— and individual deductibles and insurance plans complicate matters.

But if you do want to try, here's one tip: "You can Google the hospital name and the words 'price transparency' and see where that takes you," says Caitlin Sheetz, director and head of analytics at the consulting firm ADVI Health in the Washington, D.C., metro area.

Typing in "MedStar Health hospital transparency," for example, likely points to the MedStar Washington Hospital Center's "price transparency disclosure" page, with a link to its full list of prices, as well as its separate list of 300 shoppable services.

By clicking on the list of shoppable services, consumers can download an Excel file. Searching it for "colonoscopy" pulls up several variations of the procedure, along with prices for different insurers, such as Aetna and Cigna, but a "not available" designation for the cash-only price. The file explains that MedStar does not have a standard cash price but makes determinations case by case.

Performing the same Google search for the nearby Inova health system results in less useful information.

Inova's website links to a long list of thousands of charges, which are not the discounts negotiated by insurers, and the list is not easily searchable. The website advises those who are not Inova patients or who would like to create their own estimate to log into the hospitals' "My Chart" system, but a search on that for "colonoscopy" failed to produce any data.

3) Third-party firms are trying to make searching prices simpler – and cash in

Because of the difficulty of navigating these websites — or locating the negotiated prices once there — some consumers may turn to sites like Turquoise. Another such firm is Health Cost Labs, which will have pricing information for 2,300 hospitals in its database when it goes live July 1.

Doing a similar search for "colonoscopy" on Turquoise shows the prices at MedStar by insurer, but the process is still complicated. First, a consumer must select the "health system" button from the website's menu of options, click on "surgical procedures," then click again on "digestive" to get to it.

There is no similar information for Inova because the hospital has not yet made its data accessible in a computer-friendly format, said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise.

Inova spokesperson Tracy Connell said in a written statement that the health system will create personalized estimates for patients and is "currently working to post information on negotiated prices and discounts on services."

Firms like Turquoise and Health Cost Labs aim to sell the data gathered from hospitals nationally to insurers, employers and others. In turn, those groups may use it in negotiations with hospitals over future prices. While that may drive down prices in areas with a lot of competition, it might do the opposite where there are few hospitals to choose from, or in situations where a hospital raises its prices to match competitors.

4) Consumers could use this data to negotiate, especially if they're paying cash

For consumers who go the distance and can find price data from their hospitals, it may prove helpful in certain situations:

• Patients who are paying cash or who have unmet deductibles may want to compare prices among hospitals to see if driving farther could save them money.
• Uninsured patients could ask the hospital for the cash price or attempt to negotiate for the lowest amount the facility accepts from insurers.
• Insured patients who get a bill for out-of-network care may find the information helpful because it could empower them to negotiate a discount off the hospitals' gross charges for that care.

While there's no guarantee of success, "if you are uninsured or out of network, you could point to some of those prices and say, 'That's what I want,'" says Barak Richman, a contract law expert and professor of law at Duke University School of Law.

But the data may not help insured patients who notice their prices are higher than those negotiated by other insurers.

In those cases, legal experts say the insured patients are unlikely to get a bill changed because they have a contract with that insurer, which has negotiated the price with their contracted hospitals.

"Legally, a contract is a contract," says Mark Hall, a health law professor at Wake Forest University.

Richman agrees.

"You can't say, 'Well, you charged that person less,'" he notes, but neither can they say they'll charge you more.

Getting the data, however, relies on the hospital having posted it.

5) Hospitals still aren't really on board

When it comes to compliance, "we're seeing the range of the spectrum," says Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse, which found earlier this year that about 60% of 1,000 hospitals surveyed had posted at least some data, but 30% had reported nothing at all.

Many in the hospital industry have long fought transparency efforts, even filing a lawsuit seeking to block the new rule. The suit was dismissed by a federal judge last year.

They argue the rule is unclear and overly burdensome. Additionally, hospitals haven't wanted their prices exposed, knowing that competitors might then adjust theirs, or health plans could demand lower rates. Conversely, lower-cost hospitals might decide to raise prices to match competitors.

The rule stems from requirements in the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration required hospitals to post their chargemaster rates, which are less useful because they are generally inflated, hospital-set amounts that are almost never what is actually paid.

Insurers and hospitals are also bracing for next year when even more data is set to come online. Insurers will be required to post negotiated prices for medical care across a broader range of facilities, including clinics and doctors' offices.

In May, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent letters to some of the hospitals that have not complied, giving them 90 days to do so or potentially face penalties, including a $300-a-day fine.

"A lot of members say until hospitals are fully compliant, our ability to use the data is limited," says Shawn Gremminger, director of health policy at the Purchaser Business Group on Health, a coalition of large employers.

His group and others have called for increasing the penalty for noncomplying hospitals from $300 a day to $300 a bed per day, so "the fine would be bigger as the hospital gets bigger," Gremminger says. "That's the kind of thing they take seriously."

