DV Journal

Senate candidate Dave McCormick called for a ban on access to social media for kids under 16.

“A study from the Centers for Disease Control last year found that 20 percent, one-fifth of 12 17-year-old kids have at least one major depressive episode,” McCormick said.  “Researchers such as Jonathan Haidt have documented how addictive using social media is. It’s a major driver of mental health crises.”

McCormick spoke at an America’s Future Tour event in Springfield hosted by Delaware County GOP Chair Frank Agovino. Fox News journalist Mary Katharine Ham, interviewed McCormick.

McCormick supports a federal school choice bill, the Educational Choice for Children Act. This would create a federal tax credit for businesses and citizens that provide money for scholarships for children in failing schools to move to better schools.

“Sen. Casey won’t support this legislation. He’s against giving kids in failing schools the ability to move to the school of their choice. And that’s because Sen. Casey is beholden to the same teachers’ unions that kept our kids out of the classroom for years during COVID,” said McCormick.

Dave McCormick

“Here’s what really made me angry. Sen. Casey went to parochial school. Yet he opposes giving his constituents in failing public schools the same opportunity. Pennsylvania deserves a senator who supports school choice because choosing where your child goes to school should not be a privilege that’s only reserved for the wealthy and well-connected parents.”

“We need to shake things up in a big way,” he said.  The tax money should go with the child. “The beauty of that is it will increase competition…It’s going to be disruptive as hell, and it needs to be.”

In a wide-ranging policy talk, McCormick spoke about helping families at all stages of people’s lives, from subsidies for faith-based childcare, better access to healthcare for mothers and senior citizens, and more mental health care for veterans.

“Only 33 percent of Black children and 55 percent of Hispanic children grow up in two-parent families,” he said. “Kids in a single-parent home are five times more likely to live in poverty, more likely to have behavior issues, more likely to drop out of school.”

This is “leaving the American Dream out of reach for more and more families,” he said.  “Children who are born to parents in the bottom fifth of family incomes have a 46 percent chance of remaining in the bottom fifth their whole lives and only a 3 percent chance of getting to the top fifth.”

“And Americans are even having fewer babies despite surveys showing that women wish they could have more. America cannot be strong if our families are weak.  And if our families are in decline, America will decline.  And we can’t let that happen.”

“For far too long, career politicians in Washington have made it harder, not easier, for working families in Pennsylvania,” he said. “Inflation is driving up grocery bills, the cost of housing, and other essentials. Childcare. It’s gotten so expensive it’s out of reach for many families.”

Mary Katharine Ham

“Under the watch of President Biden and Pennsylvania’s liberal Sen. Bob Casey, these problems are getting worse, not better. After 18 years in Washinton, Sen. Casey has not been a proactive leader. He’s been a rubber stamp liberal who votes with President Biden 98 percent of the time.”

McCormick wants to make it easier for couples to start families.

He said the average cost of having a child is $19,000, including $3,000 out of pocket.  The average middle-class family spends $13,000 in a child’s first year.

“We need to make contraceptives more accessible and affordable for women so they can have children when they’re ready,” said McCormick. “I’ll always support access to in vitro fertilization to enable parents across our country to welcome children.”

When he was the CEO of Bridgewater, the company helped pay for fertility services for employees.  “As your senator, I will oppose any effort to restrict IVF. Period,” said McCormick.

“Every family should get a $15,000 tax credit for fertility expenses, like IVF,” McCormick said.  He would also promote adoption services, making the adoption tax credit created by the Trump tax plan fully refundable.

“It’s unacceptable that the United States has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world among wealthy nations,” he said. “The U.S. birth rate is also at a historic low. 1.6 children per woman. Far below the 2.1 average needed to keep our population in the U.S. from declining.”

“In Pennsylvania, at least five counties have no hospitals,” said McCormick, so women there lack easy access to maternity care.

Far too many Americans with severe mental health crises are not able to get the care they need,” he said. “Fourteen million Americans, approximately, have serious mental illnesses. More than half of them have their needs unmet, veterans in particular, something near and dear to my heart, as a veteran,” said McCormick. Some “22 vets a day take their own lives…Half of the veterans who commit suicide had no mental health treatment. We must expand mental health care for those with serious mental illness by getting rid of Medicaid rules that constrain access to psychiatric (help).”

“We need to support our seniors in retirement,” he said. “Let me be perfectly clear: our government needs to keep its promises to protect Social Security and Medicare.”

“I’ll always put problem-solving over ideology,” he said.

Asked about the additional doctors needed to expand healthcare, McCormick told DVJournal that more doctors and nurses are necessary.

“The nurse shortage, in particular, is really problematic,” he said. “So, it’s part of a skilled worker program to allow people to access healthcare education and encourage them to do it.

