DV Journal

Coming off the heels of National Women’s Health Week, it’s a good time to reflect not only on how far we’ve come in advancing the health and well-being of women and girls but also on the policies that will determine where we go from here. As someone who cares deeply about the strength and resilience of my community, I believe we have a responsibility to speak up when misguided decisions in Washington threaten to undermine innovation and access.

One of the most pressing concerns I see on the horizon is the proposed “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) pricing model for prescription drugs. At first glance, the idea might sound reasonable, but when you look more closely, it becomes clear that this is a deeply flawed and potentially harmful policy that doesn’t address the real drivers of high drug prices and could do lasting damage to patients and innovation.

Much like the pricing provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, MFN policy takes aim at the researchers and developers who bring new treatments to market, rather than tackling the actual middlemen in our healthcare system who drive up prices. These middlemen, known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), play a major role in determining what drugs are covered by insurance, how much patients pay out of pocket, and how much pharmacies are reimbursed. They negotiate significant rebates and discounts with drug manufacturers, but those savings rarely make it to the patient.

PBMs operate with little transparency or accountability. While they claim to help control costs, their incentives are often misaligned with the needs of patients. Instead of prioritizing access, they focus on maximizing their own profits. That’s why patients continue to struggle with high out-of-pocket costs, restricted formularies, and surprise denials, even when their medications are supposed to be covered.

The MFN model does nothing to address this. Instead, it risks discouraging investment in the very research and development efforts that lead to new cures and treatments. This is particularly troubling for women, who are more likely to suffer from chronic illnesses, more likely to be caregivers, and more likely to delay or forgo care due to cost. If the MFN model were to take effect, it could make it harder for patients to access the medications they need, not just now, but in the future, as fewer new treatments come to market.

Women and girls deserve a healthcare system that works for them, one that supports innovation and ensures access to life-changing therapies. Women face unique and complex medical needs that require continued investment in cutting-edge science. We should be doing everything we can to support the next breakthrough, not creating barriers that slow it down or stop it altogether.

Price-setting policies might save the government money on paper, but at what cost? We risk losing the momentum we’ve built in medical innovation, especially for rare diseases and conditions that primarily affect women and underserved populations. Slashing reimbursements or tying prices to other countries’ health systems doesn’t just jeopardize innovation; it puts patient access and outcomes at risk.

There is a better way forward. If policymakers are serious about lowering costs for patients, they should focus on meaningful PBM reform. There is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address PBMs and bring more transparency to the medical market. Reforming this system would do far more to reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients than sweeping price control policies that could lead to delays or shortages.

We can’t afford to make the same mistakes again. The MFN model is a distraction from the real issues and a step in the wrong direction. Let’s focus our energy on reforms that actually help patients by ensuring they can access the care they need, when they need it.

President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are correct that the national debt has reached catastrophic proportions and must be addressed. We’re now spending more on interest payments for the national debt than on the military, a situation that is untenable and hinders economic growth, potentially posing a threat to our national security if left unaddressed.

For decades, conservative economists have argued for solving this problem by reducing spending. That’s still the best path forward, but Congress continues to try to take shortcuts to restore fiscal sanity.

Employer-provided healthcare has been a tradition since World War II. Today, nearly two-thirds of working-age Americans participate in employer-provided health plans, which typically cover the families of workers, resulting in a total of almost 180 million individuals, or approximately half of the U.S. population.

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer health insurance. Employers who provide health insurance pay between $7,000 and $17,000 annually per employee for coverage, and employees generally contribute a part of this amount.

The average employer contribution is $8,526; the average employee’s share is $6,717. Although these figures reflect individual plans, companies pay much more to cover the families of their workers. The government rewards employers and employees by exempting the income that goes to premiums from taxation.

Now, rather than find the spending cuts lawmakers promised they would locate on the campaign trail, lawmakers are trying to figure out a way to tax employer-provided health plans. The current proposal would cap or limit the tax deduction for employer-sponsored health coverage. If premiums exceeded a given threshold, the amount over the threshold would be taxable.

Proponents like the idea for the same reason Willie Sutton liked banks — because that’s where the money is. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the government lost $300 billion in payroll and income taxes die to these exemptions in 2022. Some libertarians say the tax break fuels excessive coverage and medical spending.

The fact is the tax exemption for employer-sponsored health coverage is sound public policy. It encourages employers to provide adequate coverage and employees to remain employed and covered by sufficient health insurance, thereby keeping their families safe from relying on the government for medical care.