Already, though, employers or insurers are eyeing the hospital data as leverage in negotiations, says Severn, Turquoise's CEO. Conversely, some employers may use it to fire their insurers if the rates they're paying are substantially more than those agreed to by other carriers.

"It will piss off anyone who is overpaying for health care, which happens for various reasons," he says.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation).

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

People rest while riding a Los Angeles Metro Rail train amid the coronavirus pandemic on April 1, 2020 in Los Angeles, California.; Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Despite the racial reckoning going on in America right now, and despite the fact that attitudes towards race, inclusion and representation are different now than they were 30 years ago, new research from UC Berkeley shows that a large majority of American metro areas are more segregated now than they were in 1990. The new report from Berkeley’s Institute covers a number of topic areas, but among the key findings were from the national segregation report component of the project, which found Los Angeles to be the sixth-most segregated metro area with more than 200,000 people.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll talk with the lead researcher on the new report and a local historian to talk about how we see the findings of the report play out in Southern California.

Guests:

Stephen Menendian, assistant director and director of research at the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which works to identify and eliminate the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society in order to create transformative change; he tweets @SMenendian

Eric Avila, professor of history, urban planning, and Chicano/a studies at UCLA

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

Facemasks remain worn as firefighter paramedic Jorge Miranda, holding syringe, speaks with Eduardo Vasquez, who has lived homeless on the streets of Los Angeles since 1992, before administering the one-shot Johnson and Johnson' Janssen Covid-19 vaccine as part of outreach to the homeless by members of the Los Angeles Fire Department's Covid Outreach unit on June 14, 2021 in Los Angeles.; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images

In our continuing series looking at the latest medical research and news on COVID-19, Larry Mantle speaks with UCSF’s Dr. Peter Chin-Hong. 

Topics today include:

• Two weeks after reopening, LA County’s new COVID-19 cases have doubled

• CDC: Infected vaccinated people carry less COVID-19 virus

• Delta variant is now detected in all 50 states

• J&J: “At present, there is no evidence to suggest need for a booster dose to be administered”

• Novavax claims vaccine’s overall efficacy is 89.7%

• Another respiratory virus is spreading in the U.S.

• Curevac’s final trial show shot is far less effective than other vaccines

• Can we now live with the coronavirus?

• Israel scrambles to curb rising COVID-19 infection rates

• Is it time to rethink “one-size-fits-all” approach for masking?

Guest:

Peter Chin-Hong, M.D., infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at the UCSF Medical Center; he tweets @PCH_SF

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

California Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on during a news conference after he toured the newly reopened Ruby Bridges Elementary School on March 16, 2021 in Alameda, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

California on Thursday scheduled a Sept. 14 recall election that could drive Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom from office, the result of a political uprising largely driven by angst over state coronavirus orders that shuttered schools and businesses and upended life for millions of Californians.

The election in the nation’s most populous state will be a marquee contest with national implications, watched closely as a barometer of the public mood heading toward the 2022 elections, when a closely divided Congress again will be in play.

We’ll get the latest. 

With files from the Associated Press 

Guests: 

Katie Orr, government and politics reporter for KQED; she tweets @1KatieOrr

Lara Korte, California politics reporter at the Sacramento Bee; she tweets @lara_korte

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

Athletes compete during the cycling portion of the IRONMAN 70.3 Steelhead on June 27, 2021 in Benton Harbor, Michigan. ; Credit: Patrick McDermott/Getty Images for IRONMAN

Whether you’re new to running or you’ve finished your tenth triathlon, we want to hear from you about what motivates you and how that translates into pushing yourself physically. 

Guests: 

Mark Remy, longtime runner and writer in Portland, Oregon; creator of humor website dumbrunner.com; he is the author of many books, including The Runner's Rule Book: Everything a Runner Needs to Know--And Then Some (Runner's World) (Rodale Books, 2009)

Sharon McNary, infrastructure correspondent at KPCC; she finished her 11th Ironman Race last week at Coeur d’Alene; she tweets @KPCCsharon

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

Copy of the book “Beyond Baseball’s Color Barrier: The Story of African Americans in Major League Baseball, Past, Present, and Future” (Rowman & Littlefield, May 2021)

Most of us are familiar with the story of Jackie Robinson, the first Black player to play baseball in the Major Leagues, and while Jackie’s story is arguably the biggest chapter in the story of how baseball was integrated, there’s plenty more to the story that happened both before and after Jackie broke into the Majors. Author, sports historian and Santa Barbara City College Director of Athletics Rocco Constantino dives into this rich history in his new book “Beyond Baseball’s Color Barrier: The Story of African Americans in Major League Baseball, Past, Present, and Future” where he explores the contributions of major figures like Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Satchel Paige as well as the lesser known ones of players like Vida Blue, Mudcat Grant and Dwight Gooden.

Today on AirTalk, Constantino joins Larry Mantle to explore the history of Black players in baseball, their fight for recognition and integration into the Major Leagues and the issues of race that persisted well beyond Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s color barrier.

