Search This Blog

Saturday, January 28, 2023

Parole Office whistleblower says agency deliberately botched sex offender cases

 A former veteran parole officer claims her agency deliberately mishandled the cases of high-risk sex offenders to appease the governor’s woke mandate to reduce the prison population and those under state supervision.

Rita Flynn, 67, worked for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for 42 years, eight spent managing cases of criminals convicted of depraved sex crimes.

Cases were purposely botched — including instances in which convicted pedophiles were released from supervision, despite red flags, to get arrested for new sex crimes — and colleagues were promoted for looking the other way and dropping cases, she claimed.

Supervisors even discouraged her from reporting signs of abuse — all in desperate attempt to make the state’s sex offender supervision program look successful, Flynn said.

Rita Flynn
Rita Flynn currently has two ongoing lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
Michael Falco

“They’re covering up criminal activity on the part of high-risk violent offenders just to push it out there and appease Albany and discharge people to appease the governor’s office” Flynn told the Post.

Flynn, who worked as a parole officer out of DOCCS offices in Westchester and Dutchess Counties — spending 2007 through 2016 on the agency’s Sexual Offenders Management Unit — called for the Office of the Inspector General to investigate her claims, and included in her letter what she said were purposely-botched cases, including:

  • The agency approved a transfer for a convicted pedophile jailed for child pornography to move to North Carolina, where he was arrested twice last year and charged with multiple counts of child exploitation. The parolee was granted transfer to another state despite being under investigation again for child porn, which, under state law, should have barred him from moving, she said.
  • A colleague was promoted after recommending a Westchester grammar school teacher convicted of child sex abuse be discharged from supervision. The recommendation came even though the perv was sentenced to lifetime supervision, she said. “The [officer] covering this case had clearly played along with our administration’s tawdry agenda … and was rewarded when she was politically appointed to a top agency position,” Flynn wrote.
  • A “sadomasochist” school administrator jailed for assaulting a child was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender after he was released from supervision. Flynn claims he should not have gotten off supervision in the first place, but he did after the department ignored a report she filed on the man, who violated his parole by talking on the phone with another convicted sex offender.
  • A high-risk pedophile convicted of sexually abusing an 8-year-old was being supervised by the state when a photo surfaced of him him lying in bed shirtless with a toddler on his chest, Flynn said. The officer assigned to the case was told by the administration to “stand down” and not file a report with the Albany child abuse hotline about the sick photo, according to Flynn. She reported it and was reprimanded by her agency.

“They deliberately mishandled the supervision of sex offender cases,” she wrote in the letter to the IG. “The agency now functioned as a mule to push the governor’s new agenda that called for emptying out the prison system based on the theory that ‘less is more.'”

Flynn said she was forced to resign in February 2020 after repeatedly speaking out against agency corruption she said began under former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and has continued through Gov. Hochul’s term.

The case Flynn said ultimately ended her career involved a serial pedophile who was released to a motel in upstate Liberty — which Sullivan County was paying to house sex offenders — despite her outspoken warnings that he was likely to reoffend and needed a treatment plan.

Rita Flynn
Flynn had been working in parole for more than 40 years before her career came crashing down due to what she considers whistleblower retaliation.
Michael Falco

Instead, the agency removed Flynn from her special assignment in 2016, but she refused to drop the issue. In February 2020 she was given two choices — either retract her complaint against the department and sign her resignation papers, or face two years in jail for sharing information about her parolees with her attorney — she said.

She signed out of fear and, to her dismay, learned that the serial pedophile at the center of her final case on special assignment was released from supervision late last year, Flynn added.

“I could have drank the Kool-Aid like I was told,” Flynn said. “I could have saved my job, but I wouldn’t be able to put my head down at night. I’m a disgraced officer. That weighs heavy on my heart, but in my head I tried to do the right thing.”

Flynn now has two pending lawsuits against the department and her supervisors including a federal lawsuit alleging free speech and due process violations. She is appealing the federal case after it was dismissed in June by a judge who ruled her free speech isn’t covered under the law when acting as a public employee, not a citizen.

She also has an open whistleblower retaliation case in the New York Court of Claims filed in April 2021 that remains open.

Inspector General spokesman David King said he could not confirm nor deny whether his office was investigating Flynn’s complaints. DOCCS declined comment, citing the ongoing nature of the cases.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/28/whistleblower-says-doccs-deliberately-botched-sex-offender-cases/

The Problematic Arrival of Anti-Obesity Drugs

 A NEW WAVE of medicines that treat obesity have taken the world by storm and been met with applause, concern, and abuse.


