13 Indiana residents charged in ‘largest healthcare fraud investigation in DOJ history’

13 Indiana residents have been arrested and charged in what the FBI and U.S. Justice Department are calling the “largest healthcare fraud investigation” in DOJ history.



The DOJ announced on Monday the completion of its yearly National Health Care Fraud Takedown. Officials said this year they uncovered fraud schemes involving over $14.6 billion in intended loss, making it the largest DOJ investigation of its kind.

324 people were charged in total, including 96 doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other licensed professionals.

Of the 324 charged, 13 are Hoosiers. Officials charged 11 residents of Indiana in state court and two other defendants in federal court. Their cases vary from veterinarian fraud to the sale of prescription opioids on the black market.
Fake dogs used for vet prescriptions

One of the two Hoosiers who was federally indicted in the crackdown is Rachel Goldstein, a 43-year-old Jeffersonville woman.

Goldstein was charged in the Western District of Kentucky with conspiracy to obtain controlled substances by fraud. Two Kentucky-based veterinarians, Ashley Barnett and Laura Webb, were also charged in the case.


Court documents detail how Goldstein conspired with doctors to get prescribed over 25,000 Schedule II controlled substances, including oxycodone and hydrocodone. While Goldstein said they were for various pet dogs, some of them dead or fictitious, in reality she was the recipient.

Furthermore, Goldstein was charged with health care fraud in connection with a scheme where she reportedly used fake prescriptions of dextroamphetamine and then sold the drug back to the doctor who prescribed it. These prescriptions were submitted as Medicaid claims.
Black market opioid scam

The second Hoosier federally charged in the crackdown is 53-year-old Evelyn Onukwube, a licensed pharmacist who allegedly stole half a million opioids and sold them on the black market.

A Noblesville resident, Onukwube was indicted in the Southern District of Texas and charged with conspiracy to and illegal distribution of a controlled substance. Trevor L. Cherry of Houston and Douglas Parks III of Katy, Texas, were also indicted in the case.


Court documents claim Onukwube and the two Texans used Houston-area pharmacies as fronts, eventually selling opioids with an estimated street value of at least $8 million to drug dealers.

Onukwube, who served as pharmacist-in-charge at the subject pharmacies, allegedly facilitated the scheme by ordering opioids and other commonly abused prescription drugs. Investigators say Parks and Cherry would then take the drugs and sell them on the black market.
11 people charged in Indiana

In addition to the federal indictments, 13 other Indiana residents were hit with State charges in connection to the investigation.Nathaniel Stimpson, 34, of DecaturPosition: Registered Nurse
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (2 counts) and theft (16 counts)
Allegations: “It is alleged that Stimpson, while working for Eleos Hospice Care, stole medication from patients and obtained controlled substances for his own use.”
Billy Guthrie, 48, of KnightstownPosition: Registered Nurse
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and furnishing false information
Allegations: “It is alleged that Guthrie, while working for Greenfield Healthcare Center, diverted medication from patients and obtained controlled substances for his own use.“
Sheri Hapner, 53, of MiddleburyPosition: Licensed Practical Nurse
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, failure to keep record and furnishing false information
Allegations: “It is alleged that Hapner, while working at the Waters of LaGrange, diverted medication from patients, failed to properly document medication, documented false information, or obtained controlled substances for her own use.“
Jennifer Brant, 62, of New HavenPosition: Licensed Home Health Aide
Charges: Fraud and theft
Allegations: “Brant is alleged to have submitted claims for personal attendant care services provided to an in-home patient that were not actually provided.”
Tara Brown, 43, of Fort WaynePosition: In-home personal care attendant
Charges: Fraud and theft
Allegations: “Brown is alleged to have submitted claims for personal attendant care services provided to multiple in-home patients that were not actually provided.”
Lindsay Plake, 40, of ElwoodPosition: Qualified Medication Aide
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, failure to keep record and furnishing false information
Allegations: “Plake, while working in an assisted living facility, is alleged to have stolen prescribed medications from multiple residents of that facility.”
Catherine Grimes, 66, of GreencastlePosition: Registered Nurse
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (5 counts) and failure to keep record
Allegations: “Grimes is alleged to have acquired multiple types of prescribed controlled substances from multiple inpatients of an Indianapolis recovery center.”
Christy Orwig, 58, of MadisonPosition: Registered Nurse
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, illegal possession of a narcotic drug, failure to keep record and furnishing false information
Allegations: “It is alleged that Orwig, while working at a nursing home, dispensed patient narcotics for her own personal use on various occasions.”
Jenny Byrd, 41, of Oakland CityPosition: Qualified Medication Aide
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, illegal possession of a narcotic drug and failure to keep record
Allegations: “It is alleged that Byrd, while employed at a nursing home, diverted narcotic drugs intended for patients for her own personal use and admitted to it.”
Kayla Bell, 35, of NewburghPosition: Licensed Practical Nurse
Charges: Obstructing prescription delivery and obtaining a controlled substance by fraud
Allegations: “It is alleged that Bell, while working at a nursing home, diverted patient narcotics for her own use, including signing out drugs for a patient without an active prescription, and admitted to it.”
Patrice Amos, 44, of AvonPosition: Registered Nurse
Charges: Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, illegal possession of a narcotic drug and failure to keep record
Allegations: “It is alleged that Amos, while working at a nursing home, diverted narcotic drugs intended for facility patients for her own personal use.“

