Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said Tuesday that itsretaliatory striketargeting US bases in Jordan killed "a number of" American forces.
"A heavy assault was launched on the U.S. Marines camp base in Jordan, resulting in a large number of American forces being sent to hell and the destruction of several key facilities and enemy assault helicopters," IRGC said in the statement.
The attack is said to have come in response to the United States airstrike on a residential area in Hormozgan province during a wedding ceremony that killed two people and injured 50 others earlier today.
Republican committees have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them access to lowest-rate television ads before the November midterms after a federal appeals court ruled that only candidates are entitled to the special campaign rate required by law.
The emergency application by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which was docketed on Aug. 31, has been presented to Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts may act on it by himself, or he may refer it to the full court.
Roberts has directed the respondents - former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio); Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.); former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat; and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.) - to file a response to the application by midday on Sept. 3. Brown, Ossoff, and Cooper are currently running for the Senate; Rivet is seeking reelection to the House.
The NRCC and NRSC view the matter as urgent because Sept. 4 is the first day of the 60-day period before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, when federal law requires broadcasters to sell candidates airtime at their cheapest rate. They are asking the Supreme Court to put the appeals court ruling on hold before that window opens. If the high court does not do so, they say they will have to pay full freight for the rest of the campaign cycle, and that stations have already begun to cancel the cheaper reservations they previously made.
The federal Communications Act provides that in the 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, broadcasters must charge legally qualified candidates no more than the lowest rate offered to their most favored customers. This is known as the Lowest Unit Rate rule. The rule does not apply to streaming and social media ads.
In March of this year, the staff of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) Media Bureau issued an interpretive guidance reminding both television and radio broadcasters about the rule. The public notice reiterated that favorable rates must be provided to "authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates" and to "advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures."
The respondents appealed the notice to the full FCC, and when it failed to rule, they argued that it amounted to constructive denial of the appeal and took the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
They argued that the Communications Act requires the cheap airtime rate be given to candidates, not political parties. They also said that when a party buys an ad that a candidate approves, it is the party spending its own money - not the candidate, and if the candidate rate still applied, it would constitute an illegal gift to the candidate's campaign.
A panel of the appeals court agreed with the respondents, voting 2-1 to vacate the notice.
The panel held that the lowest unit charge applies only to a legally qualified candidate, not to party-coordinated ads and joint fundraising committee ads with non-candidate members. The panel also determined it had jurisdiction, or authority, to hear the case even though the full FCC had not yet completed reviewing the notice.
A dissenting judge said the court should not have reviewed the guidance while it was pending at the FCC and that barring parties from the discount rate restricted political speech on the eve of an election.
The NRCC and NRSC said in the application that the Fourth Circuit erred and that its decision is hurting the two committees.
"In the midst of election season, a divided Fourth Circuit panel just rewrote longstanding rules about preferential broadcast rates for political ads," at the behest of Democratic candidates "who said those rules favor their electoral opponents," the Republican committees said.
The panel's decision violates two jurisdictional principles and splits with multiple federal courts of appeals, while it "restrict[s] political speech in the sensitive period leading up to an election," they said.
The Fourth Circuit ruling also ignores the Supreme Court's recent instruction that courts should not treat incomplete agency work as final for purposes of filing an appeal, they added.
The two committees have budgeted tens of millions of dollars for ad purchases based on the rules that were in effect before the panel ruled, "but because of the Fourth Circuit's decision, broadcast stations are already rescinding those rates," they said.
The circuit court denied a request to pause its order on Aug. 27 and allowed its ruling to take effect the same day.
The NRCC and NRSC asked the Supreme Court justices to act before Sept. 4. The Trump administration weighed in to support the application.
Justice Department Solicitor General D. John Sauer is arguing that the respondents are appealing prematurely, lack standing to challenge the FCC notice, and have mischaracterized it, according to his brief.
The notice "does not grant favored treatment to one side or the other; instead, the notice's interpretation offers the same benefit to all sides, including the challengers themselves," he said.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a "baker's dozen," or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.
In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn's "baker's dozen" is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.
When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:
"Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker's dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours."
Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:
"The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect."
So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.
The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.
Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR's infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.
In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.
