Score one for TrueTheVote over Soros, Elias, Abrams and the Democrat vote machine

 By Monica Showalter

TrueTheVote, the voter integrity group with an office in Georgia has won a major court victory in its bid to clean up Georgia's voter rolls.

According to the New York Times:

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that a conservative group’s efforts to challenge the eligibility of hundreds of thousands of voters in the Senate runoff elections in Georgia in early 2021 did not violate the Voting Rights Act under a clause outlawing voter suppression.

In a 145-page opinion, the judge, Steve C. Jones of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, wrote that the court “maintains its prior concerns” regarding how the group, True the Vote, sought to challenge voters’ eligibility. But he said that Fair Fight, the liberal voting rights group that brought the lawsuit against True the Vote, had failed to show that the efforts were illegal.

The decision was relatively narrow, applying only to Judge Jones’s district in northern Georgia, and will do little to change the status quo: Right-wing election groups have already tried to help bring thousands of challenges to voter registrations in states across the country.

Apparently, they had been sued by Stacey Abrams's legal arm, Fair Fight, for voter suppression of black voters, because so many of the invalid registrations of out-of-state voters it found, (possibly done by Abrams's voter registration group, the New Georgia Project) were in the names of black people.

Why wouldn't they be black people? Those are the people Abrams's operatives know about and seek to register for elections. Apparently, there's no such thing as a black political machine, such as we find in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, and most recently, San Francisco.

TrueTheVote itself was ebullient:

HOUSTON, TX, January 2, 2024 - True the Vote (TTV) declares a decisive triumph in their legal battle against Stacy Abrams' Fair Fight, legal teams led by Marc Elias, and the Biden Department of Justice. A federal court in the Northern District of Georgia today affirmed that citizens have the right to lawfully petition their government in support of election integrity without fear of persecution or prosecution.

In a resounding vindication, TTV successfully defended its actions of December 2020, aiding Georgia citizens in filing elector challenges based on data showing over 364,000 voters appeared to be ineligible to vote due to change in residency.

This victory is a testament to every American's constitutional right to free speech and the importance of actively participating in the electoral process. 

True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht affirmed, "Today's ruling sends a clear message to those who would attempt to control the course of our nation through lawfare and intimidation. American citizens will not be silenced.”

True the Vote lead attorney Jake Evans stated, “After almost three years of litigation and a two-week federal trial with plaintiff calling 12 witnesses, Judge Steven Jones awarded a complete defense verdict for all defendants. This decision is monumental. It vindicates True the Vote in totality and establishes that eligibility challenges under Section 230 are a proper method to ensure voter rolls are accurate. I am grateful to help achieve this great victory.”

The New York Times piece has an issue with tone, but it does lay out why this matters:

But the opinion is likely to encourage conservative activists hunting for voter fraud during the 2024 presidential election. Election officials and voting rights groups have expressed worries about these efforts, warning that an expanded campaign to challenge voters en masse could intimidate people away from the ballot box. True the Vote and similar groups, taking a cue from former President Donald J. Trump, have often spread false theories about election fraud.

“Any of these decisions that allows these kinds of mass challenges to go forward embolden that movement,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the Voting Rights Project at the A.C.L.U.

They say that like it's a bad thing. Which pretty well tells us what this is about -- they'd like a world where challenging illegal and fraudy election maneuvers, such as we see in the most recent elections, is a prosecutable office, regardless of the truth presented. TrueTheVote already knows about how easily they can be jailed -- as their leaders learned a year ago in Texas when they were jailed on trumped-up charges from bitter Democrats angry at their election integrity efforts, and the charges were subsequently dropped.

As for Abrams's group, we learned a lot about their game, too -- they've been accused of legal irregularities on all kinds of matters -- here's one on questionable big-dollar payments to cronies, another on general ethics issues, and another on fraudulent registration accusations brought by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenberger. What makes them think they can get away with it is the racism card -- anyone who challenges what they are doing is hit by racism charges. If they can get away with that, they can do anything they like politically.

We also learn that big dollars are going into this effort to suppress TrueTheVote's election integrity efforts.