Dezarae Polinske, a 30-year-old RN from Elkhart, Wisconsin, was also charged in Marion County with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and furnishing false information. While working at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital, Polinske allegedly diverted medication for her own use.

Official responses

In a post on social media Monday, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said he and Director Kash Patel will “vigorously pursue bad actors” who violated their medical oaths.

“Results matter. Talk is cheap,” Bongino said. “And this is not even the beginning of the beginning. If you’re stealing from the public, or violating your oath to serve, then we’re coming for you too.”

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita echoed these sentiments in a statement of his own.

“Medicaid is a critical lifeline for Hoosiers, and we have zero tolerance for those who abuse it for personal gain,” he said. “Our committed team tirelessly pursues accountability for those who defraud the system, ensuring justice for our taxpayers, preserving essential resources, and ensuring the proper use of controlled substances to protect patients.”


Rokita said in his statement that the Indiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit receives 75% of its funding from HHS under a federal grant. The other 25% is funded by the State.

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/13-indiana-residents-charged-in-largest-healthcare-fraud-investigation-in-doj-history/

Jury in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial raises concerns about one juror

The judge overseeing Sean "Diddy" Combs' sex trafficking trial on Monday said he would remind jurors of their obligation to deliberate and follow his instructions about the law, after the jury warned that one juror the 12-member panel may not be able to follow judge's instructions.

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I16f1a640559c11f0bcb8c497dc5140e9/View/FullText.html

US judge orders Argentina, facing $16.1 billion judgment, to transfer YPF stake

 A U.S. judge on Monday ordered Argentina to give up its 51% stake in oil and gas company YPF to partially satisfy a $16.1 billion court judgment, handing a defeat to the cash-strapped country.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan said Argentina must transfer its YPF shares within 14 days to BNY Mellon, and instruct it to transfer the shares within one business day to the plaintiffs.

The case arose from Argentina's 2012 seizure of the 51% YPF stake held by Spain's Repsol, without tendering for shares held by minority investors.

Argentina has been appealing Preska's September 2023 decision to award the $16.1 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and Eton Park Capital Management, which are represented by litigation funder Burford Capital.

Burford has said it expected to receive 35% and 73% of Petersen's and Eton Park's respective damages.

Shares of Burford traded as much as 21.2% higher in New York after Monday's decision, while YPF fell as much as 5.5%.

Neither Argentina nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. Burford and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Preska's decision is a blow to Argentina's President Javier Milei, whose government must urgently build up foreign currency reserves to pay its debts while fighting inflation.

The country in April obtained a $20 billion loan program from the International Monetary Fund.

Preska ruled on the same day that Argentina asked London's High Court to block enforcement of the judgment, which Petersen and Eton Park had sought last year.

COMITY 'NOT A ONE-WAY STREET'

Argentina argued that the YPF shares were immune from turnover under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), while Burford said a commercial activity exception and Argentina's "many years" of evasion justified a turnover.

In her 33-page decision, Preska said Argentina's control over YPF triggered the exception, and the shares could be transferred despite being located outside the United States.

She also rejected Argentina's suggestion that comity, or the respect that countries afford each other by limiting how far their laws reach, weighed against her getting involved.

"Comity is not a one-way street," Preska wrote.

"The United States has a strong interest in enforcing its judgments," she added. "Foreign governments cannot simply override the exceptions to the FSIA by invoking its own law to shield its assets from execution in the United States."