“And it’s unbelievable when you look at how long it takes to become a doctor and how hard it is to make ends meet. And they have hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans. So, we’re going to have to support people if they want to become medical professionals and support their education,” said McCormick.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

In 1989, Massi “Joe” Kiani founded Masimo as a literal garage start up in his southern California home. Today, it’s on the 2024 list of top-ranked medical device companies in the world, credited with launching groundbreaking technologies from non-invasive patient monitors to telehealth platforms.

Now, the company faces a challenge to its own health – a takeover bid from a prominent activist investor in a battle experts say will echo beyond the boardroom and Wall Street.

Quentin Koffey of Politan Capital is waging a high-profile proxy battle for control of Masimo. Koffey is seeking to put two more people on Masimo’s board of the directors at the company’s 2024 annual meeting on July 25, giving Politan a majority.

At issue, experts say, is the balance between innovation in a field where new technology can literally save lives, versus shareholder activism that often prioritizes short-term gain.

“It’s good to have shareholders putting pressure on management. But the track record of activists imposing their own plans for reorganizing a public company’s operations isn’t all that great,” said economist Ike Brannon, a former senior adviser for tax policy at the U.S. Treasury.

Masimo allies say that at a time when the company is pushing to pair health tech with consumer tech, outside pressure that slows progress could have real-world impacts on people’s lives.

Even some financial experts agree such pressures brought on by frequent activist interventions — and the potential instability they can bring – can undercut the core mission of healthcare companies to innovate and ensure patient safety.

Activist investors say their pressure is needed to promote efficiency and deliver dividends to investors. Koffey is one of the most aggressive in the field, simultaneously been called “one of the industry’s busiest and biggest activists” and a threat of “dysfunction and chaos.”

According to Masimo, Koffey has an “unprincipled willingness to distort the truth in pursuit of his agenda.”

Of particular concern in the Masimo case is his push to place William Jellison on the board. Koffey claims Jellison, a former executive at medtech company Stryker Corporation, would bring the “medical technology and financial oversight expertise” that Masimo needs, according to a recently filed preliminary proxy statement.

But Jellison hasn’t served as a chief financial officer in the medtech field since 2016. Instead, he has emerged as an activist investor favorite. For example, in March activist investor Caligan Partners placed Jellison on the board of Anika Therapeutics, which makes osteoarthritis knee pain relief injection treatments.

Now Koffey is pushing Jellison on the Masimo board, despite his less-than-stellar record as a fiduciary. For example, he poured nearly $200,000 into investment firm Saddle River Advisors that SEC investigators later described as nothing more than a “Ponzi scheme,” according to public records. Disciplinary actions stemming from misrepresentation to investors in that case, which Jellison appears to have missed, resulted in fines of almost $1.5 million.

Inside Anika Therapeutics, sources say they are concerned about Jellison’s impact on the board. One a senior manager said he recognizes Jellison is “highly knowledgeable” regarding public company financials, but there is “no question whose side he’s on, and it’s not ours. I feel like we have a spy in our midst.”

Another executive at the firm said Jellison “is not what is important. It’s Caligan. Jellison is a proxy.” The activist investor approach is their worst nightmare, the executive said, because if they don’t reach an agreement, “it tears you apart.”

Masimo advocates say this is why investor activism is different when it comes to healthcare and medtech, as opposed to financial services or manufacturing.

When U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark ruled in Masimo’s favor in a 2015 patent case, he wrote that “the undisputed damages evidence was that an entire industry – other than Philips and one Chinese company – took licenses from Masimo for innovative technology that saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars in healthcare costs.”

Will the activist investor model slow, or even stop, the next generation of life-saving innovative technology? That is the issue raised by the proxy fight for Masimo.

The switch from coal to natural gas for power generation has reduced emissions and air pollutants, which has resulted in $450 billion to $1.04 trillion in public health benefits for Pennsylvanians.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition’s results are from data from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and applied U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) spokeswoman said it then used EPA methods to assign a dollar value to each ton of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) reduced. Increased use of natural gas has improved air quality and helped alleviate respiratory ailments, meaning Pennsylvanians are saving healthcare costs, the group said.

The MSC’s findings come in the wake of new power plant emissions standards from the Biden administration that critics fear will jeopardize the reliability of the nation’s power grid and environmental gains by attacking natural gas generating capacity. As of 2032, baseload coal and new gas plants will be required to meet an emission standard equal to installing a carbon capture and sequestration system and running it at 90 percent efficiency.

As shale gas development became prevalent across the commonwealth and in-state natural gas electric generation increased from 5 percent to 59 percent between 2005-2022, emissions believed to contribute to respiratory ailments – NOx and SOx– are down by 81 percent and 93 percent respectively. The MSC said that yields between $7.9-$18.4 billion in NOx and $445.1 billion – $1.02 trillion in SOx cumulative public health benefits for the Keystone State.

“Pennsylvania’s energy leadership with the sustained development of clean natural gas is generating substantial benefits for our environment, economy and, as this data shows, the well-being of our communities,” said MSC President David Callahan. “Thanks to natural gas, Pennsylvanians breathe cleaner air than ever before, directly translating to improved quality of life for our residents.”