Politico reports that they have gotten huge donations from the far left foundation world in the past, some $61 million or so, including donations from George Soros's Open Society Foundation. TrueTheVote says it had been battling Abrams (financed by Soros), Democrat lawyer Marc Elias's legal team, which has been associated with Hillary Clinton's efforts to paint President Trump as a Russian agent, and the Department of Justice and all its operatives.

All that, and the scrappy little tea-party organization managed to win its case on its right to question gamy elections and encourage others to question the questionable in elections, too. That's a victory all right, and worthy of celebration.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/score_one_for_truethevote_over_soros_elias_abrams_and_the_democrat_vote_machine.html

Donald Trump: This is how I will end Joe Biden's border disaster on day one

 The most urgent task facing the next president is to end Joe Biden’s nation-wrecking nightmare on our southern border. I am the only candidate who will stop this invasion — and I will do it on day one.

Under the Trump administration, we had the most secure border in U.S. history. We ended catch-and-release, and removed over 1 million illegal aliens in my first term. I negotiated unprecedented agreements with Central American nations and brokered “Remain in Mexico” to stop the flow of migrants to our border. I also got the Mexican government to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers to the border free of charge.

Every step of the way, we fought obstructionist left-wing judges and radical Democrat activists who tried to stop us — and we won.

By the time I left office, we’d built 500 miles of border wall, with many more miles just weeks away from completion. And under my Title 42 policy, people all over the world knew that if they entered illegally, we would send them straight back home.

But then Joe Biden came in, canceled the border wall, ended Remain in Mexico, ripped up my asylum bans, ended Title 42, and began resettling millions of migrants into American communities at taxpayer expense.

Now you are witnessing the disastrous results. We have the highest number of illegal border crossings in history, by far. Nearly a quarter million migrants crossed in November alone — and that’s a likely vast undercount. Migrants are overwhelming our cities. Drugs, criminals, gang members and terrorists are pouring in.

On my first day back in office, I will terminate every open borders policy of the Biden administration and immediately restore the full set of strong Trump border policies.

Then, we will begin a record-setting deportation operation. Joe Biden has given us no choice. The millions of illegal aliens who have invaded under Biden require a record number of removals. This is just common sense.

To achieve this goal, I will make clear to every department and to state and local governments that we must use all resources and authorities available. We will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement — including parts of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and DHS.

I also will invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States. And we will use Title 42 to end the child trafficking crisis at last.

Joe Biden is leaving behind a catastrophe of historic proportions. The next president must secure the border while also stopping inflation, saving the economy, cleaning up Washington corruption, restoring peace through strength, and preventing World War III.

We do not have time for on-the-job training. Unlike every other candidate, with me, there is no question. I promise you that I will get this job done.

Iowans want secure borders. You must send that message with your vote. Show up on Jan. 15 and vote to stop the invasion by caucusing for Donald J. Trump.

Donald J. Trump is a Republican candidate for president. He was the 45th president of the United States.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2024/01/03/donald-trump-joe-biden-border-disaster/72093156007/

Inpatient COVID-19 Costs Substantially Outpaced Medical Inflation

 Hospital costs of inpatient COVID-19 treatment increased by more than five times the overall rate of medical inflation over a 2-year period, a large cross-sectional study found.

The adjusted cost of caring for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the U.S. increased by 26% during the study period, compared to an average increase of 4.7% in medical care costs over the same time, reported Kandice Kapinos, PhD, of the RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues in JAMA Network Openopens in a new tab or window.

"We were most surprised by the trend in costs to provide inpatient care for COVID-19 -- that they increased so much over time," Kapinos told MedPage Today. The trend was not associated with changes in case or mortality rates, the authors noted.

The direct cost of an individual hospital stay for COVID-19 treatment increased from $10,394 from March 2020 to $13,072 by March 2022, with an overall average of $11,275 per stay. Patients with some comorbidities had higher inpatient costs. For example, those with obesity or a coagulation deficiency incurred costs that were about $3,000 higher.

Researchers further analyzed data reported from August 2020 through July 15, 2023 and arrived at an aggregated direct cost to hospitals of $70 billion to provide inpatient care for COVID-19. This figure did not include outpatient treatment, testing, vaccinations, or emergency department (ED) visits that did not result in admission. The amount also did not include lost wages, lost years of productive life, or added financial burdens to families.