The Trump tax cuts of 2017 were popular for one big reason — they were tax cuts. Imposing a new de facto tax hike on employees who have employer-provided healthcare would be a big political mistake when Republicans are looking toward a challenging 2026 election cycle.

We’re nearly a quarter of the way through this Congress, and re-election campaigns will ramp up in the new year. What Republican thinks it’s a good idea that they go into that new year trying to explain why, in the course of trying to extend tax cuts, we ended up with dramatically more expensive or even unavailable healthcare plans?

Republicans would make better use of their time by finding the cuts they promised during their campaigns last year. Do the hard work. Skip the gimmicks. This one, in particular, could mean an electoral wipeout.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce poll from 2022 found 96 percent of Americans thought it was important for companies to provide health insurance, 54 percent were not just satisfied but highly satisfied with their plans, and 70 percent agreed health insurance was worth the cost. Will they continue to say these things in these numbers if that income becomes taxed and employers respond by pulling back or slimming down on their offerings?

The time for healthcare transparency has finally arrived. The American people elected President Donald Trump for a second time, and now he can finish what he started.

President Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Mehmet Oz’s leadership can breathe new life into our healthcare system by fighting for transparency, a virtue that has surely been lacking in it. They will give power back to patients and challenge the dogmas of our healthcare system, which is dominated by corporate interests and bureaucratic red tape.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long advocated for healthcare reform, but his push for price transparency represents one of his most critical battles. Under the current system, healthcare pricing is notoriously opaque. From hospital bills to prescription costs, the average American has little idea of what they’re actually paying for until they get hit with a surprise bill. RFK Jr. has made it clear that this system is broken and that it’s time for a change.

Price transparency in healthcare will allow Americans to shop around for services, compare prices, and make informed choices about where and how they get treated. It will force hospitals and insurance companies to compete based on price, which is a win for everyone. In a world where most goods, from cars to groceries, are transparent, healthcare should be no different.

The Trump administration must also keep Americans informed with clear, accessible information about their health. One area where transparency is sorely needed is in the realm of medication information. For example, the Biden administration introduced a proposed regulation to push printed Patient Medication Information (PMI) – the instruction leaflets patients need to take their medications safely – to a digital-only format. In addition, the Obama administration proposed a regulation to allow pharmaceutical manufacturers to utilize digital labeling in lieu of FDA required printed Prescribing Information (PI). This is all in the name of sustainability, not patient safety.

The push for digital-only PMI and PI is a grave mistake. It leaves too many people, especially the elderly, rural residents, orthodox religious communities, and those without reliable internet access, at a severe disadvantage. Printed medication guides are immediate, accessible, and reliable. Without printed information, many communities would fall victim to medication nonadherence, which already kills 125,000 Americans annually. Through RFK Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, Trump could lead the way by rescinding both the digital PMI and PI regulations and protecting transparent printed resources for vulnerable patient populations.

As head of CMS, Dr. Mehmet Oz can also contribute to the cause. He has consistently been a voice of reason, calling out the healthcare establishment for its lack of transparency, particularly when it comes to drug prices. Oz can lower drug prices and promote transparency through Medicare drug price negotiations. Right now, Big Pharma controls the pricing of life-saving medications, and too many seniors are paying the price. Dr. Oz can make a difference in a market without much competition or transparency. He’s already planned on it.

RFK Jr., Trump, and Dr. Oz all recognize the same truth: Americans deserve a healthcare system that is transparent, accessible, and fair. They know that a system built on secrecy and complexity only serves the interests of insurance companies, Big Pharma, and bureaucrats. It doesn’t have to be that way. It’s time to give patients the tools they need to make informed decisions about their health.

We need leaders like RFK Jr., Dr. Oz, and Trump to continue pushing for transparency in every corner of the healthcare system. It’s time to stand up to the bureaucratic giants that put profits ahead of patients and demand a system that works for the American people.

President Trump’s new tariffs on China are critical in bolstering America’s healthcare security and supply chain resilience. While some healthcare organizations have voiced concerns, these new measures and additional targeted tariffs are not just essential but urgent for protecting our national interests and ensuring a stable supply of critical medical products.

Public opinion is behind the president’s actions. A dozen public opinion surveys recently audited by the New York Times found that polling tends to be split evenly on new tariffs. Yet, support dramatically shifts in favor of tariffs when directed at China.

