'Government funding bills leave out PBM changes as White House mulls reforms'

 The congressional funding bills unveiled Sunday do not include bipartisan reforms to the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) industry, as lawmakers and the Biden administration look for a path forward. 

Lawmakers rolled out six full-year spending bills to fund a slew of agencies until early fall, including the departments of Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Justice, Commerce and Energy.  

The health priorities in the legislation were considerably narrower than advocates and lawmakers had been hoping for.  

The legislation included a funding boost for community health centers through Dec. 31. Health centers will see an additional $270 million in annual funding, backdated to the beginning of fiscal 2024.  

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), ranking member of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, called the increase “responsible,” since it is offset and contains Hyde amendment language prohibiting the money from being used to fund abortions.  

Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been pushing for a much higher increase to address a shortage of primary care providers, but in a statement he said he was “proud” of the increase. 

“Given the dysfunctional political environment in Congress, I am proud that we were able to reach a deal to provide meaningful increases in funding for primary care in America,” Sanders said.

PBM reforms cleared two Senate committees on a bipartisan basis, but major policy disagreements between House and Senate Republicans in terms of the scope of the changes led to them being sidelined, likely until a lame duck session after the November elections.  

“I’m extremely disappointed it leaves behind major reforms that would lower prescription drug costs for America’s seniors and permanently expand access to mental health care. We can do better,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement. 

“It is a real missed opportunity that these critical, bipartisan provisions will be unnecessarily delayed until December or longer,” he added.  

At the same time, the White House on Monday held a listening session with industry representatives as well as state and federal officials to discuss how changes to PBMs’ business practices could make the industry more transparent and result in lower health costs for Americans. 

Critics charge that PBMs act as shadowy middlemen, relying on opaque pricing models that drive up costs for businesses and consumers.  

Notably, one of the attendees was Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan. The FTC is conducting an inquiry into the business practices of PBMs and how they impact independent community pharmacies. But more than a year and half after the inquiry began, the three largest companies — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx — aren’t fully complying with document requests.  

“FTC orders are not suggestions,” Khan said Monday. “We will not hesitate to use the full extent of our legal authorities to mandate compliance.” 

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade group for pharmacy benefit managers, said they were not invited to the White House and claimed officials only heard from “people and groups with vocal anti-PBM agendas.” 

“Unfortunately, today’s event serves to promote only one model and one perspective. We share the Administration’s goal of lowering prescription drug costs and would welcome the opportunity to work together to make prescription drugs more affordable for patients and employers,” the group said.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4507164-government-funding-bills-leave-out-phamacy-benefit-manager-industry-changes-as-white-house-mulls-reforms/

Why aren’t perpetrators of the Oct. 7 attack designated as terrorist organizations?

 On Oct. 7, a horrific act of terrorism claimed the lives of 1,200 people in Southern Israel, with over 240 others taken hostage into the Gaza Strip. Among those killed were at least 32 Americans, with multiple others still held captive in Gaza.  

While the primary terrorist organization leading the massacre was Hamas, six other Iranian-backed terror groups participated in the carnage as well. Despite the American blood on their hands, some of these groups are still not designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) by the U.S. State Department, which provides them with an unacceptable level of operational freedom.  

This should be rectified forthwith. Not only would an FTO designation ensure that these groups, their members and their allies face the most crippling and wide-ranging sanctions possible, it would also serve as a powerful declaration that the United States stands firm in its resolve that those responsible for Oct. 7 will not escape justice. 

Among the groups involved in this appalling act that are already classified as FTOs are Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. That leaves three groups — the Popular Resistance Committees, the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) — undesignated.  

All three groups clearly meet the criteria for an FTO designation, namely Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989.  

In fact, some of these organizations have for years faced calls to be designated as FTOs, such as the Popular Resistance Committees, the third-largest terror group in Gaza. One of the group’s notable attacks came in 2003 when it detonated a 200-pound bomb beside a convoy in Gaza that killed three American security guards and injured a U.S. diplomat. On multiple occasions, spokesmen for the organization explicitly acknowledged that it receives financial and military support from Tehran and Hezbollah.  

Another of the groups, the Marxist DFLP, is infamous for the 1974 Ma’alot massacre, where over two dozen Israeli schoolchildren and teachers were mercilessly killed. According to Phillip Smyth, writing in West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center, the DFLP has been deepening its ties with Iran and its proxies since the early 2010s. Although the DFLP was designated as an FTO in 1997, it was removed in 1999 “primarily because of the absence of terrorist activity.” Given its involvement in the October 7th massacre, it’s clear that the DFLP once again meets the criteria for designation. 