Argentina previously sought to limit overall damages to about $4.9 billion. The U.S. Department of Justice sided with Argentina in opposing a turnover.

https://www.streetinsider.com/Reuters/US+judge+orders+Argentina+to+transfer+YPF+shares+to+help+satisfy+%2416.1+billion+judgment/24996854.html

Dem Attorneys General Push to Move Ob/Gyn Board Exam Out of Texas

 'AGs are pressuring medical groups to defend reproductive rights'

Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortionopens in a new tab or window, emergency abortionsopens in a new tab or window, and travel between statesopens in a new tab or window for healthcare in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans.

The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a formal positionopens in a new tab or window June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitionedopens in a new tab or window to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work. The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wadeopens in a new tab or window.

"It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care," said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California Berkeley's law school. "We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful -- that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy."

Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 statesopens in a new tab or window, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortionopens in a new tab or window almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 statesopens in a new tab or window restrict access to gender-affirming careopens in a new tab or window for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth.

That's raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare.

Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physicianopens in a new tab or window in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that "the limits of shield laws are tenuous" and that "Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well."

The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision.

"Reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers," James said in a statementopens in a new tab or window. "Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous."

In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, MD, medical director at Choices Women's Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person examopens in a new tab or window at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed constructionopens in a new tab or window of its new testing facility last year.

"As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state's laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts," Ottolenghi wrote.

Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University's law school and a reproductive law scholar, said "putting the heft" of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a "public reckoning" on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bansopens in a new tab or window.

Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, MD, an ob/gyn and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an "attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals."

Harrison said the "ob/gyn community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation's state abortion laws," and that this diversity "fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients."

The AMA's new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made.

The ob/gyn board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board saidopens in a new tab or window that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas "provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment."

The ob/gyn board emphasized that Texas' laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been "no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations."

Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the "web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers." Texas is among the states that have banned doctorsopens in a new tab or window from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made effortsopens in a new tab or window to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans.

The Texas attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comment.

States such as Californiaopens in a new tab or window and New Yorkopens in a new tab or window have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states' laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings.

"We live in a moment where we've seen actions by executive bodies that don't necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided," Rebouché said.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/abortion/116280

Doctors' Slow Change of Tune on Ivermectin

 Every week, another patient asks Skyler Johnson, MD, the same question: Can ivermectin treat my cancer?

His answer never changes.

"It's not been shown to be effective in actual cancer patients," said Johnson, a radiation oncologist at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

Widely discreditedopens in a new tab or window as a COVID-19 treatmentopens in a new tab or window, ivermectin now is promoted in some online circles as a cancer therapy despite lacking clinical evidence, and some states have made it easier to obtain. Additionally, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed in a post on Xopens in a new tab or window that the FDA suppressed the substance as part of a "war on public health."

Those factors create a growing challenge for oncologists like Johnson, who must navigate conversations with patients swayed by unsupported viral claims.

On platforms like Substack and X, accounts with thousands of followers push ivermectin as a cheap alternative for patients distrustful of "profit-driven oncology." An X post shared thousands of times falsely claims cancer is a parasite that ivermectin can kill, an assertion Johnson said predates the pandemic.

"I just feel like we're in some kind of disinformation epidemic," said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, an oncologist at Tennessee Oncology near Nashville.

Google searches for ivermectin spiked in Januaryopens in a new tab or window to their highest level since the pandemic. That surge coincided with actor Mel Gibson's Jan. 9 appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, where he claimed multiple friends used ivermectin and other drugs to beat stage IV cancer. "This stuff works, man," Gibson saidopens in a new tab or window, without citing credible evidence.

The episode, viewed more than 11 million times on YouTube, prompted the Canadian Cancer Society to denounceopens in a new tab or window the actor's comments as "dangerous, cruel, (and) irresponsible" misinformation.

"The main harm is that some patients will think this is a treatment for their cancer and choose it over the actual evidence-based recommended treatments," said Celeste Bello, MD, MSPH, a hematologist, medical oncologist, and senior member in the malignant hematology program at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. "This delay may result in damage to organs and possibly result in the patient not being able to get the evidence-based recommended treatment due to the disease becoming too advanced."

While ivermectin has proven effective against some conditions in humans, neither COVID-19 nor cancer are among them.

It is used to treat river blindnessopens in a new tab or window and other parasitic infections, and it earned its two discoverers a Nobel Prize in 2015. Topical versions treat lice and rosacea, and veterinarians administer it for parasitic infections in animals.

But multiple studies failed to produce credible evidence that it helps against COVID-19. The ACTIV-6 studyopens in a new tab or window found no significant difference in symptom relief, hospitalization rates, or emergency department visits between patients with mild-to-moderate cases who took ivermectin and those who took a placebo.