Leading Group Purchasing Organizations and medical product distributors invest heavily in growth and acquisitions, celebrating soaring stock values. These same organizations could strategically allocate resources to bolster domestic production and forge alliances with American manufacturers. This approach could reduce reliance on imports and mitigate the effect of tariffs altogether.

The tariffs will incentivize companies to invest in U.S.-based production, reducing our vulnerability to foreign disruptions. In the past decade, in the face of disasters and health emergencies, America has faced severe shortages of critical medical supplies due to over-reliance on Chinese imports. By fostering domestic manufacturing, we can ensure vital medical products are available when we need them most.

Starting March 4, the economic playing field became even more even. The president announced a new 10 percent tariff on all Chinese goods. Once combined with existing tariffs, Chinese medical gloves will be taxed at 70 percent at these new rates, masks and respirators at 45 percent, and syringes at 120 percent. These tariffs are beginning to reverse years of exploitative trade practices by bad actors. The bottom line effect of these tariffs on large healthcare systems is modest compared to the value and security of a domestic supply.

Critics argue that a global supply chain provides redundancy, but the United States’ overdependence on foreign sources exposes it to geopolitical tensions and trade restrictions. For example,  the majority of exam gloves used in America come from Asia or are routed through third-party, non-democratic nations. Building up domestic manufacturing ensures a reliable baseline supply, providing reassurance about the stability of our healthcare supply chain.

This strategic shift enhances national security, boosts the domestic economy, and creates jobs. The administration recognizes that economic incentives are needed to make this transition viable, aligning with bipartisan congressional support for strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities.

While some claim tariffs affect healthcare costs, the long-term benefits outweigh short-term adjustments. Domestic production can stabilize prices and potentially lower the costs of federal healthcare programs like the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid.

This approach contributes to the sustainability of our healthcare system. Over time, stabilizing prices through local production could lower the costs of federal healthcare programs than on unpredictable international markets.

Some healthcare leaders waffle on tariffs and have called for tariff exclusions on critical medical supplies, claiming a lack of quantity of resources needed for the industry. However, an exclusion process has consistently been a loophole that allows companies to continue outsourcing critical manufacturing overseas and curtails investment in domestic manufacturing.

Instead of exclusions, policymakers should focus on providing tax incentives and Medicare payment adjustments for companies willing to invest and manufacture in U.S.-based production facilities. This approach aligns with the broader goal of building a resilient domestic supply chain and ensures that American ingenuity and manufacturing prowess are at the forefront of our healthcare industry.

The healthcare supply chain is too important to leave at the mercy of foreign suppliers whose priorities may not align with ours. Targeted tariffs are a key component of a larger strategy to reduce dependency on imports and ensure American healthcare providers have reliable access to critical supplies.

Trump’s approach will protect American patients and strengthen our national security for years. By reshoring production to the United States, we reduce our exposure to international risks and create a more robust and dynamic domestic manufacturing industry.

This strategy will lead to innovation and significant job creation, fostering a healthcare system that is better prepared to face future challenges. Domestic makers of critical medical supplies stand ready to compete against global competition, so long as it’s a fair fight.

The conversation surrounding healthcare reform has intensified in recent years, revealing deep divides in how we view personal responsibility, government intervention and public health. One of the more recent high-profile debates involves the role of medications used to treat obesity. Within the Trump administration, advisers and Cabinet nominees — who will shape the availability and use of such treatments — have expressed differing views.

With more than 100 million adults in the United States living with obesity, many health advocates are stressing the actual health benefits of weight loss beyond cosmetic concerns. Obesity treatments include GLP-1s, a new class of highly effective, albeit expensive, medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro. Access to these treatments is increasingly seen as essential to empowering patients to take control of their health, improving long-term outcomes, and reducing the burden of preventable and devastating diseases.

With changes in the federal government and relevant policy underway, the administration can score a win for millions by finalizing a proposed rule for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand coverage of anti-obesity medicines. Currently, Medicare has been prohibited from covering weight loss drugs unless they are used to treat conditions such as diabetes or to manage an increased risk of heart disease. States can cover obesity drugs under Medicaid, but most do not.

Addressing the obesity epidemic head-on by expanding access to treatments is the right thing to do, not only morally but also economically.

While obesity affects all demographics at staggering rates, recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlight that underserved communities are most at risk and suffer disproportionately from the consequences. For example, nearly 50 percent of Hispanic adults are classified as obese, contributing to a range of serious health issues, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Some argue that obesity results from individual choices. As such, exercising and a better diet should be the principal fix. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has argued that we should embrace “natural” fixes.