Guest:

Rocco Constantino, author of “Beyond Baseball’s Color Barrier: The Story of African Americans in Major League Baseball, Past, Present, and Future” (Rowman & Littlefield, May 2021); he is a sports historian and the director of athletics at Santa Barbara City College

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

A passenger wearing a protective face covering to combat the spread of the coronavirus, checks her phone while travelling on a bus along Oxford Street in central London on July 5, 2021.; Credit: DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP via Getty Images

In our continuing series looking at the latest medical research and news on COVID-19, Larry Mantle speaks with Professor Kristen Choi of UCLA. 

Topics today include:

• Biden to announce new efforts on vaccination campaign as Delta variant spreads

• Hospitalization rates getting worse for black residents of L.A. County 

• Which parts of the U.S. could be breeding grounds for variants?

• New Israeli data about effectiveness of Pfizer against Delta variant

• England to lift mask restrictions

• Cases on rise in immigration detention centers in the U.S. 

• Bay area zoo is vaccinating big cats and some other animals 

Guest:

Kristen R. Choi, professor of nursing and public health at UCLA; registered nurse practicing at Gateways Hospital, based in Echo Park

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

In this photo taken on February 10, 2020 a 'love kit' is seen on the bed in a room at the Dragonfly hotel in Mumbai.; Credit: PUNIT PARANJPE/AFP via Getty Images

A new survey shows that in the era of widespread vaccine availability, American couples are more satisfied in their relationships -- and some are even getting more experimental than they have been.

Led by Indiana University Kinsey Institute researcher Justin Lehmiller in collaboration with the website Lovehoney, which describes itself as “global sexual happiness experts,” the report looked at responses from 2,000 U.S. adults age 18-45, including an oversample of 200 who identified as LGBTQ, and among the major findings of the survey were that more than half (51 percent) of respondents said their sexual interests had changed during the pandemic, and many of those said they’d started trying things they hadn’t before. It also found that 44 percent of people surveyed said they were communicating better with their partner, and among singles surveyed 52 percent say they’re less interested in casual sex and more than a third of them said they weren’t interested in having sex on the first date.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll talk with Professor Lehmiller about the survey, its findings and how the pandemic impacted Americans’ views on relationships and sex.

Guest: 

Justin Lehmiller, social psychologist and research fellow at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute who conducted the “Summer of Love” survey; author of “Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life” (Hachette Go, July 2020); host of the “Sex and Psychology” podcast; he tweets @JustinLehmiller

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

Don't fear the 'shrooms.; Credit: /iStockphoto.com

California on Tuesday moved another step closer to decriminalizing psychedelics — amid a debate over whether their prohibition is an outdated remnant of the War on Drugs — after the author removed a substance (ketamine) from the bill that opponents said can be used as a date-rape drug.

The bill would allow those 21 and older to possess for personal use and “social sharing” psilocybin, the hallucinogenic component of so-called magic mushrooms. It also covers psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, mescaline excluding peyote, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, often called ecstasy).

The bill bars sharing with those under age 21 or possessing the substances on school grounds. It would remove the state’s ban on cultivating or transferring mushroom spores or other material containing psilocybin or psilocybin.

Even if California makes the bill law, the drugs would still be illegal under federal law.

With files from the Associated Press.

Guests:

Scott Wiener, author of SB 519; California State Senator representing Senate District 11, which includes all of the city and county of San Francisco, Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, and part of South San Francisco; he tweets @Scott_Wiener

John Lovell, legislative director of the California Narcotics Officers Association

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

The Solar System is full of its own tricks and treats, so discover some of our favorites below.

For two decades now, and counting, the LANDFIRE program continues to assemble the most easy-to-use, intuitive and complete clearinghouse of remote sensing data products for wildland fire managers. 

Chesapeake Bay Program — Press Release — October 31, 2024

October 2024 issue of the Idaho Hydrologic Update from the USGS Idaho Water Science Center.

Over the past century, technological advancements have vastly improved volcano monitoring. One key innovation was the introduction of modern borehole tiltmeters, devices that measure very small changes in the inclination of the volcano’s surface.  

Restoration of the imperiled sagebrush biome will require tools that assist resource managers in determining which restoration practices are most effective, and when and where restoration efforts will lead to the most ecosystem recovery. New research from USGS and Colorado State University provides biome-wide insights and spatially explicit tools that can inform restoration practices. 

In this third edition of "Eruptions of Hawaiian Volcanoes—Past, Present, and Future," we include information about Kīlauea’s 2018 eruption in the lower East Rift Zone—the largest and most destructive in at least 200 years—and associated summit-collapse events, the eruptions at Kīlauea’s summit since 2018, and the 2022 eruption of Mauna Loa, which occurred after 38 years of quiescence.