These are “breakthrough drugs,” writes Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research and one of the best known practicing scientists in the United States. “While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine—the first real, potent, and safe treatment of obesity.” 

Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide was approved as an obesity treatment (under the brand name Wegovy) in adults back in June 2021 in the US and in early 2022 in the United Kingdom and the European Union. At the end of 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved it for treating obesity in children aged 12 and up. On its heels, Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide (or Mounjaro)—approved for treating diabetes—is likely to be authorized for treating obesity in the US later this year. It’s already being prescribed off-label for that purpose. 

Developed about a decade ago, semaglutide works by stimulating the hormone GLP-1, which prompts the body to pump out more insulin (like tirzepatide, it began as a treatment for diabetes, and is sold under the name Ozempic for this purpose). Tirzepatide also stimulates GLP-1, along with a hormone called GIP that likewise leads to insulin secretion. Both drugs work to provide a sense of fullness. In clinical trials, the treatments—delivered by weekly injections for 15–16 months—reduced body weight substantially: On average, those receiving semaglutide lost around 15 percent of their body weight, those on tirzepatide roughly 20 percent. In conjunction with the shots, participants in both trials were supported to adhere to a reduced-calorie diet and get 150 minutes of exercise a week. 

The success—and mushrooming popularity—of these drugs brings us to a crossroads. We can make bigger bodies smaller with them, but does that mean we should? They promise to help people whose weight poses a health risk. And by shedding more light on what drives obesity, they could also chip away at harmful stereotypes that being overweight is simply a personal failing. At the same time, framing fatness as a disease to be done away with could lead to even greater stigma—as well as turbocharging society’s obsession with thinness.

Members of the fat acceptance community—a decades-old social justice movement that has sought to reclaim the word “fat”—warn that these treatments risk entrenching the fat stigma that pervades society. Celebrating these drugs is “reinforcing for the general public the idea that fat is diseased and bad, and that we should be trying to eradicate fat people,” says Tigress Osborn, the chair of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA). (People within the fat activist community prefer the term “fat,” as they view “obesity” as a medicalized term that pathologizes bigger bodies.) 

The activists fear that fat people may feel pressured to take these medications in order to access the same rights as their non-fat counterparts, rather than out of any desire to improve their health. “Is it really about health improvement when a person is experiencing daily weight stigma and feeling shamed and blamed and is looking for a solution to decrease the influence of that in their life?” says Sarah Nutter, a psychologist at the University of Victoria in Canada who specializes in weight stigma and body image. 

To go through life in a fat body means you are less likely to be hired for a job and will be paid less than non-fat people. The effects of weight discrimination—which can include poorer medical treatment, loneliness, psychological distress, and increased stress—may actually be cutting short the lives of fat people.

Deciding whether to take the drugs becomes  a “devil’s choice,” says Osborn. “Assert that I have the right to be as I am right now—or exchange that right for significantly more rights and privileges in the culture.” The fat acceptance movement instead pushes for fat people to be afforded the same rights as everybody else, regardless of size. 

Novo Nordisk’s campaign “It’s Bigger Than Me,” with actor Queen Latifah as its face, has drawn particular criticism. Through it, the company is trying to align itself with the talking points of fat acceptance—eliminating weight stigma and bias and shattering the misconception that obesity is simply a lack of willful control—while at the same time selling a drug that has the goal of making fat people smaller. “By saying that if you take away the fatness, you’re giving them the chance to thrive, you’re not—you’re just making the person smaller, and you’re selling them smallness as a gateway out of oppression,” says Marquisele Mercedes, a doctoral student in public health at Brown University.

Yet these concerns are opposed by an obvious truth: Anti-obesity drugs are effective at tackling what is a complicated condition. While the underpinnings of obesity remain elusive, a colliding consensus among researchers has landed on one irrefutable fact: Obesity is not a physical manifestation of an absence of willpower. Research has proven, repeatedly, that dieting doesn’t work to reduce weight and keep it off. Obesity is a complex, entangled mishmash of biological and environmental factors that scientists have yet to fully solve and which can’t be boiled down to the simple matter of calories in, calories out. “That concept is wrong,” says Francesco Rubino, a professor of metabolic surgery at King’s College London. “It’s not true that obesity is the consequence of too much energy.”