"As our study examined costs to provide inpatient care, our findings are particularly relevant to hospitals but also to society as we think about what the aggregate medical costs of responding to the pandemic were and how we might invest in prevention efforts for future pandemics," Kapinos told MedPage Today. "Obviously, we aren't capturing all the costs of the pandemic, but our estimate of $70 billion in inpatient costs for 2 years of the pandemic is more than double the U.S. investments made to develop vaccinesopens in a new tab or window. And it pales in comparison to [monetized] estimates of the lives lost, estimated at $12.7 trillion over 3 yearsopens in a new tab or window."

Costs rose even as vaccination rates increased and SARS-CoV-2 variants evolved, the authors noted. The increasing use of new medical technologies over time, particularly extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), was likely a key player in driving up hospital costs, researchers pointed out. Notably, ECMO tripled average inpatient costs, with a mean cost per stay of $36,484. Researchers also speculated that costs of COVID-19 therapeutics also increased over time as stockpiles of manufacturers' donated medications were depleted and the U.S. government scaled back financial assistance to hospitals.

The peak demand for U.S. hospital services occurred during the Omicron variant surge from November 2021 to February 2022, when patients with COVID-19 accounted for more than 20% of hospital admissions and one in three ICU admissions, the authors wrote.

The study included data from 234 teaching- and 607 community hospitals and looked at over 1.3 million inpatient stays with a primary or secondary diagnosis of COVID-19. The mean age of patients was 59.2. Approximately 60% of patients were non-Hispanic whites, 22% were Blacks, 14% were Hispanic, and 3% were Asian. A majority (81%) presented to the ED and 27% were admitted to the ICU. Thirteen percent received invasive mechanical ventilation and 13% died while in the hospital. Patients stayed on average for about 9 days.

The study analyzed hospital costs of providing care to patients, rather than amounts billed to insurers or amounts paid, because hospital costs better reflected the strain put on hospitals, the authors pointed out in a press release.

Disclosures

The study was supported by the University of Texas Health Intelligence Platform.

Kapinos and co-authors disclosed no relationships with industry.

Primary Source

JAMA Network Open

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowKapinos KA, et al "Inpatient costs of treating patients with COVID-19" JAMA Netw Open 2024; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50145.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/108105

At-Home Electrical Stimulation Fails to Treat Major Depressive Episodes

 Unsupervised, at-home use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was no better than a sham control for treating a major depressive episode, a randomized trial showed.

The PSYLECT trial of 210 adults in Brazil showed no differences in mean changes in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) scores over 6 weeks across three groups: a double-active group, a tDCS-only group, and a double-sham group (8.2, 8.5, and 7.7, respectively), Andre Brunoni, MD, PhD, of the University of São Paulo Medical School in Brazil, and colleagues reported in JAMA Psychiatryopens in a new tab or window.

"It seems that tDCS might take more time than 6 weeks to develop clinically meaningful effects," Brunoni told MedPage Today in an email. "Therefore, it should not be used, particularly as monotherapy, in more severe episodes in which a faster response is necessary."

Better treatments for major depression are sorely needed, the researchers said. Unlike transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroconvulsive therapy, they said, tDCS is portable, inexpensive, and has minimal side effects. The problem is that it needs to be applied daily, which can be limited by clinical worker availability and patient ability to come into the clinic.

Thus, at-home use of tDCS could be a good alternative treatment, and at least one small study has shown promising results in depression, the researchers said. Indeed, portable tDCS devices have been developed and adopted, but no rigorously controlled trials of their efficacy have been done.

Also, studies of in-clinic tDCS have had varying results. A previous trial by Brunoni and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicineopens in a new tab or window showed tDCS beat placebo for treating depression (though it couldn't show non-inferiority to the antidepressant escitalopram [Lexapro]) in a clinical setting. However, another study Brunoni was involved in, published in The Lancetopens in a new tab or window, showed tDCS was no better than sham stimulation when paired with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for treating major depressive disorder.

So Brunoni and colleagues conducted the PSYLECT trialopens in a new tab or window, which enrolled 210 people in Brazil (86% female, mean age 38.9, 72% white) with an HDRS-17 score above 16 and access to a smartphone and internet at home. Exclusion criteria were any other psychiatric disorders besides anxiety, any neurologic or clinical disorders, and any contraindications for tDCS.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups of at-home use: a double-active group involving tDCS plus digital intervention (64), a tDCS-only group (73), and a double-sham group that used sham stimulation and a digital placebo (73).