From wooden boxes and nets to 3D printers and gene editing, USGS scientists use tools old and new to tackle the tricky problems of bat science

The USGS is pleased to announce the release of new US Topo maps for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These updated topographic maps offer valuable, current geographic information for residents, visitors, and professionals, providing essential resources for communities in these areas.

USGS groundwater and surface water monitoring data contributed to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (PaDEP) November 1, 2024, declarations of drought watches and warnings for 35 Pennsylvania counties.

Geologists from the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory are often asked to estimate how likely future eruptions are at Yellowstone, but it’s no walk in the national park.

NASA released a workshop report on the UNBOUND-FEW workshop series, which was facilitated in part by Tribal Resilience Learning Network staff from the Alaska CASC. The workshop report reveals key recommendations for making data tools more useful for climate adaptation planning.

The Pathfinding Partnerships Award from CO-LABS recognizes impactful, collaborative research projects organized by four or more research entities, including federal labs, in Colorado. This year, the Wildfire Research (WiRē) team received this award for their support of evidence-based community wildfire education to help communities live with wildfire. 

USGS Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC) biological science technician, Genevieve Kent, is the winner of this issue’s photo contest. 

Western Fisheries Research Center scientists are studying the impacts of increased artificial light at night (ALAN) on aquatic ecosystems.  Here's an overview with recent pictures from the field!

Geologic mapping has been one of the most fundamental mandates of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) since its establishment in 1879. Congress created the USGS to "classify the public lands and examine the geological structure, mineral resources, and products within and outside the national domain."

Are you attending the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting this year in Washington, D.C.? Don't miss these presentations from staff and partners from across the CASC network!

Mauna Loa summit webcams have been down for several months due to wind damage at the radio telemetry site. On November 7, 2024, HVO staff visited the site and performed a partial fix that brought the webcams back online.

A new study from USGS describes a previously unknown process of marine mineral formation in the Arctic Ocean, driven by frictional heating along tectonic faults rather than by hydrothermal activity. 

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division speaks during a news conference Friday announcing a lawsuit against the state of Georgia for its new voting law. Attorney General Merrick Garland is at right.; Credit: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that the U.S. Justice Department is suing the state of Georgia over its new voting law, saying that the controversial measure is intended to restrict ballot access to Black voters.

"Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," Garland said at a news conference.

The lawsuit marks the first major action from the Biden administration to combat a series of new restrictive voting measures passed by Republican-led state legislatures. And it came on the eighth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to gut another key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act, Section 5.

Garland noted that Georgia experienced record voter turnout and participation in the 2020 election cycle.

In March, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed Senate Bill 202, a 98-page omnibus measure that makes sweeping changes to the state's absentee voting rules, adds new voter identification mandates and nearly cuts in half the amount of time for voters to request a mail-in ballot. It also expands early voting access for most counties and formally codifies Sunday voting hours as optional.

The legislation outlaws passing out food or drinks to voters within 150 feet of a polling place or too close to voters waiting in line, a provision that Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, who heads the department's Civil Rights Division, highlighted at the press conference.

"Historically, minority voters in Georgia have been disproportionately more likely to wait in long lines to vote in person on Election Day," she said. "Given those long and protracted wait times, civic groups, including churches, have at times provided food and water to voters in line to make their wait more comfortable. As we allege in our complaint, this needless ban was passed with unlawful discriminatory intent."

Clarke also said the Georgia Legislature passed the bill through "a rushed process that departed from normal practice and procedure."

"The version of the bill that passed the state Senate ... was three pages long. Days later, the bill ballooned into over 90 pages in the House. The House held less than two hours of floor debate on the newly inflated SB 202 before Gov. Kemp signed it into law the same day," she said. "These legislative actions occurred at a time when the Black population in Georgia continues to steadily increase, and after a historic election that saw record voter turnout across the state, particularly for absentee voting, which Black voters are now more likely to use than white voters."

Garland said the lawsuit is the first of "many steps" the department is taking to protect the right to vote for all eligible voters. He said the Civil Rights Division will continue to examine voting laws that other states have passed.

"We will not hesitate to act," Garland said.

The Justice Department announced this month it would vigorously defend voting rights. Garland said that the department will double the number of voter enfranchisement lawyers and focus attention on litigation related to voting rights.

In response to the filing, Kemp said the lawsuit is "born out of the lies and misinformation the Biden administration has pushed against Georgia's Election Integrity Act from the start."

"[Biden and his allies] are weaponizing the U.S. Department of Justice to carry out their far-left agenda that undermines election integrity and empowers federal government overreach in our democracy," he said in a statement.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, another Republican who notably defended the state's administration of the 2020 election, said in a statement he "looks forward to ... beating [the administration] in court."

Garland's announcement comes just days after Senate Republicans united to block Democrats' attempts to pass sweeping voting rights legislation.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., tweeted his approval of the lawsuit shortly after the announcement Friday.

"If Republicans think the fight for voting rights ended with their filibuster of the For the People Act, they are sorely mistaken," he wrote. "Glad to see the Biden Administration is joining this effort. We must protect our democracy."