Having working drugs that can step in where other interventions have failed will offer important health benefits for some. Obesity raises the risk of a number of debilitating and deadly conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, and certain forms of cancer. These drugs could even help solve the mystery of the root causes of weight gain, Rubino says. On top of a reduced urge to eat, people who take semaglutide appear to have a lowered impulse to partake in dopamine-fueled behaviors, like drinking booze or shopping, according to David Macklin, a doctor who has treated many patients with the drug.

But these treatments aren’t intended for the masses. They are indicated for a specific group of patients: people with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², the clinical definition of obesity, or for people who have a BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher (and so are classified as overweight) if they have another weight-related condition that threatens their health, such as high blood pressure. (It’s worth mentioning that BMI, the  diagnostic tool most commonly used globally to determine obesity, has been shown to be a flawed and discriminatory health metric.) 

Unsurprisingly though, it hasn’t taken long for people who don’t fall into these categories to start taking the drugs for aesthetic reasons. In May 2022, Australian health authorities reported a widespread shortage of semaglutide, where it is still only used to treat diabetes, due to reports of people using it for weight loss. The shortage is so great that it will last until April 2023, leaving people who have diabetes without access. In the US, semaglutide is also a scarce commodity. Production problems are partly to blame, but the shortage is thought to have been exacerbated by a flurry of attention on TikTok—#Ozempic currently has about 433.5 million views on the social media platform. Semaglutide has been described as the worst-kept secret in Hollywood. Celebrities like Elon Musk have admitted to using it to slim down, and it’s been promoted by celebrity television personality Dr Oz. It’s become so in-demand that people are mixing the drug themselves at home using the raw ingredients purchased online. 

There’s also the looming unanswered question of how long people will have to take these drugs, owing to the strong likelihood that the weight will return when they cease treatment. Research has found that patients who stopped taking semaglutide and discontinued the supporting lifestyle interventions regained about two-thirds of their lost weight within a year. Given the probable need for patients to continue taking the drug, its price is no small issue: In the US, semaglutide costs over $1,000 a month, and Medicare, the government-provided health insurance program, doesn’t cover it. As for long-term health effects, the brevity of the trials conducted so far can’t tell us much, although Ozempic’s website warns that potential side effects include thyroid tumors and pancreatitis. 

None of these concerns have done much to dampen appetite for the treatments. Novo Nordisk is projected to pull in $3.5 billion this year from its versions of semaglutide. As for Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide, it’s estimated to bring the company $25 billion in annual sales if approved as a treatment for obesity, and it is projected to be “the biggest drug ever.” If there were ever a time to reconsider whether these drugs should be embraced by the mainstream, this is that moment. 

When the writer Roxane Gay wrote about her complicated decision to get weight-reduction surgery, she noted a depressing truth: “I had to accept that I could change my body faster than this culture will change how it views, treats, and accommodates fat bodies.” With the arrival of anti-obesity drugs, it seems that the balance between accepting fat bodies and wishing to drive them out of existence is going to become even more skewed.  

https://www.wired.com/story/anti-obesity-drugs/

Medicare Part D Plan Prices May Change Unexpectedly

 What if you leased a car, then realized the monthly payment would increase as soon as you drove off the lot, costing you hundreds more?

What if the warranty covers much less than what the dealer advertised?

Welcome to Medicare Part D.

It's a huge problem for patients, many physicians say. Some who fail to checkopens in a new tab or window their next year's drug prices during the annual re-enrollment period end up shocked in January when the same drugs they've been taking for years, and/or their premiums, end up costing hundreds more in the same plan.

For those who do check, there can be surprises when the posted prices on the Medicare Plan Finder turn out to be wrong, or they're later contradicted by Part D pharmacy representatives.

Drugs that were the least expensive -- even some generics -- in Tier 1 may jump to the more expensive Tier 2, 3, or 4 the following year. In any given year, a drug can be priced by one plan in Tier 1, but somehow lands in Tier 2, 3, or 4 in other plans.

What beneficiaries pay may go from a flat copayment to coinsurance, which is a percentage -- say 17% or 50% -- of the insurance plan's cost the following year. They may not realize these changes until they get to the pharmacy, or the charge shows up on their statement. The drugs can be exempt from the plan's deductible, or not exempt.

To make matters even more confusing, Medicare's rules allow Part D plan insurers to change their formularies after the first 60 days of the year, or immediately if a new generic is released or if there are safety concerns, and in certain other situations too, said Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for the Medicare Rights Center.