One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.
Perhaps as a sign of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coming to grips with its inevitable bankruptcy, the agency has recently made a rational decision, however slight. The proposed rule,site neutrality for imaging, reverses an extremely damaging position years ago CMS should never have taken. We can only hope that they will completely reverse the political decision to overpay for hospital provided physician services, a decision which has all but decimated the private practice of medicine in the US.
Right now, Washington often pays hospitals more than independent physicians for providing the exact same service simply because it happens inside a hospital-owned outpatient facility. That policy encourages hospitals to buy up smaller physician practices and consolidate healthcare markets nationwide, driving up costs by as much as 33%. These price increases matter for patients because more than one-third of imaging tests are performed in hospital outpatient settings.
Hospitals are simply responding to the incentives Washington created. But CMS’s proposed rule would begin leveling the playing field by reducing those payment disparities for certain imaging services. Patients shouldn't pay more simply because their doctor's office happens to be owned by a hospital.
Congress should follow in CMS’s footsteps and expand site-neutral payments to all services, not just imaging, to save billions in health spending and lower out-of-pocket costs for patients. Bills like the Same Care, Lower Cost Act and the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act would do exactly that.
Current Medicare payment policy pays hospitals more for outpatient care that isn't necessarily higher quality. In fact, studies show that higher-priced hospitals only show a decrease in mortality rates if they operate in less-consolidated markets – which is bad news for most metro areas that are in highly-consolidated healthcare markets. Many patients value the convenience, continuity, and often lower costs offered by independent physician practices. Closer doctor-patient relationships and lower costs are just two reasons many Americans choose independent physicians whenever they have the option.
Thanks to public pressure, CMS is working to unwind a system that favors large healthcare institutions instead of hardworking Americans. While this proposal only tackles certain imaging services, it creates momentum for broader reforms that could lower insurance premiums, hold healthcare monopolies accountable, and improve price transparency.
If Congress expanded this approach across outpatient care, the savings could be enormous. Private insurers often follow Medicare’s lead when setting payment rates. According to a study from the Niskanen Center, broad site-neutral payment reforms could reduce private insurance premiums and cost-sharing by between $135 billion and $466 billion over 10 years. Paying the same amount for the same outpatient service — regardless of whether it's performed in a hospital-owned clinic or an independent physician's office — could also help stop the disappearance of affordable community medical practices, giving patients more choices and more competition.
The same payment policies that encourage hospitals to buy independent physician practices also contribute to confusing and costly billing practices. Once a physician's office is owned by a hospital, patients can be charged additional "facility fees" for receiving the exact same care in the exact same building simply because it is now considered a hospital outpatient department. One woman seeking a cortisol shot was charged more than $2,600 for a procedure that otherwise cost about $250, with most of the difference coming from a facility fee.
By reducing the financial advantage hospitals receive for providing the same outpatient services, site neutral payments would also reduce one of the incentives for acquiring physician practices and imposing these additional charges on patients. CMS’s proposed rule would also require hospital-owned outpatient facilities to be more clearly identified in Medicare claims, helping shed more light on where these charges originate.
Thankfully, CMS is taking the lead by beginning to fix this broken payment system for certain imaging services. But Congress shouldn't stop there. It should build on this momentum by expanding site-neutral payment reforms to additional outpatient services through legislation like the Same Care, Lower Cost Act or the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.
Lowering healthcare costs for American patients is a team effort, and it can't rest on CMS rulemaking. Congress should finish the job by ensuring that patients pay for the care they receive, not simply because the same service was provided in a hospital-owned building instead of an independent doctor's office.
Keith Smith, M.D. is the co-founder of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma.
GSK’s vaccine—which targets two primary flu antigens—elicited higher immune responses in both younger and older adults in a mid-stage study. The Phase 3 launch, planned for September, follows the FDA’s recent approval for Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine.
Moderna may soon have company in the mRNA flu market after GSK reported superior immune responses for its vaccine candidate in a mid-stage trial. The U.K. pharma plans to kick off a late-stage test later this month.