The Republican National Committee also linked the failed Senate vote to the Department of Justice's lawsuit.

"After failing to sell the partisan federal election takeover known as H.R. 1 to the American people, Joe Biden is now weaponizing the Justice Department to attack election integrity," RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said in a statement.

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

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record and confronted Barack Obama about nuclear weapons during a later presidential run, has died. He was 91.; Credit: Charles Dharapak/AP

SEASIDE, Calif. — Mike Gravel, a former U.S. senator from Alaska who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record and confronted Barack Obama about nuclear weapons during a later presidential run, has died. He was 91.

Gravel, who represented Alaska as a Democrat in the Senate from 1969 to 1981, died Saturday, according to his daughter, Lynne Mosier. Gravel had been living in Seaside, California, and was in failing health, said Theodore W. Johnson, a former aide.

Gravel's two terms came during tumultuous years for Alaska when construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline was authorized and when Congress was deciding how to settle Alaska Native land claims and whether to classify enormous amounts of federal land as parks, preserves and monuments.

He had the unenviable position of being an Alaska Democrat when some residents were burning President Jimmy Carter in effigy for his measures to place large sections of public lands in the state under protection from development.

Gravel feuded with Alaska's other senator, Republican Ted Stevens, on the land matter, preferring to fight Carter's actions and rejecting Stevens' advocacy for a compromise.

In the end, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, a compromise that set aside millions of acres for national parks, wildlife refuges and other protected areas. It was one of the last bills Carter signed before leaving office.

Gravel's Senate tenure also was notable for his anti-war activity. In 1971, he led a one-man filibuster to protest the Vietnam-era draft and he read into the Congressional Record 4,100 pages of the 7,000-page leaked document known as the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department's history of the country's early involvement in Vietnam.

Gravel reentered national politics decades after his time in the Senate to twice run for president. Gravel, then 75, and his wife, Whitney, took public transportation in 2006 to announce he was running for president as a Democrat in the 2008 election ultimately won by Obama.

He launched his quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination as a critic of the Iraq war.

"I believe America is doing harm every day our troops remain in Iraq — harm to ourselves and to the prospects for peace in the world," Gravel said in 2006. He hitched his campaign to an effort that would give all policy decisions to the people through a direct vote, including health care reform and declarations of war.

Gravel garnered attention for his fiery comments at Democratic forums.

In one 2007 debate, the issue of the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran came up, and Gravel confronted then-Sen. Obama. "Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?" Gravel said. Obama replied: "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike."

Gravel then ran as a Libertarian candidate after he was excluded from later Democratic debates.

In an email to supporters, he said the Democratic Party "no longer represents my vision for our great country." "It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views," he said.

He failed to get the Libertarian nomination.

Gravel briefly ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. He again criticized American wars and vowed to slash military spending. His last campaign was notable in that both his campaign manager and chief of staff were just 18 at the time of his short-lived candidacy.

"There was never any ... plan that he would do anything more than participate in the debates. He didn't plan to campaign, but he wanted to get his ideas before a larger audience," Johnson said.

Gravel failed to qualify for the debates. He endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the contest eventually won by now-President Joe Biden.

Gravel was born Maurice Robert Gravel in Springfield, Massachusetts, on May 13, 1930.

In Alaska, he served as a state representative, including a stint as House speaker, in the mid-1960s.

He won his first Senate term after defeating incumbent Sen. Ernest Gruening, a former territorial governor, in the 1968 Democratic primary.

Gravel served two terms until he was defeated in the 1980 Democratic primary by Gruening's grandson, Clark Gruening, who lost the election to Republican Frank Murkowski.

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

Progressive activists are watching the end of the Supreme Court session for a possible retirement announcement from Stephen Breyer, the court's oldest current justice. Breyer will turn 83 in August.; Credit: Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP/Pool

For Erwin Chemerinsky, this is a familiar feeling: Seven years ago, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law publicly called for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire from the Supreme Court because he reasoned too much was at stake in the 2016 elections.

Ginsburg didn't listen then, but he's hoping Justice Stephen Breyer will listen now — but Breyer has given no indication whether he plans to stay or go.

"If he wants someone with his values and views to take his place, now is the time to step down," Chemerinsky told NPR.

Progressive activists are hoping that Breyer, who will turn 83 in August, will announce he is retiring Thursday, the same day the Supreme Court delivers its final two opinions of the term. But a justice can decide to retire at any time — though both Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor announced their respective retirements at the end of the court's session.

Chemerinsky is part of a growing rank of progressives who are breaking with the polite, political norms of the past when it comes to questioning service on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg's death last year and the subsequent appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to deliver a conservative supermajority on the court had a lot to do with that.