According to DEP data, between 2005 and 2022, the last year of available data, 11,127,515 fewer tons of SOx and 1,317,335 fewer tons of NOx were emitted from Pennsylvania’s electric power sector. These air pollutants are commonly associated with respiratory diseases such as asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, and lung cancer.

“I’ve seen similar numbers of reduction throughout the entire PJM grid,” said state Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Bradford). PJM is the company that runs the regional power grid. “It reflects similar results since 2005. Carbon dioxide emissions are down by 43 percent, nitrogen oxide reduced 91 percent, and sulfur dioxide reduced 96 percent.  hose numbers are pretty impressive.”

Pennsylvanians are gaining health benefits from “the conversion to natural gas,” said Yaw, who noted so-called renewables will not keep the grid running efficiently anytime soon.

“Our electricity comes from 60 percent natural gas, 32 percent nuclear, 5 percent coal, and all renewables account for less than 3 percent, and 3 percent includes hydro,” said Yaw. “Those numbers are reflective of the benefits of natural gas. Natural gas is a necessary part (of power generation) if we are going to have any reliability.

“Renewables alone will not power our electricity grid. Those numbers are reflective of the benefits of natural gas in Pennsylvania. What we should be doing is promoting the clean energy of natural gas, exploring natural gas for both industry and electricity generation.”

Sen. Tracy Pennycuick (R-Montgomery) said, “The MSC analysis confirms what we’ve known for years: that Pennsylvania’s abundant supply of natural gas is the cleanest, most affordable, reliable fossil fuel and is less carbon intensive than other sources of energy. Pennsylvania is positioned to be a leader in energy development, production, and distribution. We must unleash our abundant supply of natural gas to further drive our economy and ensure our energy security.”

David Marks, the principal of energy consulting firm PA Energy Fuels, said, “The Marcellus Shale Coalition analysis of the benefits of burning natural gas versus coal for power generation requires a lot of number crunching.  But even without market details, we already know that natural gas burns much cleaner than coal or oil.

“And monetizing carbon emissions can be difficult, as the process is tied to moving targets: the fluctuating market value of carbon credits and the long-term effects on the health of people living in a variety of urban, suburban, and rural areas. This monetization process can also include physical carbon reduction activity including installing expensive infrastructure, identifying and realizing any tangible value including carbon capture and resale, and providing the leadership to manage this efficiently and constructively.

“Natural gas is a fossil fuel,” Marks continued, “though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. Natural gas emits more than 50 percent, and up to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned in new, efficient natural gas-power plants compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. This makes natural gas a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel.

“Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. This makes natural gas, which primarily consists of methane, the cleanest burning fossil fuel. When methane is produced from non-fossil sources such as food and green waste (renewable natural gas), it can literally take carbon out of the air.

“The United States cut its coal power use in half between 2014 and 2022, replacing it with a combination of gas, solar and wind. The decline was largely due to utilities and grid operators relying more on these more efficient natural gas power plants,” said Marks. Not only are gas-fired power plants less expensive to build and operate than coal plants, but the fuel has consistently remained low in price since the Marcellus Phenomenon.  Marcellus production has flooded the market with natural gas, forcing the price down for more than a decade.  he growth of renewable energy has also contributed to coal’s retreat, but not nearly as much as the growth of gas.”

“Natural gas costs less, burns cleaner, is less expensive for power generation, and has always been a healthier alternative to burning coal or oil,” he added.

In Pennsylvania, America’s second-largest natural gas producing state, gas use in the electric power sector led to the largest year-over-year carbon emissions decline on record. Overall, carbon emissions from the state’s power sector are down 46 percent compared to peak 2005 levels. That is equivalent to removing 12.5 million cars from the road for a year – or removing every car in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and several neighboring states combined, the MSC said.

“The undeniable consumer, environmental and energy security gains afforded by Pennsylvania’s natural gas abundance should serve as a wakeup call for those convinced natural gas should not have a role in our future energy mix,” Callahan concluded.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

When President Joe Biden took office, he embarked on a multi-trillion-dollar spending spree. It contributed mightily to an inflation spike of 9.1 percent in June 2022, the highest rate in more than 40 years.

In response, the Biden administration hit the panic button, only to come up with an even worse solution: Another multi-trillion-dollar spending spree. This time, the president rebranded a bloated package of bills that Democrats had already been struggling to pass, christening it the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

That wishful name certainly didn’t stop inflation, which is headed upward again this year. What it did do is deliver a slew of economically illiterate Democratic priorities, including several that were sold to the public as ways to lower healthcare costs for patients.

But the real-world impacts of the now two-year-old law tell a different story.