Simple, Not Simple

Medicare urges beneficiaries to use its Medicare Plan Finderopens in a new tab or window to pick their next year's plan during the annual enrollment period, Oct. 15 to Dec. 7, to compare drug plan premiums and drug costs. Plans report these "estimated" prices to the agency for the upcoming year.

Ideally, the process of selecting the best, least expensive plan is supposed to be simple. You type in your zip code, list the drugs you take, the number you need, the frequency, and five pharmacies at a time. The mail-order option is usually among the least expensive.

The finder sorts dozens of plans from least to most expensive in terms of total costs, separating the costs for premiums versus prescriptions. But it can be especially bewildering when the plan's formulary booklet arrives in the mail telling a different story, and plan phone representatives quote far costlier drug prices.

That's what happened to me.

The Medicare Plan Finder identified the Cigna Saver Rx PDP as my best option. It would cut my monthly premium from $44.50 to $12.70, thus costing me $381.60 less than if I stayed in last year's plan. One generic statin I take would cost zero, and the second, ezetimibe, 10 mg, would cost only $118.80

opens in a new tab or window for the year.

To make sure I didn't miss something, I called Cigna representatives twice before enrolling, and a third time after my enrollment card arrived. All three reassured me that $118.80, or $29.70 for a 90-day supply, was all I would pay. I verified this on Cigna's own websiteopens in a new tab or window.

But the new year brought an alarming twist. The Cigna plan formulary -- a small telephone book -- arrived Jan. 3. There on page 14, ezetimibe is listed as a Tier 3 drugopens in a new tab or window, which is usually reserved for brand-name drugs. Page 5 showsopens in a new tab or window that preferred mail-order cost-sharing for a Tier 3 drug is $120 for a 90-day supply, or $480 a year, not $118.80.

I double-checked Medicare's Plan Finder again, and it still said $118.80. On Jan. 4, I called Cigna to complain, and a representative repeatedly confirmed that my price would be $480 for the year. I asked for a supervisor, but after a 17-minute wait, I lost patience and hung up.

I called again a few days later after receiving a letter from Cigna suggesting I should call customer service about my Jan. 4 "grievance." That representative said adamantly, "the 90-day supply is $120." Not $29.70. The price for the year is $480.

I complained to 1-800-Medicare, and a representative who researched my concern confirmed that the prices on the finder and in the Cigna book were indeed different. She kept me on the phone as she filed an "official complaint" with Cigna. If this happened to me, I thought, it's happening to other beneficiaries. What's the point of the plan finder if its prices are wrong?

Preparing to write a story about the issue, I queried Cigna's press office, and spokeswoman Justine Sessions replied: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I'm sorry for the frustration and the confusion you've experienced. First, related to your questions about the medication costs: the Plan Finder and our formulary book are consistent and correct.

"As outlined in your plan documentsopens in a new tab or window Page 36, section 5.2opens in a new tab or window and Page 49, section 5.4opens in a new tab or window, if the cost of the drug is lower than the tier copay, you pay the lower price. So, for a 90-day supply of ezetimibe 10 mg via preferred mail order, you would pay $29.70 rather than the standard Tier 3 copay of $120. For a 90-day supply of rosuvastatin 20 mg via preferred mail order, you would pay $0, since it is a Tier 1 medication."

That didn't make sense. The booklet she referenced doesn't list the plan's cost for that drug. Nowhere is the amount $29.70 listed.

Cigna: "We Fall Short"

I wondered if I was being allowed the lower price because I am a journalist who complained.

Sessions' response continued: "Second – we take feedback from customers like yourself very seriously, and are always looking for opportunities to improve. Cigna is proud to be among the leaders in Net Promoter Score for Medicare, which measures our customers' willingness to recommend us to friends and family members, but sometimes we fall short of our high standards, as we did in your case. When this happens, we strive to address any issues quickly and use them as an opportunity for additional training and education for our colleagues."

I asked Sessions how enrollees could know what the cost would be from the formulary book, especially when representatives are giving much higher prices. I was persistent, but I worry that many seniors who have neither the skills nor the patience to investigate and complain will end up enrolling in more expensive plans and end up paying more for their drugs than they should.

Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Kaiser Family Foundation Program on Medicare Policy, agreed that Medicare "has become far more complicated than it once was. There's clearly some upside to having many health and drug plan choices, but there's a downside too, particularly if choosing among them is too tall an order."

Too Complicated

Some Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) members are also concerned about the complexity and confusion surrounding Part D.