"I think a lot of people who thought that silence was the best approach in 2013 came to regret that in the aftermath of [Ginsburg's] untimely passing last year," said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice. "I think it would be foolish of us to repeat this same mistake and to greet the current situation passively and not do everything we can to signal to Justice Breyer, that now is the time for him to step down"

Since Democrats took control of the Senate in January, Demand Justice has organized public demonstrations, billboard and ad campaigns, and assembled a list of scholars and activists to join their public pressure campaign for Breyer to retire.

The risk, as Fallon sees it, is twofold. The first is the perils of a 50-50 Senate.

"The Democrats are one heartbeat away from having control switch in the Senate," he said. "There's a lot of octogenarian senators, many of whom have Republican governors that might get to appoint a successor to them if the worst happened."

The second is the 2022 midterms when control of the Senate will be in play.

"If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell reassumes the Senate majority leader post, at worst, he might block any Biden pick, and at best, Biden is going to have to calibrate who he selects in order to get them through a Republican-held Senate."

Both Chemerinsky and Fallon concede the public campaign is not without some risk.

"I've certainly heard from some that this might make him less likely to retire, perhaps to dig in his heels," Chemerinsky said.

The campaign has also not caught fire on Capitol Hill, where only a small handful of progressive senators have — tactfully — suggested they'd like to see Breyer retire of his own accord.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told CNN this month he did not support any Senate-led pressure campaigns on the court, but he added: "My secret heart is that some members, particularly the 82-year-old Stephen Breyer, will maybe have that thought on his own, that he should not let his seat be subject to a potential theft."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also distanced himself from the public retirement push, telling NPR: "I'm not on that campaign to put pressure on Justice Breyer. He's done an exceptional job. He alone can make the decision about his future. And I trust him to make the right one."

Absent any change in the status quo, Democrats will control the Senate at least until 2023. If the court's session ends without a retirement announcement, Fallon said he expects the calls for Breyer's retirement will grow louder. It's all part of what he said is a new, more aggressive position on the Supreme Court from the left.

"In some way, we are trying to make a point that progressives for too long, have taken a hands-off approach to the court," he said. "And they've been sort of foolish for doing so because the other side doesn't operate that way."

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

Supporters of Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol. The House of Representatives is set to take up legislation Wednesday to create a select committee to investigate the insurrection.; Credit: Julio Cortez/AP

The House of Representatives is expected to take up legislation Wednesday to create a select committee to launch a new inquiry into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, marking the latest turn in a partisan fight to investigate the riot.

Senate Republicans blocked a move last month to vote on an outside commission, leaving Democratic leaders with plans to move forward with a House select committee instead. But some Republicans who supported the independent commission now say they'll oppose the select committee.

Already, several congressional committees have launched their own inquiries into the riot, which have run parallel to criminal investigations by the FBI that have led to more than 500 arrests connected to the breach of the Capitol.

"We hope to get to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with respect to the events of Jan. 6," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. The committee would look into "what happened that fateful day, why it happened and how do we prevent that type of violent assault on the Capitol, the Congress, and the Constitution from ever happening again."

How the panel would work

The panel will face challenges confronted by other previous select committees, including the one formed by Republicans to look into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has not yet named the chair of the panel or the Democratic lawmakers she plans to tap to be on it.

The panel will have subpoena power and a total of 13 members, with eight selected by Pelosi and the remaining five by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. But Pelosi has not ruled out a veto of McCarthy's selections since the panel's resolution directs those appointments to be made with her consultation.

Pelosi has also signaled that she could use one of her eight picks to select a Republican. Quickly, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who was recently ousted from her House leadership role by McCarthy and others, became a potential contender. Cheney hasn't ruled out the possibility, saying the final decision is Pelosi's.

For now, House Republicans, like Democrats, aren't saying who could be on the committee, but they are quick to slam the plan.

"If you look at the last vote (on the commission), it was overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans and what we've said is, look there are a lot of standing committees that have jurisdiction," House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said. "Speaker Pelosi should be exercising that same ability — not going down a partisan route."

But this time, Scalise and others could have more company to oppose the panel. Among them, Rep. John Katko of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who helped broker the deal on the bipartisan commission with the committee's top Democrat, Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.

On Tuesday, Katko called the panel a "turbo-charged partisan exercise," arguing it would be skewed with Democratic picks, with all 13 members ultimately selected by Pelosi. As a result, Katko said he'll vote no on the select committee and can't envision a scenario where he would serve on it.

"I led the charge to create a Jan. 6 commission that would be external, independent, bipartisan and equitable in membership and subpoena power," Katko said. "The select committee proposed by Speaker Pelosi is literally the exact opposite of that."

How a bipartisan commission failed

Pelosi announced the plans to move forward with the committee last week. It marked nearly a month after the Senate fell a few votes short to move forward with floor debate to take up bipartisan legislation to establish the independent commission to investigate the insurrection.

Six Republicans joined Democrats to move to debate, with a final Senate tally of 54 to 35, that fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. Earlier in May, the House approved the commission plan by a 252-175 vote, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats.