Case in point: monthly premiums for Medicare Part D. Part D is the insurance program that provides prescription drug coverage to more than 50 million older Americans. The IRA made structural changes to Part D that have caused premiums to skyrocket. These massive price hikes are likely to cancel out much — if not all — of the “savings” seniors were promised.

Seniors have seen a 21 percent increase, on average, in premiums for standalone prescription drug plans in 2024. And at three major Medicare insurance providers — Cigna, Humana, and Aetna — premiums have gone up by 33 percent to 57 percent in a single year. It would certainly upset family finances if the cost of groceries or gasoline went up that much in just 12 months, and health insurance is no different.

Worse, in 2025, Medicare premiums will almost certainly get even more expensive as the administration’s new policies take full effect. One analysis projects a staggering increase of nearly 50 percent next year.

This kind of hit to household budgets would be hard to bear at any time, but this moment is especially inopportune. Older people have watched their savings accounts shrink in value after multiple years of inflation. And many live on fixed incomes, so they’re among the hardest hit by the rising cost of living. It’s no wonder that high monthly premiums are among enrollees’ top complaints about Medicare, along with cost-sharing requirements for doctor visits and other medical charges.

The tragic irony of the IRA “reforms” is that aside from concerns about price, Medicare patients are generally satisfied with the program. They enjoy having the flexibility to choose among a variety of Part D plans. But the number of standalone plans has fallen to an all-time low, which means some seniors will struggle to find one that fits their needs and offers an affordable premium.  In short, through bad policy and deceptive rhetoric, Democrats are making Medicare less popular and more expensive.

Clearly, Biden’s strategy for lowering healthcare costs isn’t working. His administration should rip it up and start again.

Does the ownership of a hospital matter to patients? Is it better to have a for-profit hospital serve residents than no hospital at all? These issues are under consideration in the state Senate.

A group of Democratic senators is proposing to ban for-profit healthcare facilities in the state, claiming that profit-seeking hospitals are laying siege to healthcare in Delaware County and the rest of Pennsylvania.

SB546 would, if passed, “prohibit for-profit entities from owning or managing hospitals in Pennsylvania,” the senators said in a sponsorship memorandum.

The legislative effort began last year with a bill that ultimately died in committee. Its passage this year would “allow for better management and organizational practices for hospital systems, lower healthcare costs for Pennsylvanians, accessible healthcare for constituents,” the senators claim.

In their memorandum, the senators cited Crozer Health’s 2022 closing of Delaware County’s Memorial Hospital, a decision that generated considerable controversy in the region. An appeals court just last month said the closure could proceed.

“Prospect Medical Holdings, the private equity firm that purchased Crozer Health, has a history of acquiring hospitals, siphoning funds from the hospitals to generate substantial owner dividends, and then selling the hospital and health system real estate assets in sale-leaseback agreements to pay for extraction of wealth,” the senators claim in the memo.

Crozer Health announced last year that it would move to turn the hospital into a mental health facility, arguing the project would “align with patient-centric care, focused on essential services, and expanded behavioral health care access and services.”

None of the senators listed on the memoranda—John Kane, Timothy Kearney, Anthony Williams, and Amanda Cappelletti—responded to requests for comment on the bill, which has been referred to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee.

The bill’s text bluntly states: “A for-profit entity may not own or manage a hospital or health system in this Commonwealth.”

Healthcare economist Robert Graboyes of RFGCounterpoint isn’t impressed by the plan.

“To some ears, a ban on for-profit hospitals sounds like a good idea. But in reality, it’s an unusually crude policy action, and one that would most likely prove counterproductive in terms of costs, service, and quality,” he told DVJournal.

Liam Migdail, a spokesman for the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, said “investor-owned hospitals” play “a crucial role in providing high-quality care for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians each year.”

“Pennsylvania does not have a comprehensive public hospital system, which means privately operated hospitals and health systems provide emergency care and other services that are vital to Pennsylvanians,” Migdail said.

“It’s important that hospitals have the flexibility to operate with the ownership structure that best supports their ability to care for patients, innovate, and remain financially viable,” he added.

“There are numerous state and federal safeguards to protect competition and patient care. HAP opposes legislation that would prohibit investor-owned hospitals.”

The senators’ memo also cited the closure of Philadelphia’s Hahnemann Hospital, which they claim “was bought and driven into the ground by a private equity firm.”

Hahnemann, which opened in 1852, closed in doors in 2019 after private equity investor Joel Freedman announced a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing and asset liquidation. Freedman had owned American Academic Health System, a subsidiary of which had owned Hahnemann.

Hahnemann was known for decades for its treatment of lower-income patients, including many Medicaid users. Following the bankruptcy, at the outset of the COVID pandemic, Freedman—who retained ownership of the property itself—attempted to rent it out to the city for $1 million per month, though ultimately, the deal was called off.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Among the most striking effects of the overhead built into the annual national cost of our dysfunctional healthcare system has been the outsourcing to China of the manufacture of many pharmaceuticals and medical supplies used here at home.