At its meeting Jan. 13, policy analyst Shinobu Suzuki reported that while 80% of beneficiaries in 2020 reported overall satisfaction, "they tended to be less satisfied with the ability to understand the program and the information they received," and fewer than 75% "were confident their coverage met their needs." One-fourth of beneficiaries reported problems with affordability.

That prompted commissioner David Grabowski to express concerns. "It strikes me that MedPAC could think a little bit about the Plan Finder tools and how beneficiaries are matched to their plans," he said, suggesting that improvements can prevent beneficiaries from being matched "to coverage that doesn't meet their needs."

In an email to MedPage Today, Grabowski elaborated that the plan finder "is often not helpful" and that "far too many beneficiaries are still struggling with the tool."

It's also a problem for doctors. Numerous studies document that when prices rise, patients skip doses or don't fill their prescriptions, especially patients with disabilitiesopens in a new tab or window or depressionopens in a new tab or window. Doctors also complainopens in a new tab or window that insurance companies pressure them to write cheaper prescriptions for generics. And one San Diego physician realized this year, as a patient, that she could save "hundreds of dollars annually" on her insomnia drug, eszopiclone, if she skipped her Part D plan and just paid cash at Costco.

In official correspondence, the American Medical Association has told CMS it has concerns about the lack of formulary transparency at the point of prescribing, as well increasing formulary complexity. That complicates plan selection for beneficiaries. When physicians can't get accurate cost information for their patients, it hurts their ability to provide patient care.

New Year Surprises

"The whole fault with this current system is that you really don't know what to expect," said David Weil, program manager for the San Diego regional State Health Insurance Assistance Program, a federally funded counseling service for Medicare beneficiaries. "Part D is especially frustrating for most people because it represents a large portion of healthcare costs and lacks the kind of control that could make more information available to the public."

Tatiana Fassieux, a counselor with California Health Advocates, reported that a San Mateo SHIP counselor saw on the plan finder that the dry eye medication Restasis was covered by Wellcare's Part D plan. With the new year, however, she learned that it wasn't because the drug has a generic version.

A pharmacist in Los Osos, California, told her that as soon as open enrollment closed, Wellcare changed the tier for Eliquis, a drug to prevent blood clots, which changed the copay from $45 per month to more than $200.

"As Eliquis is one of the more widely prescribed brand-name drugs, this is going to affect many patients," the pharmacist said.

Weil and other advocates advise beneficiaries who believe they enrolled in a plan based on misinformation -- either by a plan representative or the Medicare Plan Finder -- to call their State Health Insurance Assistance Programopens in a new tab or window, sometimes called the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program, representatives for help. They also can complain to 1-800-Medicare. In some cases, Medicare may allow the beneficiary to enroll in a less expensive plan even though the enrollment window has closed.

"The more these are reported as complaints, the more likely the plans will be sanctioned or at least made to rectify these situations," Weil said. "This should also be made clear to Congress that they need to do more to protect beneficiaries from some blatant manipulations all in the name of greater profits."

Congress has started to realize how difficult the Part D system is for seniors. It has capped beneficiaries' Part D out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 per year starting in 2025, and has made other changes, such as capping insulin costs at $35 a month for seniors. But even there, seniors weren't able to see their costs change because the Medicare Plan Finder failed

opens in a new tab or window to include it, although it does now.

That cap can't come too soon.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/102834

'White' federal workers would no longer include Mid Eastern, N African heritage in new Biden plan

 The Biden administration is proposing a change to the way it collects data on federal workers that would allow employees to identify themselves as of Middle Eastern or North African descent, instead of identifying themselves as "White."

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Thursday announced a series of proposed changes to the race/ethnicity data that it has kept since 1977. The OMB said changes are warranted because people’s preferences relating to how they identify themselves have changed.

The OMB said in its proposal that there have been "large societal, political, economic, and demographic shifts in the United States throughout this period," citing the following examples: increasing racial and ethnic diversity; a growing number of people who identify as more than one race or ethnicity; and changing immigration and migration patterns.

The Biden-Harris administration is proposing changes to the way race/ethnicity data is collected on federal workers.

The Biden-Harris administration is proposing changes to the way race/ethnicity data is collected on federal workers. (Toni L. Sandys / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

One of those changes would affect current language that requires people to identify themselves as "White" if they have "origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." But the OMB’s proposed change said many are requesting a new category separate from White people of European descent.

