DV Journal

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

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