Part of that historic shift has been a change in the sourcing of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) that go into our medicines and vitamins. In the 1990s, 90 percent of the world’s APIs came from the U.S., Europe, and Japan. China is now the largest global supplier of APIs.

The effect on the quality of the supplies in America’s medicine chest has been alarming. Shortages and contaminated products are chronic and constitute a slowly unfolding healthcare crisis for the United States. But a national security threat of incalculable measure has developed out of our country’s reliance on China for drugs, protective equipment, and medical supplies.

By driving up all of the costs of needless overhead in our healthcare system, we compelled our manufacturing sector to seek lower labor costs in China. We now see that this manufacturing must be brought home or placed within the borders of staunch allies. Despite the many obstacles that stand in the way of doing that, it would be a supreme, historic folly to delay. We cannot wait until the next pandemic to address this threat.

In 2022, China has become the source of approximately 40 percent of the world’s Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), the chemical building blocks that are critical to making drugs. Few in the United States, even among physicians, are fully aware of just how drastic our dependence has become.

Here are just a few examples. Approximately 97 percent of antibiotics used in the United States, including drugs as basic as penicillin and amoxicillin, now come from China. And almost all of the contrast dye needed for many diagnostic procedures originates in a single facility in Shanghai, which recently closed because of a COVID-related lockdown. Putting all our eggs in one or a few baskets concerning medically related supplies demonstrated severe consequences, as across the United States, physicians now warn that rationed and deferred diagnostic procedures as a result of this closure, will inevitably have medically unfortunate consequences.

Much of the personal protective equipment (PPE), so much in the forefront of the news during the worst of the pandemic in 2020, also originates in China. The country where the pandemic erupted suddenly needed the PPE in short supply in the United States.

But of equal seriousness to the risks associated with reductions in or cutoffs of these desperately needed supplies exported from China is the chronically vexing question of the quality and safety of those exports.

A few examples:

Chinese-made KN95 masks were found to be substandard during the pandemic. Just before COVID-19 struck, eight million Chinese-made surgical gowns were recalled for not having been produced under sterile conditions.

In 2019, three commonly used blood pressure medications manufactured in China were found to be tainted with carcinogens.

In 2008, news reports compelled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to acknowledge that 81 deaths from contaminated heparin—made in China and sold worldwide—had been produced in a facility the FDA had not inspected. 81 Given the dramatic shift by the United States to foreign-made medications and supplies, it is not surprising that the FDA has struggled to keep up with its legally required inspections of manufacturing facilities overseas. And when the pandemic hit, inspections stopped.

The implications for public health and national security are staggering. By inspecting only a small fraction of Chinese manufacturing plants and their output, the FDA fails to perform its primary duty of ensuring drug and product safety. This puts Americans in harm’s way.

Medications with ingredients from China are used in the United States for routine surgeries, common and less-common infections, psychiatric disorders, cancer, and seizures. Those with chronic diseases who must take medication and the young who have years ahead of taking these medications are most at risk of developing cancers and other long-term complications from possibly tainted products that have not yet been detected.

In May 2020, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced the bipartisan “Strengthening Supply Chains for Service Members and Security Act” (H.R.6374). The bill would implement the recommendations from a previous Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DOD OIG) report to address the nation’s overreliance on foreign-made pharmaceuticals.

Tariffs imposed during the Trump years and sustained, at least so far, by the Biden administration were a step in the direction of stimulating domestic production of the class of products discussed above.

America must reclaim the manufacture of its medical supplies and critical drugs made from safe APIs. Those who shape our trade policy and create the ground rules that have driven the decisions of American corporations to send manufacturing abroad must act now to reverse course. The FDA must strengthen its staffing for auditing foreign manufacturers that are significant vendors in our supply chain.  Any foreign country’s refusal to allow free and timely access to production facilities must be fined and either suspended or terminated as a vendor.

The proverbial Sword of Damocles dangles above us. To the greatest degree and by any policy and regulatory means, including taxation rates, the United States must bring home the production of the ingredients that go into a revitalized domestic manufacture of the tools we use to care for our sick. Posthaste.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Crozer Health, a health system serving Pennsylvania’s Delaware County and region, announced various changes Wednesday, including that Delaware County Memorial Hospital will switch to a behavioral health institution by spring 2023.

Other hospitals owned by the company will also be modified to “provide healthcare access and services based on post-pandemic operational realities and community needs,” Crozer said in a press release. “Crozer Health’s new service offerings will align with patient-centric care, focused on essential services, and expanded behavioral health care access and services.”

“Members of Delaware County Council met with senior leaders of Crozer Health on September 20, 2022, to learn of their reorganizational plan,” said Adrienne Marofsky, a spokeswoman for Delaware County.  “The plan includes elements that are responsive to the needs of County residents. However, there is a range of unanswered questions, including what role Crozer Health’s for-profit corporate parent, Prospect Medical Holdings, will play.  While this plan aims to stabilize the system, Council is concerned that the proposed plan may limit access to health care in the eastern Delaware County communities,” she said.