Lastly, the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, established in 2006 as a splinter group from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has demonstrated through videos on its Telegram channels its active participation in the Oct. 7 massacre. Like the other organizations on this list, the Mujahideen Movement has expressed gratitude and allegiance to the Iranian regime. In 2022, for example, its secretary general, As’ad Abu Shari’a, stated that “Our relationship with Hezbollah and Iran in terms of logistical and military support, among others, is unique. If you look at the Arab and Islamic countries, is there anyone other than the Islamic Republic that sponsors the resistance program in Palestine, and strives for the military liberation of Jerusalem? There is none.” 

An FTO designation would allow victims of the Oct. 7 attack and their families to seek civil damages due to material support provided to the groups involved in the massacre; in addition, it would enforce strict immigration measures against members of these groups. This would prevent their entry into the United States and could lead to the deportation of those already present. Although the DFLP and Palestinian Mujahideen Movement are already labeled as Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the Treasury Department, which mainly targets financial aspects of terrorism, this label lacks the above-mentioned consequences that are essential in the United States’ efforts to combat terrorism. 

It’s high time for the State Department to designate each and every perpetrator of the Oct. 7 massacre as a foreign terrorist ogranization. The American people, especially the families of the victims, deserve accountability and justice for the tremendous loss of life suffered on that fateful day. 

Eitan Fischberger is an international relations and Middle East analyst. His work has been published in City Journal, National Review, Tablet Magazine

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4506517-why-arent-the-perpetrators-of-the-oct-7-attack-designated-as-terrorist-organizations/

Judge rejects Menendez claims that search warrants were unconstitutional

 A federal judge on Monday rejected Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-N.J.) claims that the search warrants executed on his home were unconstitutional.

Judge Sidney H. Stein ruled Monday that the search warrants used to investigate Menendez’s emails and search his home in 2022 were not unconstitutional, according to court filings. Menendez’s lawyers had previously argued the evidence collected was illegally obtained and alleged that prosecutors “actively distorted” the evidence.

Attorneys for Menendez said the warrants were “riddled with material misrepresentation and omissions that deceived the authorizing magistrate judge,” according to court documents. Stein rejected this argument, ruling that Menendez failed to prove that the warrants were purposefully misleading.

Prosecutors said FBI agents discovered $100,000 in gold bars and $480,000 in hidden cash while executing a search of Menendez’s home. He was indicted on bribery charges last fall that accused him and his wife, Nadine Arslanian, of accepting more than $600,000 in bribes from a group of New Jersey businessmen on behalf of interests in Egypt.

Menendez is also accused of acting as a foreign agent of Egypt between June 2018 and June 2022. Earlier this year, a second superseding indictment alleged he accepted gifts for aiding a foreign government.

The New Jersey Democrat and his wife have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Stein also rejected arguments by one of the three businessmen charged in the case, Wael Hana, who had also raised a challenge to one of the search warrants.

“Menendez and Hana have failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of material misrepresentations or omissions that, based on credible evidence, are deliberately or recklessly misleading,” Stein wrote.

Stein also noted in his ruling that the affidavits that backed requests for a search warrant only needed to show probable cause.

“As the government asserts—and Menendez does not contest—the affidavit need only establish probable cause that the evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime would be found in the search, even if the crime was only perpetrated among Nadine, Hana, and the New Jersey Defendant,” Stein wrote, noting that the “threshold is amply satisfied by the documentary evidence described in the affidavit.”

Jose Uribe, one of the businessmen charged in the case, pleaded guilty Friday to charges including conspiracy to commit bribery, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion, according to court filings. Hana and another businessman charged, Fred Daibes, have pleaded not guilty.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507276-judge-rejects-menendez-claims-that-search-warrants-were-unconstitutional/

'Free COVID-19 test program to be suspended for now'

 The federal government’s free at-home COVID-19 test program will be suspended beginning on Friday in response to a drop in respiratory diseases.

The Biden administration brought back the free test program last year ahead of the respiratory viral season. By going to COVIDtests.gov, households could order a free pack of four at-home COVID-19 tests. This most recent batch of free tests was the sixth round made available.