Preclinical studies suggest ivermectin may be effective against some cancer cell lines in high doses, Johnson said. In a 2021 studyopens in a new tab or window, mice given ivermectin and anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies showed higher rates of cancer cell death and T-cell infiltration of breast tumors.

"For sure, there is something to it, but as in many things in life, it is way more complicated than people are making [it] out to be," said Peter P. Lee, MD, a co-author of the study and chair of the immuno-oncology department at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center near Los Angeles. He pointed to early research that suggests "promise" if combined with immunotherapy drugs.

"To think that all you have to do is take it and that's it, it's not enough," Lee said. "And in all of our studies when we give ivermectin alone, it's just not enough."

A phase I/II studyopens in a new tab or window that Lee and colleagues presented at this year's American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting tested ivermectin with immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Eight patients were evaluated: one had stable disease, one had a partial response, and six saw their cancer progress.

Those results underscore how much research remains, doctors said.

"A compound has to go through a lot of steps before it can go from the lab bench to a human," Bello said. "I think a lot of people don't understand this process, and that's where the mistrust starts."

Some states have responded by making ivermectin easier to obtainopens in a new tab or window. Laws in Arkansasopens in a new tab or window, Idahoopens in a new tab or window, and Tennesseeopens in a new tab or window allow for its over-the-counter sale. In at least a dozen other states, similar bills have been proposed.

Doctors worry that easier access could lead patients to hide ivermectin use, risking harmful drug interactions.

"I worry that even when patients ask me my thoughts about it and I say, 'I don't think there's good data,' they're going ahead and taking it anyway, because it's easy to access, and then just not telling me," Mullangi said.

Growing access and misinformation make those conversations more critical. Those discussions typically cover a wide range, Johnson said. Some patients are curious. Others are skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry.

"Try to reiterate that we're on the same team, that we have the same goals," to identify why patients are interested in ivermectin, Johnson said. "Leverage that to build a relationship around trusting what I'm discussing with them."

Motivational interviewing techniques can help uncover why patients believe what they do, Johnson said. A physician can ask the patient to rate their confidence in an ivermectin treatment on a scale of one to 10, then follow with questions about the selection, he said.

"You'll ask, 'OK, how come you're not a 10? How come you're not 100% certain that ivermectin's the right thing?' And when you ask these types of questions, you can get to some really interesting places as to why patients believe the things that they do," Johnson said.

Another key relates to a vow Johnson makes to those asking about ivermectin.

"I can promise you that if this medication is proven to work in cancer patients," Johnson said, "I will be the first to recommend it to you."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/hematologyoncology/othercancers/116308

Many U.S. Adults Wouldn't Test for Suspected COVID, Survey Shows

 

• In an online national survey, 70% of respondents said they would take a home test if they suspected they had COVID-19.
• Among the 30% who said they would not or might not test, 53.6% indicated that they didn't see a reason to test.
• Several variables appeared to play a role in the decision, including age, race, education level, and income.

Thirty percent of U.S. adults would not or might not test for suspected COVID-19, according to a cross-sectional online national survey.

Among just over 2,000 survey respondents, 70% said they would conduct a home test if they suspected they had COVID, with certain variables associated with being more likely to test, reported Kimberly Fisher, MD, of UMass Chan Medical School in Worcester, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

Among the 30% of people who said they would not or might not take a test, 53.6% said they didn't see a reason to test, 30.1% said it would not be helpful to know if they were positive for COVID, and 20.7% said they would not trust test results, the authors noted in a research letter in JAMA Network Openopens in a new tab or window.

"Early identification of infection enables prompt care and steps to reduce spread," Fisher and colleagues wrote, adding that hesitancy to do home testing could keep people from starting oral antiviral treatment and lead to missed opportunities to slow the spread of COVID.

More than 5 years after the pandemic's start, COVID remains a public health challenge. From October 2024 to April 2025, the CDC estimatedopens in a new tab or window 28,000 to 46,000 deaths and 230,000 to 390,000 hospitalizations due to COVID.

To assess Americans' views on COVID home testing, the researchers used the Ipsos KnowledgePanel to conduct an online national survey between Oct. 31 and Nov. 7, 2024. They asked about people's intent to conduct a home test if they suspected that they had COVID. They asked those who answered "no" or "not sure" for their reasons why they would not test.

Among those who said they might not or would not test, age appeared to play a role. While 23.2% of people ages 60 and older said they wouldn't self-test, 37.4% of those ages 18-29 years said they'd likely forgo testing. Education level also showed links to decision-making: 37.7% of those with no high school diploma or GED said they wouldn't test, compared with 27.2% of those with a bachelor's degree or higher.