Obesity medications are not a one-size-fits-all solution. They are best used to complement to lifestyle changes rather than replace them. However, studies show that when used appropriately, these medications can lead to significant weight loss, thereby reducing the risk of obesity-related diseases and saving lives and dollars.

According to the CDC, obesity costs the U.S. healthcare system almost $173 billion annually through the treatment of chronic diseases associated with it.  By providing greater access to obesity medications, we can prevent or delay the onset of significant health problems, ultimately reducing hospitalization expenditures and long-term care services. This aligns with CMS’s goals of advancing preventive care and improving health outcomes for all Americans.

This investment pays off in improved patient health outcomes and significant savings for taxpayers. According to a 2023 Joint Economic Committee report, “Obesity will cause $5,155 in average excess medical costs per person suffering from the condition.” These costs correspond to $520 billion in additional healthcare costs in 2023. Because of the immense strain obesity puts on the healthcare system, reducing it would deliver massive savings to taxpayers.

This is responsible governance — a commitment to making choices that ultimately promote fiscal sustainability and public health.

Some skeptics raise valid concerns about the potential for over-prescribing obesity medications and misuse. These points are substantive; they are not reasons to hinder progress. We can implement strong guidelines and training for healthcare providers to ensure these medications are prescribed based on medical necessity and used responsibly, as we currently do with opioids, anti-depressants, diabetes medications and others. Empowering providers with the correct tools helps patients make informed health decisions.

Expanding healthcare coverage for obesity medications should be part of a proper policy focus prioritizing proactive health management. Medicare and Medicaid coverage for obesity drugs would allow the administration to showcase a commonsense and effective healthcare strategy that resonates across the political spectrum.

Preventing costly chronic diseases is a proactive and concrete way to build stronger communities, save taxpayer money long-term, and empower more Americans to improve their health and well-being.

It’s a new year and new Congress. While most legislation we’ll see this term has yet to be introduced, some of the early bills are out of touch with the needs of most Americans. 

Although many voters supported Donald Trump in the hope that he’ll address practical concerns like tightening border security, ending taxes on tips and lowering the price of eggs, some lawmakers are drifting in a distinctly different direction. 

In just the first few weeks of the 119th Congress, members have introduced bills to buy the Panama Canal, seize Greenland, and abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Unfortunately, there’s not much to gain from splashy proposals that will amount to little more than newspaper headlines and partisan bickering. Instead, Congress should work this year to help America’s small businesses thrive.

Supporting entrepreneurs is the perfect mission for Congress, in part because it’s one of the few remaining bipartisan issues. After all, the nation’s more than 34 million small businesses create jobs in every congressional district, employing 59 million Americans from all backgrounds. Most important, small businesses benefit their communities by creating jobs and boosting local economies. That’s why Congress must try to solve some of the biggest problems holding small businesses back: skyrocketing healthcare costs and a tax code that overwhelmingly favors large corporations.

When it comes to healthcare, the problem is straightforward. Small businesses can’t attract and retain top talent without offering healthcare benefits, but they’re struggling to access coverage for employees that is both high quality and affordable. According to Small Business Majority’s research, most small businesses that provide health benefits have been forced into making changes to their health coverage offerings, with 51 percent increasing employee contributions to their health plans, 47 percent moving to an insurance plan offering more limited coverage, 29 percent cutting other employee benefits and 24 percent dropping coverage altogether due to high costs.

Unfortunately, one of the few solutions to this affordability problem is expiring this year. The American Rescue Plan Act increased the amount of premium tax credits available to purchase health plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace, expanding eligibility to individuals with income levels above 400 percent of the federal poverty level. 

The Inflation Reduction Act made these tax credits available through 2025. Notably, small-business owners, their employees and self-employed individuals are significantly more likely to rely on the ACA marketplaces for health coverage. If Congress can’t come to a bipartisan agreement, small-business owners and their employees will shoulder the cost of their inaction through prohibitively high premiums.

When it comes to taxes, we know major changes could be in store this year as key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire, including the Section 199A pass-through standard tax deduction, which allows pass-through entities (about 95 percent of small businesses) to deduct 20 percent of their qualified business income from their federal taxes. The trouble is that this deduction primarily benefits the wealthiest business owners, with 4.5 percent claiming 69.2 percent of all pass-through deduction benefits. While the richest entities claimed an average deduction of over $1 million in 2021, filers with adjusted gross incomes below $100,000 took home an average deduction of just $1,997.