The legislation was modeled after the commission established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, with a panel of commissioners divvied evenly between the parties and with bipartisan subpoena power.

Ahead of the votes, former President Donald Trump blasted the plan and asked GOP leaders to reject it. Both McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., followed suit, along with a majority of their party in both chambers.

Pelosi and other Democrats have blasted Republicans for blocking the move.

"They had an opportunity, and I don't think it should be lost on any of us that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans turned this opportunity away to have a bipartisan, even-split commission," said Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the chief deputy whip for House Democrats.

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

The closely-watched New York City mayoral primary election tumbled into chaos this week as the NYC Board of Elections announced it had released incorrect preliminary results on Tuesday.

City officials admitted they failed to remove 135,000 test ballots from the election management system before starting to count the real votes from Election Day and early voting, skewing the results.

"The Board apologizes for the error and has taken immediate measures to ensure the most accurate up to date results are reported," the agency tweeted.

The error is complicated by the fact that New York City is using ranked-choice voting, in which each round of vote counting hinges on the results from the previous round.

Some of the top candidates vying to lead the country's largest city blasted the board's mistake as they — and about 8.5 million other New Yorkers — awaited the results of a revised tally expected to be released on Wednesday.

Ranked-choice voting, explained

Instead of choosing just one candidate to vote for, New York City voters in last week's election were able to rank their top five candidates in order of preference.

It was the first time in decades New York used ranked-choice voting, which city voters overwhelmingly approved in a 2019 ballot measure.

NPR's Domenico Montanaro explained how the process works:

1. "If someone gets 50% plus one after all the first-choice votes are counted, then the election is over and that candidate wins. 
2. "But if no one gets 50% plus one, it's on to Round 2.
3. "The person with the lowest number of first-place votes is eliminated, and that candidate's voters' second choices get redistributed as votes for other candidates.
4. "This reallocation of votes goes on until someone reaches 50% plus one."

If just two candidates remain at the end, the candidate with the most votes wins.

What happened this week

On Tuesday, the city Board of Elections released the first ranked-choice voting reports from the election.

With only first-preference votes counted as of election night, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams boasted a nine-point lead over attorney Maya Wiley. Those first reported ranked-choice results shrank Adam's lead to just two points ahead of former Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia, Gothamist reported.

But just hours later, the board tweeted that it had become aware of a "discrepancy" in the ranked-choice voting results and pulled them from its website.

In a follow-up apology, the board acknowledged that it had erroneously left 135,000 test votes in its election system, producing "additional records" that likely impacted an accurate tally.

"At this point it really seems like an issue of human error," WNYC reporter Brigid Bergin told NPR's Morning Edition.

"The board does conduct a lot of pre-election testing to make sure their systems are working and, obviously, that was even more important this time, because it was the first time they were using this new ranked-choice voting system," she added.

Bergin said the board is expected to release a corrected ranked-choice voting report Wednesday, but it will still be preliminary and it won't include 124,000 absentee ballots.

How the candidates are reacting

All of the mayoral contenders expressed frustration with the board's blunder.

"Today's mistake by the Board of Elections was unfortunate," Adams tweeted Tuesday. "It is critical that New Yorkers are confident in their electoral system, especially as we rank votes in a citywide election for the first time."

Garcia, who was fleetingly thrust into second place by the incorrect ranked-choice voting report, called for a more thorough accounting of what went wrong.

"The Board of Elections' release of incorrect ranked choice votes is deeply troubling and requires a much more transparent and complete explanation. Every ranked choice and absentee vote must be counted accurately so that all New Yorkers have faith in our democracy and our government," she tweeted.

Progressive candidate Maya Wiley said this week's misstep was just the latest in a string of mistakes by the board.

"This error by the Board of Elections is not just failure to count votes properly today, it is the result of generations of failures that have gone unaddressed," Wiley said. "Today, we have once again seen the mismanagement that has resulted in a lack of confidence in results, not because there is a flaw in our election laws, but because those who implement it have failed too many times."

WNYC's Bergin said she thought the misstep would not cause voters to question the election results but that it may diminish the board's reputation in the eyes of the public.

"This agency is really the last bastion of true patronage politics in New York," she said. "There's been a push to overhaul the agency, to give the staff more authority over political appointees. But ultimately that's all up to state lawmakers to do."

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

"This is a petty, partisan power grab that is absolutely retaliation towards my office," Arizona Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs says of the new law.; Credit: Ross D. Franklin/AP

Arizona Republicans have stripped the secretary of state's office — currently held by a Democrat — of the right to defend the state's election laws in court, or choose not to, a change enacted as part of Arizona's newly signed budget.

The spending blueprint that Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law Wednesday declares that the attorney general — currently a position occupied by Republican Mark Brnovich — has sole authority over election-related litigation.

If the secretary of state and attorney general were to disagree over a legal strategy when Arizona election laws are challenged, the new law states that "the authority of the attorney general to defend the law is paramount."