“The health and safety of residents is a main priority to council, and the county will continue its focus on ensuring that a wide range of health services and options remain available to Delaware County residents. All residents deserve access to quality healthcare,” she said.

The plan will require approval by the Department of Health and other agencies before implementation.

The plan highlights include:  Crozer Health’s Springfield campus will begin serving as an outpatient facility by the end of 2022. This will provide the community with a variety of outpatient services. These will include urgent care, advanced surgical care, and outpatient services ranging from rehabilitation to diagnostic imaging. The campus will continue hosting primary and specialty care physician group practices.

At Delaware County Memorial Hospital campus in Drexel Hill more than 100 patient beds will be dedicated to behavioral health services, including a crisis care unit, inpatient acute psychiatric care, acute detox/rehabilitation, and geropsychiatry/senior behavioral health. All other services, including the former Emergency Department, will be discontinued within 60 days to begin renovations for this transformation.

“This opening of behavioral health beds and services will aid in the behavioral health crisis in the county and the region,” the release said

Crozer-Chester Medical Center campus in Upland will continue as the system’s academic and tertiary center for advanced clinical care.

“We are committed to caring for those facing acute medical care needs in a variety of areas through our Level II Trauma Center, Nathan Speare Regional Burn Treatment Center, Neurosciences Institute, women’s health/obstetrics services, and Level III neonatal intensive care,” the release said. “Here, our highly qualified doctors, nurses, and care teams provide the highest quality care for a wide range of acute care medical and surgical conditions. As a teaching hospital and regional medical campus for Drexel University College of Medicine, our physicians train the next generation of healthcare providers through our residency programs, fellowships, and allied health programs.

“The campus also hosts an ambulatory care pavilion and professional office building with primary care and specialty care group practices,” the release said.

Taylor Hospital campus in Ridley Park will continue to serve the community focusing on excellent patient experience and outcomes. The campus has a busy emergency department, robust inpatient rehabilitation unit and adult inpatient medical and surgical services, and intensive care.

Crozer Health Medical Group, the employed medical group of Crozer Health, will continue to focus on population health initiatives to improve the health of patients and the community. The medical group will coordinate an aggressive recruitment effort to align with these essential services and population health-based planning and implementation including additional primary care and behavioral health providers and staff, the release said.

“What we’ve done is assess what those needs are in partnership with physicians, the community, and local leaders,” said Crozer Health CEO Anthony Esposito. “Through this engagement, we determined that access to community-based, high-quality, safe, and effective services are key to being responsive to the community while also addressing the changing nature of healthcare today.”

“We’ve looked at how we can provide better access to care for our patients, especially the most vulnerable, while not ignoring the pressures hospitals are facing in this post-pandemic world. We will refine alternate care models and technology to enhance this access, “said Dina Capalongo, DO, MBA, Crozer Health’s Chief Medical Officer.

Nathan Okechukwu, MD, Crozer Health’s President of Clinical Operations and Chair, Department of Medicine, added: “Our Crozer Health hospitals, behavioral health facilities, and outpatient campus services will remain accessible when and where it counts with a focus to timely and highly reliable care.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act — now being called the “Climate, Healthcare, and Taxes Act” by some — on Tuesday, drawing mixed reactions. Whether it would help or hurt Americans depended on party affiliation.

The mammoth $739 bill will impose a minimum of 15 percent in corporate taxes and a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. It will also unleash 87,000 new IRS agents, cap insulin costs for Medicare recipients, and shovel billions in tax subsidies to “green” projects.

“Hide your wallet! The left’s behemoth tax hike and spending law will do nothing to help struggling Americans,” said Brooke Rollins, president and CEO of America First Policy Institute. “It will only make a bad situation worse. Americans deserve prosperity, economic growth, and energy independence — and that’s exactly what they aren’t getting from the Biden administration. Now, out-of-touch liberals in Washington, D.C. are delivering tax hikes, more reckless spending, and an army of 87,000 IRS bureaucrats to grab more from families who have less. Recently, 369 economists signed a letter organized by AFPI that expresses how this bill will worsen inflation.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) released this statement when the Senate passed the bill. “Last year, Democrats jammed through trillions of dollars in reckless spending that fueled the worst inflation in 40 years. Now, Democrats insist on pouring fuel on the fire with another partisan tax-and-spending spree that will only further exacerbate a recession we’re already likely in.

“To fund new ‘green’ corporate welfare and give Obamacare subsidies to wealthy Americans, this legislation forces short-sighted tax hikes on American businesses and imposes innovation-crippling price controls on life-saving medicines. And contrary to the bill’s name, non-partisan analysts have confirmed that it does nothing to alleviate the inflation tax Americans are feeling every day,” said Toomey.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery) tweeted after the House approved the proposal, “We’ve passed the Inflation Reduction Act! For families, seniors, and our future. That’ll lower health care costs, cut prescription drug prices, including capping Medicare insulin at $35 — and the largest investment in our climate. We all should be proud of this work.”