For the stimulation intervention, participants were given a device that administered 2-mA stimulation and were asked to conduct 30-minute sessions each day for 15 straight weekdays. During the final 3 weeks, participants switched to twice-weekly sessions.

For the double-active group, the added digital intervention was delivered during the stimulation and was based on behavioral therapy. The digital placebo consisted of free internet browsing using the same interface as the active intervention. Sham stimulation was 1 mA for 90 seconds.

Response rates, a secondary outcome of the study, were similar across groups (31% for double-active, 36% for tDCS-only, and 38% for double-sham), as were remission rates (14%, 18%, and 21%, respectively), the researchers found.

The results couldn't be explained by low adherence or poor usability of the at-home tDCS device, although both have been problematic in previous home-based trials, the researchers said. The home-based setting could have diminished the placebo response, but the findings were similar to previous on-site trials of tDCS as well, they noted.

Brunoni noted that the short trial duration was a key limitation of the study, as it was likely too short to produce meaningful clinical effects. Other limitations include the lack of precision on electrode positioning and the heterogeneous effects of the digital intervention modules.

He and colleagues concluded that the results suggested tDCS was ineffective for major depressive episodes, especially as a home-based intervention.

"The main indication of tDCS continues to be for mild depressive disorder, in which [it] is possible to wait several weeks for antidepressant effects," Brunoni said. He added that tDCS "could be an interesting alternative, for instance, coupled with other non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as physical activity."

Disclosures

The trial was funded by a grant from the São Paulo Research State Foundation. Flow Neuroscience donated funds used for paying clinical and research staff directly involved in the trial.

The authors reported financial relationships with Flow Neuroscience, Sooma, Brainsway Inc., Mag & More, NeuroCare, and Neurive.

Primary Source

JAMA Psychiatry

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowBorrione L, et al "Home-use transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of a major depressive episode: A randomized clinical trial" JAMA Psych 2024; DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4948.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/depression/108114

'Opening Blood-Brain Barrier to Deliver Alzheimer's Drug Shows Promise'

 Aducanumab (Aduhelm) infusions combined with focused ultrasound led to lower cerebral amyloid-beta levels in Alzheimer's disease, a proof-of-concept trial showed.

The investigational treatment involved creating an opening in the blood-brain barrier with MRI-guided focused ultrasound to boost drug delivery.

In each of three participants who received aducanumab infusions, amyloid reduction was greater in brain regions targeted with focused ultrasound than in regions not exposed to focused ultrasound, said Ali Rezai, MD, of West Virginia University in Morgantown, and co-authors in a New England Journal of Medicineopens in a new tab or window brief report.

From baseline to the 26-week assessment, PET scans showed that focused ultrasound combined with aducanumab led to a drop in amyloid levels from 224.2 to 115.2 centiloids in participant 1, from 185.6 to 104.6 centiloids in participant 2, and from 251.5 to 84.9 centiloids in participant 3. Contralateral brain regions that did not have focused ultrasound showed little change in amyloid levels from baseline to 26 weeks.

"We observed an average 32% reduction in SUVR [standardized uptake value ratio] for the three participants combined after 26 weeks in the regions that had received treatment to open the blood-brain barrier and six combination treatments," Rezai and colleagues wrote.

Headaches were the most common adverse events and were mild except for one moderate headache. One participant had two severe adverse events during the focused ultrasound treatment due to discomfort with head and neck positioning; this resolved immediately after the procedure. No amyloid-related imaging abnormalities were seen.

Low-intensity focused ultrasound has reversibly opened the blood-brain barrier in people with Alzheimer's disease or other neurologic disorders, including Parkinson's disease, brain tumors, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Previous work by Rezai's group showed that focused ultrasound alone -- without a therapeutic agent like aducanumab -- slightly reducedopens in a new tab or window amyloid-beta levels, noted Kullervo Hynynen, PhD, of the University of Toronto in Canada. "The reduction observed in the current trial was numerically greater than in the previous studies," he wrote in an accompanying editorialopens in a new tab or window.

"The blood-brain barrier safeguards the brain from harmful substances while allowing essential nutrients to pass through," Hynynen said. "However, it also impedes the delivery of drugs to the brain."