The Phase 2 trial compared GSK’s investigational mRNA-based vaccine to licensed inactivated flu vaccines in 971 adults, with younger adults in the control group receiving standard doses while older adults received high dose shots. Higher immune responses were seen in study participants who received GSK’s vaccine than in those receiving the existing immunizations, according to a Tuesday press release. The investigational jab was also “generally well tolerated,” GSK said. The results were presented at the OPTIONS XIII Conference for the Control of Influenza.
There is plenty of reason for GSK to be optimistic in this space. Last month, the FDA greenlit Moderna’s mFLUVISA as the U.S.’ first mRNA-based flu vaccine. The approval came six months after the regulator refused to even review the vaccine—potentially indicating a thawing in perception around mRNA.Two weeks after the historic approval, Moderna followed up by announcing positive Phase 3 data for its Merck-partnered mRNA cancer vaccine.
There continues to be considerable unmet need in influenza, with 1 billion global cases of seasonal flu each year and up to 650,000 respiratory deaths, per GSK. Efficacy of the currently approved flu vaccines varies, but last year’s version was only 36% effective, according to the CDC.
GSK’s Phase 3 trial will be the first of its kind to test a flu vaccine targeting both haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA), which are “the primary surface antigens that cause the flu virus to bind and spread,” according to GSK. Currently licensed vaccines primarily target HA, the company said, adding that “growing evidence suggests [also targeting NA] could help improve protection, illness severity and transmission.”
GSK’s candidate was awarded the FDA’s Fast Track designation in July.
The planned Phase 3 trial will also contribute toward GSK’s goal to start more than 20 late-stage trials by the end of this year—more than double the British pharma’s previous target of 10, according to a July 28 report by Reuters, which noted that seven experimental medicines will be trialed across 18 indications.
Roche has tapped Simcere Zaiming for a new T cell engager that could have broad application in B cell–mediated diseases including lymphoma and autoimmune conditions.
Roche has scored a hat trick in Asia, signing a third licensing deal worth a potential $1.5 billion with a biotech there in just over a week. This time, the Swiss pharma will work with China’s Simcere Zaiming on a T cell engager for B cell–mediated diseases.
At the heart of the deal is SIM0660, a trispecific antibody that targets CD79A, CD19 and CD3. These targets could hold therapeutic potential in B cell–mediated diseases, which can include certain lymphomas and autoimmune conditions like lupus and arthritis, Simcere said in a Tuesday release.
Simcere Zaiming, which is a subsidiary of China’s Simcere Pharmaceutical Group, will receive $75 million upfront and could be eligible for $1.53 billion in milestones and other payments, plus royalties.
SIM0660 is currently in early-stage clinical trials evaluating safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy in B cell-mediated diseases, a Roche spokesperson told BioSpace. This includes newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma. The focus of the Simcere collaboration will be on malignancies, the spokesperson said.
The therapies could provide an alternative for patients who have already received CD20- or CD19- directed therapies, per Simcere’s Tuesday press release.
SIM0660 was developed using Simcere Zaiming’s T cell engager poly-specific antibody technology. The therapy has one arm that engages the CD3 antigen on T cells. This CD3-engaging arm also has binding domains to interact with the B cell antigens CD79a and CD19, with the therapy intended to trigger cytotoxicity while limiting the cytokine release that can lead to adverse safety events.
Roche has been busy in Asia these past few months. The Simcere partnership is the pharma’s third in the region in just 8 days. Last month, Roche’s Genentech signed a deal worth up to $2.3 billion with Hanmi Pharma to work on a novel therapy for weight loss. A few days later, Genentech announced an up to $1 billion tie up with China’s DualityBio to find new antibody-drug conjugates that can tackle cancer drug resistance.
Simcere Pharmaceutical, too, is no stranger to this type of dealmaking. The conglomerate has signed six out-licensing transactions that could total $6.1 billion if all milestones are met. This includes a January agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim to work on a new inflammatory bowel disease medicine that could be worth up to $1.26 billion.
The United States is likely to announce new banking sanctions related to Iran this week and next, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, adding that Washington was also examining airline leasing companies.
"We are probably going to announce a bank sanction this week, and we will announce one the week after. We are speaking to our allies here, who have all come forward, and we have had a great show of support," Bessent said.
He added that the United States had held private discussions with China over Iran.