Among white respondents, 34.6% said they likely wouldn't self-test, compared with 23.5% of Black respondents, 22.6% of Hispanic respondents, and 22.5% of those who were non-Hispanic other or at least two races.

Household income also showed a relationship with the decision to say no to self-testing. Those with annual incomes less than $25,000 answered "no" 25.5% of the time, compared with 32% of those with incomes of $100,000 or more.

People in non-metropolitan statistical areas were more likely than their metropolitan counterparts to skip COVID home testing, at 39.7% versus 28.5%, respectively. Whether or not a person has a primary care physician also may help determine a self-test decision. While 27.9% of people who had one said they would not test, 41.4% of those without one said they would skip a self-test.

Those who had heard about COVID medications such as Paxlovid were less likely to skip self-testing, at 26.7%, compared with 37.2% of those who didn't know about such treatments. Finally, among survey respondents who do not trust healthcare at all, 63.6% said they wouldn't self-test, compared with 16.2% of those who said they trust healthcare a great deal.

Of the 2,009 respondents to the question on COVID self-testing, mean age was 51.5, 51.2% were women, 60.7% were white, 12.1% were Black, 18% were Hispanic, and 9.2% were other, non-Hispanic or two or more races, non-Hispanic. The survey completion rate was 63.4%.

Study limitations included that people's self-testing intentions might vary from what they actually did. The survey also may not have captured all of the reasons why people might choose not to take a home test.

Disclosures

This study was supported by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the CDC, and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response.

Fisher had no conflicts of interest.

A co-author reported receiving personal fees from Shields Pharmacy for consultancy for digital medicine and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health for an Expert in Residence Role to support program development, and is on the Digital Health Advisory Committee of the FDA.

Primary Source

JAMA Network Open

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowFisher KA, et al "Intent to test for COVID-19 in the postpandemic era" JAMA Netw Open 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.18250.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/116303

Walmart cuts out middlemen with first-ever beef facility as prices soar

Walmart opened its first owned and operated case-ready beef facility in Kansas, eliminating middlemen in its supply chain to help control costs and ensure adequate supply as beef prices remain elevated.

The newly opened, 300,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art facility in Olathe will package and distribute Angus cuts sourced directly from Sustainable Beef LLC to 600 stores across the Midwest region, which Walmart says will increase transparency and capacity in the beef supply chain to help the retailer meet customer demand. This immediately reduces the retailer's need to lean on an outside party to cut and package beef, which can lead to higher costs that can get passed onto consumers.

"This is the first case-ready facility fully owned and operated by Walmart, and that milestone ensures we’re able to bring more consistency, more transparency and more value to our customers," Walmart U.S. Executive Vice President John Laney said in a statement.Walmart made an equity investment in Nebraska's Sustainable Beef LLC in 2022 as part of its effort to implement an end-to-end supply chain for Angus beef. Sustainable Beef sources cattle from no more than a 250-mile radius to the plant.

Arun Sundaram, senior vice president and equity analyst at CFRA Research, told FOX Business that by taking greater control over sourcing and processing, Walmart can improve quality, enhance traceability and strengthen its supply chain, which is key in the highly concentrated U.S. beef industry.

But, "this move should also help lower costs, allowing Walmart to offer more competitive pricing at a time when beef prices are rising and many consumers are trading down to value proteins like chicken," Sundaram said.In May, prices for beef and veal were up 8.6% compared to a year ago, according to the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA projects that beef and veal prices will continue to increase throughout the year, up 6.8%, due to tight supplies and continued consumer demand.

Bernt Nelson, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Foundation, said in May that strong demand "means higher prices paid for wholesale, which means higher prices for fed cattle, feeder cattle, and even new calves." At the same time, cattle supplies are currently at a 74-year low. Both factors are to blame for the uptick in costs, according to Nelson.

However, Sundaram added that Walmart's move also aligns with its broader effort to improve its perception of fresh food.



"While Walmart has long been known for low prices, it has recently placed more emphasis on quality, particularly in fresh categories like produce and protein," he said, underscoring that "fresh quality perception is often the top factor influencing where consumers choose to shop."

While Sundaram said he believes the Arkansas-based retail giant is the market share leader in grocery, he noted that there is "still room to grow share, particularly among higher-income households" based on data that shoppers are still visiting four to five different grocers each month.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/walmart-cuts-out-middlemen-first-ever-beef-facility-prices-soar