The three participants were a 77-year-old man (participant 1), a 59-year-old man (participant 2), and a 64-year-old woman (participant 3). All received a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease within the year before enrollment. None had previously received aducanumab therapy and none carried an APOE4 allele.

For 6 months, participants received monthly intravenous aducanumab, escalated up to 6 mg/kg rather than the on-label doseopens in a new tab or window of 10 mg/kg, as a risk mitigation strategy.

Opening the blood-brain barrier with focused ultrasound started 2 hours after each infusion. The blood-brain barrier closed within 24 to 48 hours after the procedure.

Focused ultrasound was applied to areas with high beta-amyloid in the frontal or temporal lobe or the hippocampus. In the contralateral hemisphere, homologous brain regions that were not exposed to focused ultrasound served as controls.

Participants 1 and 2 had no neurologic, cognitive, or behavioral changes at their last follow-up visit. At day 30 of follow-up, participant 3's cognitive test scores declined, but she showed no neurologic change or change in activity of daily living scores.

These findings are consistent with those of mouse studiesopens in a new tab or window that demonstrated increased penetration of aducanumab when combined with focused ultrasound to open the blood-brain barrier, Rezai and colleagues noted.

"However, our trial did not quantify monoclonal antibody penetration, and therefore enhanced delivery of the monoclonal antibody was not directly shown," they acknowledged.

The study involved small tissue volumes in one side of the brain of only three patients, Hynynen pointed out. Larger trials are needed and expanding treatment to both sides of the brain is crucial to determine efficacy, he observed.

"That all being said, the results spark optimism that this approach to treatment, together with agents that remove [amyloid-beta], could eventually slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease," he wrote.

Disclosures

This study was funded by the Harry T. Mangurian, Jr. Foundation and the West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute.

Rezai had no disclosures.

Co-authors reported relationships with Insightec, AbbVie, Genentech, Neurocrine Biosciences, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, and Taylor & Francis Group.

Hynynen is a founder of FUS Instruments and holds patents related to focus ultrasound methods.

Primary Source

New England Journal of Medicine

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowRezai AR, et al "Ultrasound blood–brain barrier opening and aducanumab in Alzheimer's disease" N Engl J Med 2024; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2308719.

Secondary Source

New England Journal of Medicine

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowHynynen K "Sounding out the blood–brain barrier" N Engl J Med 2024; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2311358.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/alzheimersdisease/108113

Groups Blast FDA's Opioid Abuse Surveillance Proposal

 Several advocacy groups urged the FDA to not rely on a drug surveillance system that reportedly has ties to embattled opioid maker Purdue Pharma and other drug companies.

Public Citizen, Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), PharmedOut, the National Center for Health Research, and others submitted commentsopens in a new tab or window to a docket on Regulations.govopens in a new tab or window proposing that FDA will use data from the Research, Abuse, Diversion, and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS) system to help monitor opioid abuse in the U.S.

The groups charged that the RADARS system was created by Purdue Pharma and still has close ties to that company and to other pharmaceutical manufacturers, raising concerns about FDA's use of its data.

"Congressional investigations, books, documentary films, and television mini-series have detailed the role played by Purdue, the Sacklers, and the opioid industry in causing the opioid crisis," the PROP letter stated. "Many of these accounts have featured the opioid industry's influence on the FDA."

"The time for FDA to learn from its past mistakes is long overdue," the letter continued. "FDA should enforce strict firewalls to prevent the opioid industry from having undue influence on its decision-making."

PROP's letter noted that RADARS was created in 2001 by Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family in response to DEA and FDA concerns about OxyContin. Though Purdue transferred ownership of RADARS to the Denver Health & Hospital Authority in 2005, turning it into a non-profit, PROP argued that this just "gave the appearance that RADARS was now independent."

Purdue continued to have influence on the surveillance system, PROP argued. For instance, the Sackler family appointed the original board for RADARS, and five of those people remain on the current eight-person scientific advisory board, PROP stated.

RADARS also received payments from Purdue for "consulting, lobbying, and advocacy services" until at least 2018, the letter stated, noting that the organization has also "provided opioid manufacturers, including Purdue, with a unique suite of services to help them avoid regulations and sell more opioids."