A banner on the website now states that “ordering for free COVID-19 tests via this website will be suspended after Friday, March 8, 2024. All orders placed on or before March 8 will be delivered.”

The program may be brought back again in the future as needed.

According to federal data, weekly hospital admissions for COVID-19 and weekly deaths have been declining in the U.S. since the start of January.

The most recent weekly flu report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated a 14.2 percent drop in positive lab tests for influenza in the past week, though it also indicated that “seasonal influenza activity remains elevated nationally,” with increases in activity in some parts of the country.

This announcement shortly after the CDC shifted its coronavirus guidance last week, no longer recommending that people stay home for five days after testing positive for the virus.

The updated guidance now aligns with what health experts recommend for flu or RSV infections, advising that people stay home if they are sick and symptomatic, return to normal activities if their symptoms are improving and they are fever-free for 24 hours without medication.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4507266-free-covid-19-test-program-to-be-suspended-for-now/

Checkmating DoJ and Jack Smith

 By Clarice Feldman

This week, all eyes were on the Willis-Wade fiasco in Fulton County, Georgia, but three less smuttily scintillating cases seem at last to be limiting the overreach of the Department of Justice respecting the J6 defendants and Jack Smith’s persecution of President Donald Trump. In interpreting criminal statutes, it seems to me that Courts should not be creative and expansively read  into them things that the legislature (that writes the laws) did not clearly proscribe as illegal, and it appears that finally, courts higher than the highly partisan D.C. Circuit judges understand that.

The J6 Defendants

If you have been paying attention at all, you are aware that hundreds of peaceful January 6 demonstrators at the Capitol have received draconian punishments and, as Julie Kelly so assiduously reports, are being very badly treated in confinement. A few have even committed suicide because of their treatment at the hands of the D.C. Courts and the prosecution.

Two cases signal that as many as 100 or more of them will have a pathway to obtain reduction of their sentences. As I will explain, these cases and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in response to a Trump motion for a stay, may well result in a major loss to Special Counsel Jack Smith and those counting on a jail term for Trump being a vehicle to schlep the demented President Biden over the finish line for a second term.

All the J6 defendants who pleaded guilty had to agree not to challenge the levels of sentence enhancement the DoJ said were applicable. Those who refused the plea deals and went to court (a lesser number) were given those enhancements anyway by the D.C. Circuit Court judges. The relevant statute allows under the sentence enhancement provision a sentence of up to 20 years, so the option of a plea deal was attractive to many (on top of the cost of proceeding, for as you remember, the big firms which rushed to provide pro bono representation to Gitmo defendants couldn’t be bothered with these people.)

The Fischer Case

Joseph Fischer was one of the J6 defendants who declined to enter into a plea agreement. Like most of the J6 defendants he was at best guilty of a misdemeanor – trespassing -- but the Department of Justice charged him under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 (c)(2) of “corruptly interfering with an official proceeding.”  Because the Administration would prefer the narrative that J6 was an  ‘insurrection” and not, as counsel for many of the defendants William Shipley believes it was, “a protest over which the police lost control because they were undermanned and unprepared,” this is the tag DoJ has chosen.

Fischer’s case went through the appeal process and when he lost, he applied for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was granted. The case will be heard in mid-April. Per Shipley, ”Two of the four counts in the indictment against former President Trump, rely on the same legal rationale and facts from the events of January 6 as those being used against January 6 defendants such as Joe Fischer. If the Supreme Court reverses Joe Fischer’s conviction, those two counts alleged in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment will be dismissed -- and with them the heart of the D.C. prosecution.”  Other consequences of a reversal, might mean that hundreds of the J6 defendants may be able to get their sentences reduced.

The Brock Case

Further jeopardizing the DoJ’s railroading of the J6 defendants is this week’s decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Looking at the same statute as the Supreme Court is considering in Fischer, three judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals, (Millett, Pillard, and Rogers, all of whom were appointed by Democrat presidents) ruled this week that rioters did not merit lengthier sentences for interfering in the “administration of justice” when they paraded through the Capitol. Judge Patricia Millett in her opinion wrote “The phrase ‘administration of justice’ does not encompass Congress’ role in the electoral certification process.” Maybe the panel could see the way the wind was blowing. Certainly it could have said more.

Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy weighs in: ”In reversing a nonviolent Jan6 defendant's sentence yesterday, DC-Cir was mum on how Biden DOJ has misused [guide]lines, systematically inflating sentences by >400% (in obstruction cases that Supremes will soon scrutinize).” 

Trump v. U.S.

If you aren’t already dizzy watching all the litigation balls in the air, the Supreme Court granted certiorari upon Trump’s application for a stay on the question “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve criminal acts during his time in office?” The court in effect is saying that it -- not lower courts -- has the sole authority to decide when a former president has immunity for acts committed while in office. This case completely halts the D.C. proceeding against him, and should they limit his immunity in a way that affects the prosecution of the case, there is still the likelihood that the Fischer and Brock cases will present impediments to the prosecution.

As all these cases proceed, the Smith decision to proceed in both Florida and D.C. simultaneously against Trump and to do it late in the game, are presenting what appears to be insurmountable calendar conflicts, making resolution before the election increasingly unlikely. President Biden keeps sinking in the polls, no likely successor to head the Democrat ticket has shown up, and, now the lawfare gambit seems a fading possibility.

The last hope is to keep him off the ballot, and joining several states in this effort, this week a traffic court judge in Cook County ruled he could not appear on the Illinois primary ballot because of the “insurrection.” The judge stayed her order and Trump has appealed.  In Colorado, where this tinpot claim first appeared, a judge has ruled otherwise, and held that Trump must be allowed on the ballot. 

[The judge] looked more favorably upon Trump’s team’s argument that the amendment does not apply to the office of the president. The text of the amendment specifies “Senator or Representative in Congress” and “elector of President and Vice President” but not “President.”

Trump has not been convicted of insurrection and was acquitted by the U.S. Senate of charges of engaging in insurrection and continues to deny wrongdoing.

Trump continues to face legal challenges in numerous states across the country, but has had a string of favorable rulings.[snip]

A federal court in New Hampshire recently dismissed a similar case, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment claim is a “nonjusticiable political question.” A Minnesota state court recently dismissed a lawsuit aiming to keep Trump off that state’s primary ballot. And a Michigan Court of Claims judge ruled that the Secretary of State must list Trump on the ballot as well.

I hate to help the opposition, but I do think they’d be better off crafting and sticking to rational policies and sentient candidates than trying to get rid of the opposition through such persistent and unpersuasive lawfare.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/checkmating_doj_and_jack_smith.html

Avadel stock drops after jury rules in favor of Jazz Pharmaceuticals in patent dispute

 Avadel (NASDAQ:AVDL) fell 5% after a jury ruled in favor of Jazz Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:JAZZ) in a patent dispute over a sleep disorder med.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4075588-avadel-drops-after-jury-rules-in-favor-of-jazz-pharmaceuticals-in-patent-dispute

FAA Finds Non-Compliance Issues In Boeing's 737 Max Manufacturing Program

 The Federal Aviation Administration's six-week audit of the clowns running Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems has revealed "multiple instances where the companies allegedly failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements."

The non-compliance issues were found in the Boeing 737 Max program's manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control, the FAA said, adding these details have been released to the public as an investigation is ongoing following the near-catastrophic accident when a door plug ripped off an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 plane earlier this year. 

The audit is one of the immediate oversight actions the FAA took after a left mid-cabin door plug blew out of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on January 5 while in flight. At a meeting at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, last week, Administrator Mike Whitaker informed Boeing's CEO and other senior leaders that the company must address the audit's findings as part of its comprehensive corrective action plan to fix systemic quality-control issues. The plan must also address the findings from the expert review panel report that examined Boeing's safety culture. The FAA has given Boeing 90 days to outline its action plan. -FAA

While Boeing is held accountable for quality control issues that led to the 737 Max 9 plug door mishap, the FAA has halted production expansion of the Max jet.

There is word that Boeing might hire a third party to conduct independent reviews of quality systems at its Renton, Washington plant and Spirit AeroSystems facilities in Wichita, Kansas. 

Meanwhile, European aerospace giant Airbus SE has been pulling ahead of Boeing regarding aircraft deliveries, soaking up an increasingly more significant market share of narrow-body planes. 

Wall Street thinks so... 

With Boeing remaining under FAA scrutiny, it was also announced Monday that three passengers on the Alaska Airlines flight in January have filed a billionaire dollar lawsuit against the planemaker. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/faa-finds-non-compliance-issues-boeings-737-max-manufacturing-program