It’s obvious that the 20 percent standard deduction doesn’t help the average Main Street business. Instead, 199A should be reformed so that small businesses can deduct their first $25,000 of qualified income. This would benefit the vast majority of small businesses with a net income of less than $125,000 yearly, leaving them with more money to reinvest in their business. Reducing inequities in our tax code that disadvantage small businesses will ultimately lead to more economic innovation, local job growth and boost the larger economy.

Instead of indulging expansionist fantasies and dismantling entire government agencies, let’s hope Congress uses its power to improve the lives of average Americans, tens of millions of whom are small business owners. After all, when Congress fails to support small businesses, our entire nation suffers — not to mention the fact that voters elected this Congress with the expectation that it would make a positive difference in their bottom lines. Let’s make 2025 the year in which politicians pledge to put some of their differences aside to help more Americans realize their entrepreneurial dreams.

(From a press release)

Pennsylvania has been named one of the top three states in the United States to raise a family in 2025, according to a new report from ConsumerAffairs, earning high marks for education, public safety, and healthcare. Since he took office two years ago, Gov. Josh Shapiro has focused on making Pennsylvania a great place to live, work, and raise a family – and the new report directly credits his work to invest in Pennsylvania’s education system as a key reason why the commonwealth is a great place to raise a family.

“As I travel all across Pennsylvania — no matter if I’m in a rural, urban, or suburban community — people want the same basic things: great schools for their kids and grandkids, safe places to live, good jobs and economic opportunity, and the freedom to chart their own course through life,” said Shapiro. “We focus everyday on getting commonsense stuff done and I’m proud that Pennsylvania is ranked as one of the best places to raise a family. There’s more work to do, and we’re going to continue bringing people together to get stuff done, deliver more results, and make Pennsylvania the best place to live, work, and raise a family.”

Pennsylvania ranks fifth nationwide for public education standards and boasts the second-highest public high school graduation rate in the country at 96 percent. The report directly cited Governor Shapiro’s 2024-2025 bipartisan budget, which included a historic $1.11 billion increase in K-12 public education funding — the largest single-year investment in Pennsylvania’s history — bringing the total investment to over $11 billion. This funding prioritizes equitable distribution, special education enhancements, and a new adequacy formula to ensure every child has access to quality education. Watch Shapiro talk about how shaping Pennsylvania’s future by investing in education.

The commonwealth ranks in the top 10 for public safety, with positive scores in crime statistics, driving safety, and climate safety. Last year’s budget allocated $16 million to create four new cadet classes for the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), adding nearly 400 new State Troopers and bringing the total to 800 additional troopers since Governor Shapiro took office. The Shapiro administration also supported the hiring of 700 local police officers through grant funding from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), reinforcing its commitment to safe and secure communities. Watch Governor Shapiro talk about prioritizing the safety and security of Pennsylvania communities through historic investments in law enforcement and violence prevention.

Pennsylvania ranks 10th for pediatric healthcare, offering 147 pediatricians per 100,000 children, ensuring the commonwealth’s children have adequate access to medical care. Shapiro’s administration secured the first-ever state investment to address maternal mortality, signed legislation to improve maternal health data, and doubled the state’s funding for maternal mortality prevention in the latest budget. Additionally, the governor signed SB 739 to expand telemedicine services to serve more Pennsylvanians and HB 2268, which ensures children who stutter have access to speech therapy without financial barriers.

In addition to the three mentioned above, Pennsylvania ranks in the top half of the states for affordability, boosted by the creation of the Employer Child Care Contribution Tax Credit to help businesses support employees’ childcare expenses. This builds on the expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Enhancement Tax Credit, which was signed into law by Governor Shapiro in 2023, easing financial burdens for families across the state. Watch Governor Shapiro talk about easing the financial burden on Pennsylvania families.

ConsumerAffairs highlighted Pennsylvania’s success in providing a safe, nurturing environment for families, making it a top choice for those weighing relocation decisions. Vermont and Maine joined Pennsylvania at the top of the rankings.

The report evaluated all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., across five key categories: affordability, safety, education, pediatric healthcare, and quality of life. For the full report and methodology, visit the ConsumerAffairs website.

Learn more about Governor Shapiro’s initiatives to support families and communities across Pennsylvania at pa.gov/governor.

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