The PROP letter cited a lawsuitopens in a new tab or window filed by the Colorado Attorney General against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family in 2019 as the source of much of the information about RADARS. PROP President Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, said the lawsuit is tied up in the Purdue bankruptcy court proceedings.

A spokesperson for the RADARS system told MedPage Today in an email that it is "simply a service provided by: the Denver Health & Hospital Authority [DHHA] that has "many subscribers who purchase data only. It is our understanding that these companies share the data with the FDA."

"We offer no additional services such as trying to promote or market a drug in any way," the spokesperson said. "All subscribers have the same contractual relationship with DHHA. None have any special services or rights."

The FDA docket, titled in part "Improving the Quality and Representativeness of the Treatment Center Program Data," explains that the agency is planning on "funding the evaluation and improvement of the data validity and reliability of the [RADARS] Substance Abuse Treatment Center Programs Combined (TCPC) survey."

This program collects data from patients entering private and public opioid addiction treatment programs, and the objective is to "provide timely prevalence estimates of abuse of legal and illegal opioids and other substances." Ultimately, the data are used by FDA and others to "inform policy and regulatory decision," the docket stated.

In its comments, the National Center for Health Research said the fact that RADARS is supported by subscriptions from drug companies and other agencies is an "obvious conflict of interest" and this will "undermine the credibility of whatever information is collected."

Public Citizen in its letter called RADARS "a drug abuse and dependence monitoring organization that has long been excessively influenced by Purdue Pharmaceuticals and other opioid manufacturers, at the expense of the public's health."

PharmedOut said RADARS "has a terrible history of involvement in creating and maintaining dangerous overprescribing of opioids."

"Rather than relying on an opioid industry-funded organization with a track record of disseminating deceptive information for surveillance, we believe that FDA should rely on SAMHSA's Drug Abuse Warning Network, which could be enhanced by additional funding," the PROP letter concluded. "Alternatively, FDA could issue a Request for Proposals from research groups and academic institutions with safeguards to ensure that these entities do not have relevant conflicts of interest."

As of press time, the FDA had not returned a request for comment from MedPage Today.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/108106

US bankruptcies surged 18% in 2023 and seen rising again in 2024

 U.S. bankruptcy filings surged by 18% in 2023 on the back of higher interest rates, tougher lending standards and the continued runoff of pandemic-era backstops, data published Wednesday showed, although insolvency case volumes remain well below the level seen before the outbreak of COVID-19.

Total bankruptcy filings - encompassing commercial and personal insolvencies - rose to 445,186 last year from 378,390 in 2022, according to data from bankruptcy data provider Epiq AACER.

Commercial Chapter 11 business reorganization filings shot up by 72% to 6,569 from 3,819 the year before, the report said. Consumer filings rose 18% to 419,55 from 356,911 in 2022.

For the final month of the year, total filings dipped to 34,447 from 37,860 in November, though they were up 16% from a year earlier.

Bankruptcy case counts are expected to keep climbing in 2024, though there is still some distance to go to top the 757,816 bankruptcies filed in 2019, the year before the pandemic struck.

"As anticipated, we saw new filings in 2023 increase momentum over 2022 with a significant number of commercial filers leading the expected increase and normalization back to pre-pandemic bankruptcy volumes," said Michael Hunter, vice president of Epiq AACER. "We expect the increase in number of consumer and commercial filers seeking bankruptcy protection to continue in 2024 given the runoff of pandemic stimulus, increased cost of funds, higher interest rates, rising delinquency rates, and near historic levels of household debt."

Household debt did, in fact, stand at a record high $17.3 trillion at the end of the third quarter, according to data from the New York Federal Reserve. Delinquency rates are also edging higher, that data showed, but they also remain below rates from just before the pandemic.

Financial conditions for businesses and households have tightened significantly over the last two years thanks to the Fed's aggressive interest rate hikes to contain inflation. Rates on mortgage loans, for instance, in the second half of last year shot to their highest since the start of the century.

That said, borrowing costs and overall finiancial conditions eased over the course of the fourth quarter of 2023 after the Fed signaled it was coming to the end of its rate-hike cycle, and last month Fed officials themselves indicated they expect to be cutting rates this year

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-bankruptcies-surged-18-2023-213012445.html