Republicans also adopted language stating it's their intent for the law to apply through Jan. 2, 2023, coinciding with the end of Democrat Katie Hobbs' term as secretary of state.

Hobbs, the top election official in Arizona who's now running for governor, says her lawyers are looking at whether this change violates the Arizona Constitution.

"This is a petty, partisan power grab that is absolutely retaliation towards my office," Hobbs said. "It's clear by the fact that it ends when my term ends. ... It is at best legally questionable, but at worst, likely unconstitutional."

Republicans have generally cast the law as a cost-saving measure, citing Hobbs and Brnovich's frequent disagreements over how to defend state election laws that have been challenged in court. In 2020, Hobbs filed complaints with the state bar against Brnovich and other lawyers in his office.

Other election provisions in the budget

The budget includes a number of other election provisions, and it comes weeks after Republicans enacted new restrictions on early voting in the state, and as a controversial review of 2020 election results in Maricopa County continues.

Here are some of the other election-related measures in the budget:

• New laws could soon require watermarks, QR codes and other security measures to be printed on ballots.
• There's a new mandate to inspect state and county voter registration databases and create a report on voters who cast federal-only ballots — an option available to Arizonans who don't show proof of citizenship to register to vote in the state, but are still allowed to register under federal law.
• And a new task force would investigate alleged social media bias as an unreported in-kind political contribution.

The ballot security measures, though not mandated by law in the budget, have the potential to be the most cumbersome and costly requirement for county election officials to implement.

The budget amendment provides a list of 10 "ballot fraud countermeasures" for counties to choose from — features like holographic foil, background designs similar to those found on banknotes and ultraviolet or infrared ink. If mandated, counties would have to implement any combination of at least three features from the list on their ballots. The budget provides $12 million to pay for those features, to be split among Arizona's 15 counties.

"By everyone's admission, there is only one company that can do any of this," said Jennifer Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties. "And so now, we can't have a competitive bid process or a traditional procurement process at the county or state level to use these countermeasures because we're locked into one company."

That company is Authentix, a Texas-based firm that provided Republican Rep. Mark Finchem with a sample ballot that included watermarks, QR codes and other security measures. Finchem had the sample ballot on display at the Capitol in March. According to the Yellow Sheet Report, it could be five times more expensive to print ballots with those security measures as it is to print paper ballots currently in use.

Marson said Finchem has acknowledged the security levels required of companies in the budget amendment could only be met by Authentix, and has vowed to mandate the ballot security measures in the "very near future."

Finchem defended the company in a brief email. He wrote that Authentix "offers these countermeasures to governments around the world for document and tax stamp security."

As the budget was being considered, Democrats like Sen. Tony Navarrete said the amendment is part of a broad effort to solidify conspiracy theories of election fraud.

"It's important for us to make sure we vote down conspiracy-laced amendments that are going to hurt the integrity of our election system in the state of Arizona and encourage other states to have these bad copycat laws spread like wildfire," he said.

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

Still from the film "Dream Horse" starring Toni Collette.

Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Angie Han, Wade Major and Peter Rainer review this weekend’s new movie releases.

• "Dream Horse," in wide release & VOD (including Google Play & iTunes June 11)

• "The Dry," in select theaters (check your local listings) & VOD (including Apple TV & VUDU)

• "Milkwater," on VOD platforms (including VUDU & FandangoNow)

• "Blast Beat," in select theaters (check local listings) & VOD (including iTunes, Google Play)

• "Into The Darkness," Laemmle’s Virtual Cinema; VOD (including FandangoNow, iTunes, Google Play) 

• "New Order," in select theaters (check your local listings)

• "The New Deal For Artists," at virtual cinemas, Laemmle's Virtual Cinema June 18

• "When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit," at Laemmle theaters (Town Center 5, Royal, Playhouse 7); Laemmle’s Virtual Cinema

• "Two Lottery Tickets," at Laemmle’s Virtual Cinema 

• "Final Account," Laemmle Theaters (Claremont 5, Playhouse 7, Town Center 5, Newhall), Century Stadium 25 and XD (Orange); in select theaters

• "The Last Days (Remastered)," on Netflix

• "Spring Blossom," at Laemmle's Virtual Cinema and Royal

• "Tomorrow’s Hope," at Laemmle’s Virtual Cinema

• "The Penny Black," at Laemmle's Virtual Cinema

• "Seance," in select theaters (check your local listings); VOD (including FandangoNow, Vudu, iTunes, Google Play)

DURING COVID: Our FilmWeek critics have been curating personal lists of their favorite TV shows and movies to binge-watch during self-quarantine. You can see recommendations from each of the critics and where you can watch them here.

Guests:

Angie Han, film critic for KPCC and deputy entertainment editor at Mashable; she tweets @ajhan

Wade Major, film critic for KPCC and CineGods.com

Peter Rainer, film critic for KPCC and the Christian Science Monitor

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