After voting for the bill, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware/Philadelphia) said, “The Inflation Reduction Act is a historic victory for Pennsylvania families and for our planet: delivering the investments we need to keep down health care costs, reinvigorate American manufacturing, and drive our transition to a clean energy economy. Importantly, the bill is fully paid for by ensuring that corporations can’t dodge their taxes – while ensuring that not one middle-class Pennsylvanian or small business pays a cent more in taxes. This legislation is a monumental step forward in House Democrats’ fight to build a fairer, cleaner economy, as we remain committed to putting People Over Politics: lowering costs, creating better-paying jobs, and building safer communities for all.”

Dave Galluch, the Republican running against Scanlon, said, “Despite its name, the bill does little for working families. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has said the bill ‘will, in fact, have a minimal impact on inflation.’ That sentiment is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). So, we must ask – how does spending an additional $700 billion, raising taxes on working families, and hiring more IRS agents bring down inflation? Without mentioning spiraling costs for families, my opponent Mary Gay Scanlon celebrates this bill as the ‘the largest-ever federal effort on climate change.’ The legislation primarily consists of subsidies for green technology like solar panels and electric vehicles. Yet the average cost of installation for solar panels is nearly $20,000. The $4,000 and $7,500 tax credits for used and new electric vehicles will do little to reduce a current average price of roughly $66,000.

“This bill does nothing to help those struggling in the Fifth Congressional District now. It is another example of failed, out-of-touch leadership we must move on from this November,” Galluch said.

Guy Ciarrocchi, the Republican running for Congress against Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester) said, “The number one issue for everyone is Inflation. That’s why I would have been an emphatic “No” vote on Biden’s so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act.’ From Wharton to CBS, analysts have stated that the spending bill won’t lower inflation—in fact, it might make inflation worse.

“What we need is $2 gas; yet, Houlahan gives us 87,000 more IRS agents, who will harass small businesses and families. She won’t help us; so, I’m running to fix this mess,” he said.

But Democrat National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison said, “President Biden and Democrats have delivered – and today, the American people won and the special interests lost. Today, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, taking the action the American people are looking for to lower the costs of prescription drugs, energy, and health care. It will also reduce the deficit — helping fight inflation. On top of that, this bill will take aggressive action to fight the climate crisis that will create jobs and increase our energy security.”

Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) said on Facebook before the bill passing the House: “The reconciliation bill coming to the House floor tomorrow adds $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service – nearly six times the agency’s current annual budget – and adds 87,000 new IRS enforcement personnel to pursue taxpayers, including the middle class.

“Wouldn’t we be better off hiring 87,000 new school resource officers and police officers to keep our schools and our communities safe?” Fitzpatrick asked.

American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers said, “While the Inflation Reduction Act takes important steps toward new oil and gas leasing and investments in carbon capture and storage, it falls well short of addressing America’s long-term energy needs and further discourages needed investment in oil and gas. API shares the goal of addressing climate change, as evidenced in the policies we support and in the actions that our industry is taking every day. However, the considerable tax increases are simply the wrong policies at the wrong time.

“From a new corporate minimum tax to an $11.7 billion tax on crude oil and petroleum products to a new natural gas tax, this legislation imposes additional costs on American families and businesses at a time when policymakers should be looking for solutions to provide relief.

“The bill also fails to address permitting reform, which is essential to effectively delivering affordable, reliable energy to consumers in a growing economy,” said Sommers.

“Without a comprehensive plan for critical investment in American oil and natural gas and associated infrastructure, which provide nearly 70 percent of our country’s energy needs, the American people will continue to bear the brunt of short-sighted policies in Washington,” he said.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Comedian-turned-progressive-activist Jon Stewart launched a profanity-laced tirade against Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and other Republicans over a healthcare bill that would provide care for veterans exposed to toxic fumes from burn pits.

“The Senate’s where accountability goes to die,” Stewart said. “These people don’t care. They’re never losing their jobs. They’re never losing their healthcare. Pat Toomey didn’t lose his job. He’s walking away. God knows what kind of pot of gold he’s stepping into to lobby this government to s**t on more people.”

But is that the real story?

No, says Toomey, who has repeatedly said he wants to support the PACT Act, but objects to Democrats using the legislation to create a $400 billion expense that would continue past the needs of the veterans it is designed to address.

“The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from the discretionary to the mandatory spending category. This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans,” Toomey said in a statement.

On July 11, Toomey said on the Senate floor the existing law requires the Veterans Administration to spend about $400 billion over the next 10 years on healthcare for veterans exposed to toxins during their service. The bill includes $280 billion in new spending. The $400 billion is discretionary spending, which has a cap.