"Presenters advocated for the Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) population to be recognized and respected by becoming a new and distinct minimum reporting category because, for example, many in the MENA community do not share the same lived experience as White people with European ancestry, do not identify as White, and are not perceived as White by others," the OMB’s proposal said.

The OMB also said a new "MENA" category would "recognize this community."

The Office of Management and Budget, headed by Shalanda Young, is proposing changes to the way data is collected on the race and ethnicity of federal workers. (AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)

The Office of Management and Budget, headed by Shalanda Young, is proposing changes to the way data is collected on the race and ethnicity of federal workers. (AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)

The goal of the government’s data collection effort is to "ensure the comparability of race and ethnicity across Federal datasets and to maximize the quality of that data by ensuring that the format, language, and procedures for collecting the data are consistent and based on rigorous evidence."

The OMB proposed other changes to the way the data is collected and presented, including by seeking out race and ethnicity information in a single question. It said many people confuse the two terms and proposed a question that asks for federal workers’ "race or ethnicity."

The OMB proposed several other wording changes, such as replacing "Far East" with "East Asian" from the definition of "Asian," and ending use of the terms "majority" and "minority."

The OMB said those last two terms "may be perceived by some as pejorative and not inclusive."

The proposal is not final, and the OMB is seeking public input on these ideas through mid-April.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-federal-workers-no-longer-include-middle-eastern-north-african-heritage-under-biden-plan

Universities still won't debate COVID policy

 The year is 2023. Nearly no one cares about COVID anymore. Most people in America are living life 100% normally. But that's not true on University campuses.

We have to mask to see patients--- Even those who are hard of hearing and rely on reading lips. These policies are set without evidence, by people who are not good at their job.

Masking in classroom didactics remains through the roof. The one place on earth where people are trying to avoid the inevitable. Universities retain their title as the one place on earth with the least common sense.

Throughout all this, I cannot recall a single debate on any COVID-19 policy issue. We didn't have debates about masking. We didn't have debates about lockdown. We didn't have debates about the school closure. We didn't have debates about masking 2-year-olds.

We continue to have no debates. We have never debated if we should continue to mask in healthcare facilities. We don't debate if the annual bivalent booster mandate makes sense. We just sign the declination form pledging fielty to Lord Fauci or boost up.

There is no forum for any discussion. No one houses any debates.

How are we to make sense of this?

Why would a place of higher learning continue to not have even one debate, perhaps by accident, on sweeping policies that have never been implemented in the history of humanity, and remain opposed by large chunks of America?

I offer three explanations, admittedly hypotheses

  1. Universities primarily care about revenue. Lofty goals about ideas have fallen out of favor. The prime source of revenue of universities, particularly academic medical centers, is partnerships with biopharma and billing insurance companies. We continue to enter into agreements with pharma companies. There's no time to debate public policy. And these debates might put off a future pharmaceutical company suitor.

  2. Administrators are scared of cancel culture. The pendulum has swung so far in favor of student power, that faculty have no say in most decisions. They can be reprimanded for even using the wrong tone. In such an environment, created by mid-level administrators who have capitulated to student demands, hosting debates is only risk and no reward. Even one student who is off put by the debate can sink someone's career. Why risk it?

  3. We no longer have courageous administrators. 25 years ago we might not have picked the best people, but we certainly pick people with bravado, confidence, at times arrogance. There are lots of things wrong with these personality traits, but decisiveness and being willing to take a stand were their strong points. Now we select people for being entirely bland, shapeless, amorphous administrators. Standing up for principles is not in their vocabulary. They didn't get to where they are by standing up for anything. They got to where they are by sliding with the status quo, keeping the opinion always to themselves. Free debate is their kryptonite. It sucks them of their administrative power.

Those are the best explanations I can think of. There are more conferences debating absolutely pointless topics like should MRD be used to post ALL induction to guide blino (ans: show me the data) then there are debates about whether or not we should be masking in front of cancer patients for the next 100 years.

I'm pretty sure it's not going to get better. It's just going to get worse. The list of taboo topics will grow. And the last refuge of the academy will be academics with faculty appointments who run their own YouTube channels, substack, and podcasts. It's up to them to keep the flame of knowledge, free inquiry and debate alive, as universities continue to prostitute themselves to pharmaceutical companies and capitulate to fear of student criticism.


Vinay Prasad, Hematology Oncology Medicine Health Policy Epidemiology Associate Professor


https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/universities-still-wont-debate-covid