The new legislation would put the $280 billion into the mandatory spending column, where it could live long after the veterans are cared for.

“What’s really outrageous is they take the $400 billion out of discretionary spending to mandatory spending,” Toomey said. “Why would they do that?”

“That way you create a big gaping hole in the discretionary spending category,” he said. “Which can be filled with another $400 billion of totally unrelated spending. Who knows on what?”

“We’ve got inflation that hitting a 40-year high. We’ve got a government that’s been spending billions of dollars, printing the money to spend, and everybody sees it every day, at the pump, at the grocery store, everywhere. And what this gimmick does is, it makes it possible to spend yet another $400 billion.”

Stewart remained unappeased.

“Patriot Pat Toomey stood on the floor and said, ‘This is a slush fund,’” said Stewart. “‘They’re gonna use $400 billion to spend on whatever they want.’ That’s nonsense. I call bulls**t. This isn’t a slush fund.”

Now Pennsylvania’s other Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, is also getting into the fray.

“This bill is essential to meet our obligations to fulfill our promise to them. These veterans already fulfilled their promise. They served their country in a war zone,” Casey said. “They could have been killed by combat fire. But even If they weren’t killed by combat fire they’re exposed to burn pits. We’ve got to provide them healthcare. If we don’t do this, what kind of a country are we?

“Who do we claim to be if we’re not going to do this? There are 14 members of the Senate who are against this. They’re holding up the bill because they don’t want to spend this money. It’s as simple as that.

“All we’ve got to do in the Senate is put our hand up. And say ‘yes.’ That’s pretty damn easy. Put your damn hand up,” Casey added.

Toomey’s spokesperson noted to Delaware Valley Journal, “This wasn’t even in the House committee version. This gimmick would allow for an additional $400 billion in future discretionary spending completely unrelated to veterans over the next 10 years.

“Sen. Toomey’s technical fix does not reduce spending on veterans by even $1 or affect the expansion of care and benefits in the underlying bill. All Sen. Toomey has asked for is that the legislation to spend $280 billion on an expansion of veterans benefits, all classified as mandatory and un-offset, does not also include a transfer of current law (non-PACT Act) spending to mandatory that would enable $400 billion of spending on things completely unrelated to veterans.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Despite the five-year survival rate for men being diagnosed with the disease being greater than 99 percent if the cancer is detected during the early stage, the American Cancer Society found recently that almost 5,400 Black men died from prostate cancer in 2019 alone – a rate 2.2 times higher than that of white men.

With research finding Black Americans were more likely than other groups to put off medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of African American men dying from prostate cancer is likely even higher today. This is unacceptable, and we need to start thinking seriously about ways we can prevent Black men from needlessly dying of this curable form of cancer.

A number of prominent names in the Black community have already dedicated their voices and personal funds to combatting this form of cancer – billionaire investor Robert F. Smith has donated millions of his money to the cause; actor and singer Harry Belafonte has shared his personal battle with the disease; and comedians Cedric The Entertainer, Chris Tucker, and Steve Harvey have all become vocal advocates in the battle against prostate cancer. The greater public, however, has remained sadly aloof to this remediable cancer that has ravaged the Black community.

It is well known that decades of structural racism have led Black Americans to experience higher rates of poor health and disease in a range of health conditions ranging from asthma and hypertension to diabetes and heart disease than their white counterparts. And while there are a number of reasons for these sobering figures – environmental issues, certain comorbidities, different molecular pathways in the body of Black men – a great deal of the reason for prostate cancer deaths comes down to the fact that Black men are disproportionately not being screened for the disease as early or as regularly as white men.

A recent study published in JAMA Oncology by a team at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center found that Black men get fewer PSA screenings, are more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage cancer, are less likely to have health insurance, have less access to high-quality care and other disparities that can be linked to a lower overall socioeconomic status.

Knowing the heightened risks Black men face and the factors that cause them, we need to be more proactive in reaching out to the Black community to educate men on the threat prostate cancer poses and help them get screened for the disease. While remedying all the vast health disparities communities of color in the United States face is a daunting task, helping prevent Black men from dying of a treatable form of cancer is both a worthy and realistic goal.

There are already groups and individuals already working on doing this who can act as guideposts for how to successfully tackle this form of cancer. For example, Mount Sinai Medical Center recently unveiled the Robert F. Smith Mobile Prostate Cancer Screening Unit, which will visit New York City neighborhoods where men could be at a higher risk of developing prostate cancer.

The mobile home-sized bus, which is named after the African American venture capitalist who donated almost $4 million to create the vehicle, takes a preemptive approach to combatting the scourge of prostate cancer by going directly into the communities most affected by the disease.

Smith’s mobile screening unit is a great start, but it is imperative we create more solutions like this – both on a private level and in conjunction with state and federal governments.

Without more directed outreach and a proactive approach to screenings from public health officials, the glaring disparities that Black men face when it comes to prostate cancer will continue to exist.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal