While sharing similar screenshots, many X users expressed anger that an Indian law enforcement authority was endorsing something so controversial and brutal to intimidate. The image bears an uncanny resemblance to George Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis, United States.

On May 20, 2020, 46-year-old African-American George Floyd, unarmed and handcuffed, was pinned to the ground by three officers for using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes at a convenience store. One of the officers, Derek Chauvin, a White man, pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, resulting in his death. Floyd’s killing triggered large-scale protests against racial injustice and police brutality against Black people in the United States. These protests snowballed into the Black Lives Matter movement. After the incident, four former Minneapolis police officers were found guilty of charges including murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.

On July 18, X user Joy (@Joydas) posted the screenshot and wrote: “This is an actual tweet by Punjab Police India. They chose an image which depicts the worst racism and police brutality in the US to score a point…” (Archive)

This is an actual tweet by Punjab Police India. They chose an image which depicts the worst racism and police brutality in US to score a point. This image was viral worldwide to represent Police Atrocity but Punjab Police thought this is what they stand for pic.twitter.com/o8pBtliDPJ

— Joy (@Joydas) July 17, 2025

Meanwhile, some users, whose X posts show a clear alignment with the Right-wing, made light of it and praised the Punjab police.

Another X user ,@BeingPolitical1, whose profile activity shows that they often promote pro-Right content, shared the same screenshot with a caption saying that the Punjab police has given “woke” people and Leftists something to rant about. (Archive)

This user has been called out by Alt News for spreading misinformation several times in the past.

Kal pure din Woke, leftist aur LKFC ko rr krne ka content de diya hai punjab police ne pic.twitter.com/lctpsncRgX

— Being Political (@BeingPolitical1) July 17, 2025

We also came across a post from X account Gianna Floyd (@GFloyddd12), which is also the name of George Floyd’s daughter. This account had posted the viral screenshot with the caption, “Appalled to see this vile post from the official handle of the Indian police. It’s deeply disrespecting to my late father, his family, and the millions of Americans who stood in solidarity with him. The Floyd family is at loss for words”.

However, Alt News found little evidence to support that this account is actually related to George Floyd’s family. The account was created in December 2024 and there are only three posts—all made on July 18. Besides the above X post, the other was a tribute to George Floyd by a now 17-year-old Keedon Bryant and the most recent post thanked Pakistani handles for being supportive about “her father”. We also noticed that the user @GFloyddd12 follows no one but is followed by 183, many of these followers seemed to be Pakistan-based accounts.

Many other X users also shared the screenshot of the post, claiming that the Punjab police shared and later deleted the controversial post.

So, did the Punjab Police share this?

‘Post Deleted’

To confirm whether @PunjabPoliceInd actually made this post, we first checked all posts made by the account between July 16 and 18. According to the viral screenshot, the post was made at 1:36 am on July 18, 2025. There were 12 posts shared by the page within that timeframe, but none of them included the viral graphic.

This meant that either no such post was made or that it was made and later deleted.

To check if any such post was deleted, we looked at all replies to @PunjabPoliceInd posts between 1:30 am and 2:00 am on July 18, since most accounts that reshared or responded to the alleged post had done so in this time frame.

Note that even if an X post is deleted, replies to it are visible unless users delete these responses themselves.

We noticed that within this window, several users had commented on one deleted post by the Punjab Police. Majority of the comments mentioned Pakistan, while some mentioned George Floyd. Many social media users had expressed displeasure with the content of the post. This allowed us to find the URL of the deleted X post, but since it was not archived before deleting, we could not immediately check whether this was the contentious post.

While looking at those who replied and shared screenshots, we came across X user Gul Khan (@ilaqaghair), who had also shared a screen recording accessing the post by the Punjab Police’s X account when it was live. In the video, the user can be seen clicking on the @PunjabPoliceInd handle directly from the post, which leads to their official handle.

Here is the screen recording for you. The first tweet isn’t made up, they posted it from the official Punjab Police India account, but later deleted it. https://t.co/XCUoefArPT pic.twitter.com/t2naTBIm79

— Gul Khan (@ilaqaghair) July 18, 2025

Alt News reached out to @ilaqaghair to verify the authenticity of the screen recording. We also accessed the video’s metadata and were able to ascertain that the video was recorded on the user’s device.

We asked them to capture another video showing the metadata of the screen recording, which has been added below. At the 00:14-minute mark, the date and time are visible: July 18, 12:22 pm Gulf Standard Time (GST)—1:52 pm IST.

Alt News also contacted X user @Joydas, who had posted a screenshot of the Punjab Police post on July 18 at 2:03 am. He shared several screenshots of this post captured at different times from the Punjab Police’s timeline. One of the screenshots showed the Punjab Police responding with a red cross emoji to a user who had commented under the viral graphic using the Pakistani flag emoji. We also examined the metadata of these screenshots and were able to verify that the screenshots were genuine and that such a post was made.

These findings indicate that the Punjab Police account posted the graphic with references to George Floyd’s murder and deleted it later. We found many quote-shares of the deleted post.

Police Deny Sharing Post

Alt News reached out to the Punjab Police to verify whether such a post was made and deleted. A source close to the state police’s social media team denied making any such post on X. However, this person, who requested anonymity, was unable to give us information on the X post deleted on July 18.

We then reached out to Amit Prasad, the Additional Director General of Police (counter intelligence), who is the nodal officer for the Punjab Police’s social media. Prasad also said they made no such post. “Why would we do such a thing?” he said. On being told that there are several screenshots and that we have procured a verified screen recording that shows otherwise, he said that they are examining the issue. While he reiterated that the post was not made by the police, he made no mention of the X account being hacked or compromised.

Violent AI-Generated Imagery

While investigating the screenshot, we noticed a ‘Grok’ watermark in the bottom-right corner. So, the image was created using X’s AI tools.

To investigate further, we tagged Grok under one of the screenshots and asked if the graphic was generated by it. The X chatbot responded with: “The watermark indicates the image was generated using my AI image tools, accessible to users on X Premium. Anyone could have prompted it — I didn’t create or provide it to Punjab Police, and I don’t endorse its insensitive use.”

Grok’s terms prohibit generating content on illegal, harmful, or abusive activities, including—critically harming or promoting critical harm to human life, including pro-terrorist activities; violating copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property law; violating a person’s privacy or their right to publicity; the sexualization or exploitation of children; espionage, hacking, defrauding, defamation, scamming, spamming, or phishing.

So, while Grok’s response aligns with its content policies, its AI tool seems to be capable of generating violent and controversial imagery resembling real incidents if prompted, potentially contradicting its own guidelines.

Based on these findings, Alt News was able to confirm that the contentious post was shared by the Punjab Police’s X handle and later deleted. We also now know that the imagery was generated using Grok’s AI tools. However, the police’s denial and the odd timing of the post raise questions on whether the account was compromised or the post was made erroneously. No statement has been issued by the state police so far.

The post Alt News finds Punjab police’s X account shared & deleted contentious post alluding to George Floyd’s killing; police deny appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Oishani Bhattacharya.

The murder of UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, and the subsequent arrest of Luigi Mangione, focused media and policymakers’ attention on the savage practices of private US health insurance. In the immediate aftermath, major media outlets scolded social media posters for mocking Thompson with sarcastic posts, such as “I’m sorry, prior authorization is required for thoughts and prayers.”

As public fury failed to subside, it began to dawn on at least some media organizations that the response to Thompson’s murder might possibly reflect deep, widespread anger at a healthcare system that collects twice as much money as those in other wealthy countries, makes it difficult for half the adult population to afford healthcare even when they’re supposedly “insured,” and maims, murders and bankrupts millions of people by denying payment when they actually try to use their alleged benefits. As Rep. Ro Khanna (D.–Calif.) said to ABC News  (12/8/24), “There is no justification for violence, but the outpouring afterwards has not surprised me.”

Any reporter, editor or pundit who writes regularly about healthcare and professes to be mystified or outraged by the public reaction to Thompson’s murder should take a deep look at their own assumptions, sources and professional behavior.

FAIR reviewed coverage of healthcare in the presidential election by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, as well as KFF Health News (KHN), the leading outlet specializing in the healthcare issue, whose reporting is often picked up by corporate media. The coverage by these outlets amounts to little more than sophisticated public relations for this corporate healthcare killing machine and, especially, the Republican and Democratic politicians who created and nurture it.

The coverage was marred by many of the media failings FAIR has exposed since its inception. These outlets:

• took false major-party “facts” at face value and published candidates’ platitudes without challenging their substance;
• anointed former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris as the only legitimate horses in the race, blacking out the content of third-party candidate proposals like “Medicare for All”; and
• added insult to injury by legitimizing their own failed coverage with analysis asking why there were no major healthcare reform proposals to cover.

Tsunami of fake good news

In March 2024, I reported (Healing and Stealing, 3/23/24) that Democrats were preparing to unleash a “tsunami of fake good news” about healthcare and the Affordable Care Act to try to influence media coverage of the campaign.

Major media fell for it hook, line and sinker. No campaign tactic and media failure did more to lengthen the distance between a public brutalized by a failing healthcare system and an out-of-touch corporate media.

President Joe Biden (until he dropped out) and Harris spun a narrative of “progress” under the Affordable Care Act to attract voters. The progress narrative relied on two new healthcare policy “records”: a record-low uninsurance rate and record-high Obamacare enrollment.

In a story on why “big, prominent plans for health reform are nowhere to be seen,” the New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz (9/13/24) explained that the “overall state of the health system” is different than in 2019 for several reasons, including that the “uninsured rate is near a record low.”

The New York Times (1/10/24) reported that signups for the ACA set a “record”—but not that this was less than the number of people who had been kicked off Medicaid.

KHN’s Phil Galewitz (9/10/24) similarly reported:

Before Congress passed the ACA in 2010, the uninsured rate had been in double digits for decades. The rate fell steadily under Barack Obama but reversed under President Donald Trump, only to come down again under President Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, insurance plans sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges reached a record enrollment of 21 million in early 2024, or, as the Times’ Noah Weiland (1/10/24) put it, “blowing by the previous record and elevating the health and political costs of a repeal.”

The two “facts” are both distorted and largely irrelevant to people’s actual experience of the healthcare system. As Galewitz acknowledged, because of survey lags, the uninsurance data don’t reflect the 2023–24 disenrollment of some 25 million from Medicaid, the joint federal/state insurance program for low-income Americans, which had been temporarily expanded under Covid.

But the Medicaid disenrollment is reflected in the record signups to Obamacare, where some of those who lost Medicaid coverage fled in 2024. Yet according to KHN, 6 million of the 25 million people who lost Medicaid coverage became uninsured. Most of them haven’t yet been captured in uninsured data, allowing the Democrats to have their cake and eat it too.

The fact that the uninsured data likely understate uninsurance by as much as 6 million people escaped most political coverage—the Washington Post’s Dan Diamond (9/11/24), for example, added no caveats when reporting that the Biden administration

had released data showing that nearly 50 million Americans have obtained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges since they were established more than a decade ago, helping lower the national uninsured rate to record lows in recent years.

The Times‘ Sanger-Katz (9/13/24) likewise failed to mention it.

Private insurance ≠ healthcare 

The lesson Kamala Harris learned, according to the Washington Post (9/11/24), is that “incremental change, not a sweeping overhaul, is the best path to improving US healthcare.”

Far more importantly, the rate of uninsurance no longer measures whether or not people have adequate healthcare, or are protected from financial ruin if they get sick or injured. Data show that people who supposedly have insurance can’t get healthcare, rendering the raw uninsurance rate a relatively meaningless measure of the burden of the crisis-stricken US healthcare system.

National surveys by the Commonwealth Fund every two years include one of the few comprehensive attempts to measure underinsurance, and the impact of medical costs on people nominally “covered.” In 2022, Commonwealth found that 46% of adults aged 19–64 skipped needed medical treatment due to out-of-pocket costs. That number included 44% of adults buying insurance through ACA exchanges or the individual insurance market—even with the much-hyped expanded premium subsidies in place.

Commonwealth didn’t release its 2024 surveys until November 21, well after Election Day. During the last two years of the Biden/Harris administration, the percentage of working age adults skipping medical care due to costs increased from 46% to 48%, no matter the source of coverage (Healing and Stealing, 11/21/24).

When people with private insurance do attempt to get healthcare, their insurers often refuse to pay for care. The slain Brian Thompson was CEO of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance subsidiary. According to an analysis of federal data by ValuePenguin (5/15/24), a consumer website run by online lender LendingTree, UnitedHealthcare denied 32% of claims submitted to its ACA and individual market plans in 2022, the highest rate in the industry.

Corporate media political reporters usually delivered the misleading progress narrative “facts” without reference to this critical context. The Washington Post’s Dan Diamond (9/11/24), explaining that Harris learned “the importance of incremental progress” as vice president after retreating from support for Medicare for All, noted the administration’s achievement of “record levels of health coverage through the Affordable Care Act,” with no reference to the Medicaid purge or underinsurance.

Substance-free coverage of a substance-free campaign 

New York Times (9/13/24): “After years of crises and emergencies, no part of the system is currently ablaze.”

The New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz wrote in “The Campaign Issue That Isn’t: Healthcare Reform” (9/13/24):

As you may have noticed, with less than two months until Election Day, big, prominent plans for health reform are nowhere to be seen. Even in an election that has been fairly light on policy proposals, healthcare’s absence is notable.

It’s true that neither Harris nor Trump offered any concrete proposals for improving US healthcare. Harris campaigned on “strengthening” the ACA, but her only specific “improvement” was a promise to support keeping the expanded subsidies that help people pay their ACA health insurance premiums—passed in the first year of Biden’s term—from expiring as scheduled next year. In other words, “strengthen” the ACA by maintaining its dismal status quo.

As for Trump, the Times’ Weiland (8/12/24) reported that the authors of Project 2025, the consensus right-wing NGO blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation, “were not calling for a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.” At the debate, Trump said he wouldn’t repeal unless he had a better plan, and drew mockery for saying he had “concepts of a plan.”

Ultimately, mass deportation was his primary healthcare policy (Healing and Stealing, 10/16/24, 9/10/24); the RNC Platform maintained that undocumented immigrants were the cause of high healthcare costs. (It’s nonsense. Undocumented taxpayers actually paid more in taxes that were earmarked specifically for healthcare in 2022 than the estimated total cost of healthcare for all undocumented immigrants in the US.)

What you see depends on where you look 

One reason Sanger-Katz and colleagues had a hard time finding “big” plans for healthcare is that she and her colleagues chose to look for them only in the two major parties’ platforms.

Whether Eugene Debs campaigning for Social Security from prison in 1920, Henry Wallace fighting for desegregation after walking out of the 1948 Democratic convention, or Cynthia McKinney proposing an end to the Afghan War in 2008, third-party candidates have a long track record of promoting policies dismissed as unrealistic ideological fantasies that later become consensus policy. Yet corporate media outlets repeat the same failure to pay attention every four years (FAIR.org, 10/23/08).

Green Party candidate Jill Stein, the only medical doctor in the race, supported Medicare for All as a

precursor to establishing a British-style National Healthcare Service which will replace private hospitals, private medical practice and private medical insurance with a publicly owned, democratically controlled healthcare service that will guarantee healthcare as a human right to everyone in the United States.

Stein placed special emphasis on taking “the pharmaceutical industry into public ownership and democratic control.”

Justice for All Party candidate Cornel West’s Health Justice agenda also envisioned a system “Beyond Medicare for All,” including “nationalization of healthcare industries.”

Prior to suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Jacobin (6/9/23) he would keep private insurance for those who want it, but also have a public program “available to everybody.” Although he used the phrase “single-payer,” Kennedy described a program most similar to a voluntary “public option,” an untested idea whose ultimate impact on the breadth, depth and cost of coverage remains speculative.

Outside the world inhabited by elite media, Medicare for All is a fiscally modest proposal that receives consistent support among large segments of the US population, reaching majorities depending on the wording of poll questions (KFF, 10/26/20). In 2022, the Congressional Budget Office (2/22) estimated that a single-payer system with no out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits or hospital care, minimal copays for prescription drugs, and doctor and hospital prices at the current average would cover everyone for all medical conditions—including services that are almost never fully covered, like vision, dental and hearing—and still lower expected total national health expenditures by about a half a percent.

Even with candidates in the race proposing even broader expansion of the public role in healthcare, through nationalizing hospitals and drug manufacturing, Medicare for All remains beyond the boundary of acceptable corporate media debate. This has been true for 30 years, when FAIR (Extra!, 1–2/94) reported on media coverage of the failed Clinton administration healthcare reform effort.

Just one election cycle back, during the Democratic primaries, multiple candidates—led by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, but also including Kamala Harris—supported Medicare for All, and media were forced to cover it, generally with considerable hostility (FAIR.org, 3/20/19, 4/29/19, 10/2/19). But with Harris backing away from it entirely, media found themselves returning to a place of comfortably ignoring the popular proposal.

Missing Medicare for All

Leading papers covered third parties as potential spoilers, but not as potential sources of new ideas (Washington Post, 3/14/24).

FAIR searched the Nexis, ProQuest and Dow Jones databases, and the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and KFF Health News, for election or healthcare policy stories and podcasts mentioning different iterations of “Medicare for All,” “single-payer” and “universal healthcare,” between January 1 and Election Day 2024. We found 89 news and 107 opinion pieces.

Ninety percent of the news articles came after Biden dropped out of the race. The coverage overwhelmingly focused on Harris’s reversal of her brief support for Medicare for All in 2019, with 96% of these stories mentioning her shift.

The ubiquitous Republican claim that Harris sought to give undocumented people free Medicare was based on the obviously false premise that Harris had not abandoned support for Medicare for All. Asked in 2019 whether her support for universal health insurance would include eligibility for undocumented immigrants, she said yes (New York Times, 10/30/24). Since that time, Harris has repudiated Medicare for All, and no Democrat has advocated enrolling the 11 million undocumented immigrants in Medicare, let alone for “free.”

KHN (8/1/24) and the New York Times (10/30/24) corrected this GOP distortion, but all four outlets left readers hard-pressed to learn any other details of Medicare for All, or other meaningful alternatives to the status quo, especially not any proposed by other candidates.

All four outlets wrote frequently about whether third-party candidates might siphon votes from Trump or Harris (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 11/10/23; Washington Post, 3/14/24; New York Times, 10/14/24). However, they blacked out the content of those parties’ healthcare policy positions, leaving readers with no information to help them decide if voting for a candidate other than Trump or Harris might benefit them.

Voters in the dark

In 2,000 words on “Where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Stands on the Issues,” the New York Times (6/14/24) avoided any discussion of where he stands on major healthcare reform issues.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and KHN frequently mentioned one or more of the third-party candidates in other political coverage as a threat to the major-party candidates. But out of the 89 news articles bringing up Medicare for All, single-payer or universal healthcare, only three included third-party candidates at all, each one in passing as possible spoilers. Exactly zero offered any information at all about the candidates’ healthcare proposals.

For example, the New York Times published 34 news articles and podcasts mentioning a version of Medicare for All or single-payer, without a single word on the healthcare proposals of the third-party candidates who remained after Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump. One article (10/24/24) included a passing Stein spoiler reference. Another (8/22/24), on Harris’s commitment to “the art of the possible,” quoted West’s vice presidential running mate, Melina Abdullah, criticizing Harris for shifting many of her policy positions, but again without reference to West and Abdullah’s proposals for healthcare.

Times readers were more likely to get news about the healthcare reform positions of foreign political leaders than non–major-party candidates running for president of the United States. The paper ran six stories about Indonesia (2/12/24, 2/15/24, 10/19/24), Thailand (2/18/24) and South Africa (6/3/24, 6/7/24) that mentioned a politician’s position on “universal healthcare,” while blacking out discussion of third-party candidates’ healthcare proposals, except to some degree for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Before leaving the race, Kennedy’s half-baked notions about vaccines, activism on environmental health and food safety, and criticism of Covid lockdowns received frequent mention, but as with the other third-party candidates, his views on major healthcare reform issues went missing, including from a 2,000-word Times analysis of “Where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Stands on the Issues” (6/14/24).

The third-party healthcare blackout was even tighter in the Washington Post. The 38 Post news articles mentioning Medicare for All or single-payer had only one reference to Stein or West—a quote from West unrelated to healthcare (8/21/24). The Post never reported either candidate’s healthcare proposals. A webpage on which reporters tracked third-party ballot access offered a short “Pitch to Voters” for each party that included no healthcare policy.

Medicare for All spin and bad facts

Like Democrats, the New York Times‘ Noah Weiland (8/22/24) largely avoided talking about what Medicare for All would do.

The four outlets’ descriptions of Medicare for All, single payer and universal healthcare were nearly as sparse as coverage of third-party candidates’ healthcare positions, and as distorted as reporting on the ACA. Only 23 of the 89 news stories included any description at all of these policies, the overwhelming majority of them a brief phrase in the reporter’s own words.

Only three New York Times stories included any Medicare for All substance, and these were barely intelligible. The most extensive was an article debunking Trump’s claims that Harris continued to support the policy, in which Noah Weiland (8/22/24) wrote nearly 1,300 words without explaining what the Medicare for All is or would do. Readers wouldn’t know that the current Medicare for All bills before Congress would cover everyone in the country with no out-of-pocket costs, and free choice of doctors and hospitals. They would, however, have learned that Harris “proposed a less sweeping plan” in 2019, which would include “a role for private plans.”

Weiland treated readers to what may be the most emphatic recitation of the ACA progress narrative. Biden’s pursuit of a “more traditional set of healthcare priorities” has yielded “explosive growth” in the ACA exchanges, he wrote. According to unnamed experts, that growth, and changes to Medicare and Medicaid, have “complicated” pursuit of Medicare for All.

Times readers would also have learned that expanding Medicaid is an incremental step toward Medicare for All, what bill supporter Rep. Ed Markey says is part of the policy’s “DNA.” In reality, Medicaid’s eligibility standards are literally the opposite of Medicare for All—means-tested coverage that requires you to prove you’re appropriately impoverished every year, and which disappears if you get a big enough raise at your job.

The vast majority of Times coverage of Medicare for All included no content whatsoever, simply mentioning it as a policy that Harris once supported, with the occasional political characterization (7/24/24) that it was one of her since-abandoned “left-leaning positions that can now leave her vulnerable to attack from Republicans.”

‘A proposal that worried many Americans’

Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler (9/9/24) said it was mostly true that Medicare for All would “raise taxes [and] increase national debt,” citing studies of Bernie Sanders’ plan that “estimated that national health expenditures would rise over 10 years.” He didn’t note that CBO found that under most single-payer plans, national health expenditures would rise—but much less than they would under the status quo.

The Post‘s Glenn Kessler (9/9/24) “factchecked” Republican claims that Medicare for All would “raise taxes, increase national debt and functionally eliminate private health insurance.” Calling it “mostly true,” Kessler cited the figure of $32.6 trillion over 10 years, and claimed that “four of the five key studies on the effect of the Sanders plan estimated that national health expenditures would rise over 10 years.”

Kessler skipped a big fact. When the CBO insisted that raising the minimum wage would cause 1.4 million lost jobs, his editors (4/18/21) indignantly defended the agency as “admirably apolitical.” But Kessler neglected to mention that the “nonpartisan scorekeepers” at the CBO (12/10/20) found that four of the five versions of single-payer healthcare that they analyzed would raise national health expenditures, but by significantly less  than preserving the status quo.

Healthcare reporter Dan Diamond (9/11/24) wrote the Post’s most detailed take on Harris’s about-face on a plan “to eliminate private insurance, a proposal that worried many Americans who feared losing access to their doctors.” Diamond managed not to let readers know that, in contrast to private insurance plans that penalize patients for seeing “out-of-network” doctors, Medicare for All would free patients to see any doctor they want without financial penalty.

Diamond added that Harris pulled back from Medicare for All because “polls across 2019 found that many Americans were worried that shifting to a national government-run health system could delay access to care,” without mentioning that half of all American working adults already skip treatments altogether every year (Commonwealth, 11/24).

Voters’ 2019 “worries” were likely stimulated in part by a multi-million-dollar lobbying and advertising blitz by the hospital, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, reported on by the Post‘s Jeff Stein (4/12/19), and based on the same distortions and inaccuracies Diamond and Kessler repeated five years later (Public Citizen, 6/28/19).

In a story (Washington Post, 4/3/20) on Sen. Bernie Sanders supporting the Biden/Harris administration’s drug cost control policies, Diamond reported that during the 2020 primaries, Sanders “argued that Medicare for All would help rein in high drug costs by forcing pharmaceutical companies to negotiate with the government.” It was the only positive framing of Medicare for All we could find in the Post’s coverage. Biden and Harris have done exactly what Sanders proposed, although to date they’ve only negotiated lower prices for 10 drugs, the prices won’t take effect for another year, and they only apply to our current “Medicare for Some.”

Expert content suppression 

KFF’s website limited its discussion of candidates’ healthcare proposals to the “viable contenders”—a choice that excluded virtually all ideas for improving the US healthcare system.

No outlet ignored the third-party candidates’ healthcare proposals more firmly, or took the tiny increments proposed by the major parties more seriously, than the one best equipped to inform the public about the state of US healthcare: KFF Health News.

KHN is a subsidiary of what used to be known as the Kaiser Family Foundations, but now goes by the acronym KFF. Founded with money from the family of steel magnate Henry Kaiser, tax-exempt KFF occupies a unique role as both news outlet and major source for healthcare information, calling itself “a one-of-a-kind information organization.”

KFF’s research and polling arms publish a large volume of detailed data and analysis of healthcare policy, covered widely in the media. This work lends additional credibility to KHN’s respected and widely republished news reporting.

With a staff of 71 reporters, editors, producers and administrators, as of November 1, KHN is devoted entirely to healthcare. Unlike taxpaying competitors like Modern Healthcare and Healthcare Dive—which regularly cover KFF’s research output—KHN publishes without a paywall, and permits reprints without charge. KHN forms partnerships with outlets of all sizes and focus, from an in-depth investigative series on medical debt with NPR and CBS News, to providing regular policy and political reporting to the physician-targeted website Medscape.

Excluding opinion articles, letters to the editor and brief daily newsletter blurbs linking to other outlets’ content, FAIR’s searches yielded just five KHN news stories from January 1 to Election Day that referred to Medicare for All, single-payer or universal healthcare. Two were state-focused—a one-paragraph mention of a proposed California single-payer bill in a broader legislative round-up (4/24/24), and a profile (7/15/24) of Anthony Wright, newly appointed executive director of the DC nonprofit Families USA.

The remaining three (7/21/24, 8/1/24, 9/11/24) were passing mentions without substance. KHN went the entire year without once mentioning Jill Stein or Cornel West.

KHN’s news coverage appeared to follow the lead of its affiliated research entity. KFF published a web page to “Compare the Candidates on Healthcare Policy,” last updated October 8, that declared

the general election campaign is underway, spotlighting former President Trump, the Republican nominee, and Vice President Harris, the Democratic nominee, as the viable contenders for the presidency.

The comparisons highlighted the differences rather than the similarities, and included without context the standard claim that the Biden/Harris “administration achieved record-high enrollment in ACA Marketplace plans.”

KFF had long since decided that discussion of Medicare for All is over. President Drew Altman told the New York Times (8/22/24) that KFF stopped polling on Medicare for All after the 2020 primaries because “there hasn’t been debate about it.” Yet pollsters regularly ask voters about healthcare issues that have no immediate chance of passage. The AP has asked people for a quarter century if they think it’s the federal government’s responsibility to “make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage,” and the Pew Research Center and other organizations have polled on abortion for decades, even when federal legislation was extremely unlikely.

The lack of “debate” about Medicare for All or single-payer is a flimsy excuse for blinkered coverage. In fact, KHN and the other outlets all ignored major healthcare reform stories with looming deadlines for action by the incoming president—federal approval for state-level reform (Healthcare Dive, 4/24/24). California and Oregon passed laws in 2023 instructing their governors to seek federal permission to dramatically restructure their state healthcare systems, including formation of a single-payer system in Oregon. Negotiations were supposed to begin in the first half of this year. None of these four agenda-setting outlets asked 2024 presidential candidates whether they planned to flex White House power to help major state-level reforms.

Complicit in mass death

All four of these outlets have done detailed reporting on some aspects of the extraordinarily expensive mass-killing machine that passes for the US “healthcare system.” Claims denials, aggressive collections, medical debt and massively inflated prices have all graced their pages.

But when it comes to political coverage, reporters and editors refuse to use their knowledge to challenge candidates effectively. The public’s experiences disappear, as journalists regurgitate bad facts and focus on self-evidently meaningless “proposals” framed by corporate power within their insular Beltway cultural bubble.

UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson’s murder exposed the degree to which that behavior makes them complicit in mass death.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by John Canham-Clyne.

A national Palestine advocacy group has hit back at critics of its “genocide hotline” campaign against soldiers involved in Israel’s war against Gaza, saying New Zealand should be actively following international law.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) dismissed a “predictable lineup of apologists for Israel” for their criticisms of the PSNA campaign.

“Why is concern for the sensitivities of soldiers from a genocidal Israeli campaign more important than condemning the genocide itself?,” asked PSNA national chair John Minto in a statement.

• READ MORE:  HRC calls for hotline to report Israeli soldiers holidaying in NZ to end
• How Israeli soldiers abroad are facing arrest for war crimes in Gaza
• ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas commander
• Other Israeli soldier reports

The Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow and the New Zealand Jewish Council have made statements “protecting” Israeli soldiers who come to New Zealand on “rest and recreation” from the industrial-scale killing of 47,000 Palestinians in Gaza until a truce went into force on January 19.

“We are not surprised to see such a predictable lineup of apologists for Israel and its genocide in Gaza from lining up to attack a PSNA campaign with false smears of anti-semitism,” Minto said.

He said that over 16 months Peters had done “absolutely nothing” to put any pressure on Israel to end its genocidal behaviour.

“But he is full of bluff and bluster and outright lies to denounce those who demand Israel be held to account.”

Deny illegal settler visas
Minto said that if Peters was doing his job as Foreign Minister, he would not only stop Israeli soldiers coming to Aotearoa New Zealand — as with Russian soldiers in the Ukraine war — he would also deny visas to any Israeli with an address in an illegal Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The Human Rights Commission had issued a “disingenuous media release”, he said.

“Our campaign has nothing to do with Israelis or Jews — it is a campaign to stop Israeli soldiers coming here for rest and recreation after a campaign of wholesale killing of Palestinians in Gaza,” Minto said.

“To imply the campaign is targeting Jews is disgusting and despicable.

“Some of the soldiers will be Druse, some Palestinian Arabs and others will be Jews.”

Israeli soldiers are facing a growing risk of being arrested abroad for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, with around 50 criminal complaints filed so far in courts in several countries around the world.

Earlier this month, a former Israeli soldier abruptly ended his holiday in Brazil and was “smuggled” out of the country after a Federal Court ordered police to open a war crimes investigation against him. The man fled to Argentina.

A complaint lodged by the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) included more than 500 pages of court records linking the suspect to the demolition of civilian homes in Gaza.

‘Historic’ court ruling against soldier
The foundation called the Brazilian court’s decision “historic”, saying it marked a significant precedent for a member country of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to enforce Rome Statute provisions domestically in the 15-month Israeli war on Gaza.

The foundation is named in honour of five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab who was killed on 29 January 2024 by Israel soldiers while pleading for help in a car after her six family members were dead.

According to The New Arab, the foundation has so far tracked and sent the names of 1000 Israeli soldiers to the ICC and Interpol, and has been pursuing legal cases in a number of countries, including Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, France, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, together with a former Hamas commander, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Minto accused the New Zealand Jewish Council of being “deeply racist” and said it regularly “makes a meal of false smears of anti-semitism”.

“It’s deeply problematic that this Jewish Council strategy takes attention away from the real anti-semitism which exists in New Zealand and around the world.

“The priority of the Jewish Council is to protect Israel from criticism and protect it from accountability for its apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

“We are demanding that accountability.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Exposing "the rotten core of American health care," the shooting of United Health's CEO/ mafia kingpin sparked a flash flood of long-simmering fury at the "legalized murder practiced by all the Brian Thompsons" of a universally despised system run by "heartless vampires" who routinely refuse care in exchange for bloody profit. The pitiless response by tens of millions of their victims: Wanted posters, judging the shooter "too hot to convict" and grimly declaring, "Thoughts and prayers are out of network."

Early last Wednesday, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, 50, was en route to an investor conference at the Hilton Hotel in midtown Manhattan, reportedly to collect his massive Christmas bonus, when he was shot in the back and killed, allegedly by 26-year-old Luigi Mangione. The action, both shocking and deeply unsurprising, was widely met with "a morbid sense of inevitability" from a wrung-dry populace; Elizabeth Warren spoke for many when she asserted, "Violence is never the answer, but people can only be pushed so far.” Citing the brutality of a much-hated, for-profit system run by rapacious executives getting rich by denying (sometimes lifesaving) healthcare to sick people who often subsequently either die or go bankrupt trying not to, Maureen Tkacik of The American Prospect wryly noted, “Only about 50 million customers of America’s reigning medical monopoly might have a motive to exact revenge upon the UnitedHealthcare CEO.”

The numbers are telling. A recent Kaiser report found that Americans owe at least $220 billion in medical debt, which for about three million is over $10,000; in a poll asking who they blame for exorbitant health prices, 97% named insurance companies. Last year UnitedHealthcare, the world's eighth largest corporation, had the highest denial rate - 32%, double the industry average - while taking in $371.6 billion, $47.5 billion more than the year before; their net profit was $22 BILLION. CEO Thompson made almost $20 million, or almost $40K a day, mostly in non-taxable bonuses or stock options; unknown to shareholders, he had also allegedly dumped $15 million in stocks and faced a federal investigation. Almost 70,000 Americans needlessly die each year due to denied care; at United, that decision was often made by an AI robot found to make medically unsound decisions in 90% of its cases - which the company, and presumably Thompson, knew.

Among the world's 10 highly developed countries, the U.S., the only one without universal health care, ranks last. But despite ubiquitous, verifiable, deeply cruel evidence of the failings of a profiteering private system, idiotic self-serving Republicans continue to argue that health care, like any other aspect of governance subsumed by late-stage capitalism, "should be run like a business," apparently by the same morbidly rich oligarchs who not only have no interest in meeting citizens' needs but don't even want to pay their own friggin' taxes. In a "cosmic confirmation" of the hollowness of their argument, on the same day Thompson was shot, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced it would newly, insanely limit coverage on anesthesia during surgery. After an outcry, they retracted the change. Still, pundits noted of the attempted move, a corporate world so brazenly unshy about its own arrogance "is not one that incurs sympathy for a dead CEO."

Some did insist on sympathy: "A Man Was murdered (and) You're Laughing?" But the shooting often inspired tales of righteous rage at a ravenous company whose ghouls "eat off your family members grave." A mother was told an overnight hospital stay was "not medically necessary" after her 12-year-old's heart surgery. The families of two patients who died sued for using "a flawed AI model (in) place of real medical professionals to wrongfully deny care.” An oncologist raged - "Dear buttheads" - about the refusal to cover anti-nausea meds for a child during chemo: "No reason to be nauseated." "Obviously, you know better about the side effects of chemo than me, my peers, and the entire scientific community," he wrote. "You have saved your greedy, blood-sucking corporation a great deal of money I'm sure." "We mourn the death (of) Brian Thompson..." one wrote. "Wait, I'm sorry. We mourn the deaths of 68,000 Americans who needlessly die each year so that insurance executives (like) Thompson can become multimillionaires."

Added to the rancor often bubbling under the surface as we rant and fret and watch bills pile up, there's a growing incidence of random political violence born of our polarization; a poll last year found almost 1 in 4 Americans agreed "patriots may have to resort to violence (to) save our country," though as usual "save our country" is open to wide and lunatic interpretation depending on who you are and who you kill. George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse, Daniel Penny and many, many cops have gotten away with (usually racist) murder. But none of them killed a rich, white, male, elite member of the master class. Thus does the killing of one of their own evince predictable pearl-clutching when someone eventually takes "lethal exception" to a grossly unfair system that has failed so many. "Corporate America is nervous," says one observer of the brutal "wake-up call" of Thompson's killing."The mood changed dramatically in a very short period of time.”

Despite the elite's fearful, phantasmic vision of a class war led by angry, unwashed, pitchfork-wielding Bolsheviks, alleged shooter Luigi Mangione not only doesn't fit the profile, but comes from their own gilded ranks. The scion of a prominent Baltimore real-estate consortium and valedictorian of his pricey prep school, he earned a B.A. and Master's at Ivy league Penn before he reportedly suffered a painful back injury and tough surgery, moved to Hawaii, and went AWOL from his famiiy in recent months. As for the manifesto and digital foot print he left behind: While law enforcement initially said he betrayed “some ill will towards corporate America" and idiotic Ted Cruz cited his concerns about capitalism and climate change to proclaim "leftism is a mental disease," Mangione's politics have been best described as "indecipherable," with "all-over-the-map," vaguely libertarian beliefs that don't fall neatly into either end of the political spectrum.

He read a lot, and reviewed or quoted "a mish-mash" of books about back pain, AI, self-help, Kurt Vonnegut, Peter Thiel, The Lorax, The New Jim Crow; like many others, he didn't finish David Foster Wallace's arcane Infinite Jest. Most famously, last year he posted a review of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto, which he declared too violent but "prescient on modern society." He called Kaczynski "an extreme political revolutionary" who "had the balls to recognize that peaceful protest has gotten us absolutely nowhere, and at the end of the day he's right...When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive." Among his disparate stances, he focused his anger most clearly on a failed health system where predatory insurance companies "abuse our country for immense profit." Posing the question, "What do you do?" he replied, "You wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention. It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents."

After the shooter went missing, frantic police offered a reward and sought tips from a public they didn't know had quickly chosen sides in the new drama, and it wasn't theirs. Many bitter responses echoed the language of stonyhearted insurers: "This claim for sympathy has been denied," "We need prior authorization," "My insurance doesn't cover vision so I can't really see." A mock logo showed United in a scope's crosshairs; when the company posted the sad news of Thompson's death, it swiftly met with over 65,000 laughing emojis. A typical online response: "Thoughts and prayers to the family of a billionaire guy who got rich off hardworking Americans' insurance premiums, and then signed their death warrants." New Yorkers held a shooter lookalike contest, all hood and mask, in Washington Square. The McDonald's where he was later caught got 1-star review bombed: "Has rats in the kitchen that will make you sick, and your insurance won't cover it."

Faced with omnipresent images from surveillance cameras of the masked, bundled shooter at his hostel, Internet sleuths found the green jacket he was wearing and declared it Levi's $225 Sherpa Lined Two-Pocket Hooded Trucker Jacket. Once posted, it drew hundreds of thousands of views; at Macy's, where it was being offered for just $80 using the code "FRIEND," it began morbidly flying off the shelves, with over 700 quickly sold and the large sold out. "I already loved Macy's but wow," said one fan. Another: "Macy's saying 'Not our CEO.' I love it." Never mind the old when-the-revolution-comes mantra about putting the owners of the means of production up against the wall; many were dismayed by the macabre spectacle of the rush to consume and emulate, however triflingly. Wrote one, "It is as chilling as it is pitifully ironic to see blood lust for corporate moguls bubbling up on the website of Macy’s." Once they caught Mangione, though, it got way worse.

Sensing the fervor for a righteous outlaw radicalized by the injustices of a skewered health system - the same system that hurt and infuriated us - officials worried Mangione could inspire other "grievance-driven malicious actors" to violence. Little did they know: When the flood of images began - handsome frat bro, six-pack gym bro, "appallingly glamorous" mugshot - the Internet swooned. Within hours, Mangione was "a hero," an icon, a sex symbol straight, gay or bi. There were video mashups, Biblical memes, gags about "the line for the Mangione conjugal visit," the fine Italian-American tradition of "taking matters into our own hands," the manhunt ending with police declaring "too hot to convict,'" the dating profile: "Loves to travel, leaves thoughtful notes, has hobbies (assassination)." Also, "He is setting unrealistic beauty standards for men - we can't all go kill someone...Who among us has not been radicalized by pack pain?...If he is fit, you must acquit...Today, we are all Italian." And online, companies are scrambling to remove Mangione merch and fundraisers where thousands of fans have donated.

Meanwhile, a nervous corporate America recoiled. As police warned of "a heightened risk environment," insurance companies increased armed security and began scrubbing names and photos from their websites; one security firm reported 70 calls a day from anxious insurers. Online, multiple posts warned of a secret "executive hit list" in the works, and said "CEOs should be afraid. They should act like they have a target on their back." This week, that target got closer as "Wanted" posters went up around New York City featuring the names, crimes and obscene salaries of eight insurance CEOS; some were also adorned with the Delay, Defend, Depose maxim of a now-best-selling exposé of insurance malfeasance. "Wanted. Denying medical care for corporate profit," one poster read. Another: "UnitedHealthcare killed everyday people for the sake of profit. As a result, Brian Thompson was denied his claim to life. Who will be denied next?"

Possibly nobody, at least in the ruling class. It could all end up as hyperbole, play-acting, the fever-dream of an aggrieved populace newly, painfully attuned to the wrongs done them by those who can, to date without accountability. Thompson is dead, Mangione's productive life is likely over, United is denying coverage to someone sick as you read this, and universal health care - as deeply moral as it is pragmatic - remains a chimera, nowhere in sight for at least four years; after that, Dems who've themselves supped at the trough of Big Pharma will have to do better. Grievously, for now we remain at the mercy of glorified, often criminal accountants who, playing God and doctor, make millions off the suffering of others. Only in America, says one sage, "You can be driven into homelessness by someone like Brian Thompson, then legally murdered by someone like Daniel Penny, while the money that could have saved you is spent on murdering children in Gaza."

In a leaked video to employees after the shooting, Andrew Witty, CEO of parent company UnitedHealth Group, vowed to continue preventing "unnecessary care" that would make the health system "too complex and ultimately unsustainable," aka would cut into profits. Witty, who last year was paid $23,534,936, mostly in non-taxable "bonuses," told staff to "tune out" criticism of their industry, which "does not reflect reality." Thousands responded with stories of their own reality: burst appendix care denied, delayed chemo until the cancer was terminal, declined back surgery so "25/8/366 AGONY," a father-in-law with colon cancer told he didn't need a colon scan, bladder treatment costing $250 in China and $13,200 in Texas, asthma meds denied: "BREATHING is apparently not necessary." Meanwhile Mangione, denied bail, is being held at Pennsylvania's SCI Huntingdon. This week, as media broadcast live outside, inmates yelled from their cells. "Conditions suck!" one shouted. From another, “Free Luigi!”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Abby Zimet.

New York prosecutors have charged a suspect with murder for the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was gunned down in Midtown Manhattan on December 4. The suspect has been identified as 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, who was captured in Pennsylvania on Monday after a five-day nationwide search. Police say Mangione was found with a handwritten manifesto, which they have not released. Although little is known about the motive for Thompson’s killing, there has been an outpouring of rage on social media directed at the health industry, with many sharing stories of having claims for vital care denied and losing precious time with loved ones during illness. Former healthcare executive Wendell Potter, now an advocate for reform, says the anger being expressed now has always been “barely below the surface” and was one of the reasons he left the industry. “I couldn’t, in good conscience, continue to support an industry that … established themselves firmly between a patient and his or her doctor,” says Potter. “What we’re seeing, sadly, in some form or fashion probably was inevitable.”

We also speak with Derrick Crowe of the People’s Action Institute, which runs the Care Over Cost campaign, helping people fight back against health insurance claims denials. “These corporations have too much power in this country. They are blocking progress on issues like gun violence and on the epidemic of care denials in this country, either through prior authorizations or through claims denials,” says Crowe.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Every day, patients across America crack open envelopes with bad news. Yet another health insurer has decided not to pay for a treatment that their doctor has recommended. Sometimes it’s a no for an MRI for a high school wrestler with a strained back. Sometimes for a cancer procedure that will help a grandmother with a throat tumor. Sometimes for a heart scan for a truck driver feeling short of breath.

But the insurance companies don’t always make these decisions. Instead, they often outsource medical reviews to a largely hidden industry that makes money by turning down doctors’ requests for payments, known as prior authorizations. Call it the denials for dollars business.

The biggest player is a company called EviCore by Evernorth, which is hired by major American insurance companies and provides coverage to 100 million consumers — about 1 in 3 insured people. It is owned by the insurance giant Cigna.

A ProPublica and Capitol Forum investigation found that EviCore uses an algorithm backed by artificial intelligence, which some insiders call “the dial,” that it can adjust to lead to higher denials. Some contracts ensure the company makes more money the more it cuts health spending. And it issues medical guidelines that doctors have said delay and deny care for patients.

EviCore and companies like it approve prior authorizations “based on the decision that is more profitable for them,” said Barbara McAneny, a former president of the American Medical Association and a practicing oncologist. “They love to deny things.”

EviCore says it scrutinizes requests to make sure that procedures recommended by doctors are safe, necessary and cost-effective. “We are improving the quality of health care, the safety of health care and, by very happy coincidence, we’re also decreasing a significant amount of unnecessary cost,” an EviCore medical officer explains in a video produced by the company.

But EviCore’s cost-cutting is far from coincidental, according to the investigation.

EviCore markets itself to insurance companies by promising a 3-to-1 return on investment — that is, for every $1 spent on EviCore, the insurer would pay out $3 less on medical care and other costs. EviCore salespeople have boasted of a 15% increase in denials, according to the investigation, which is based on internal documents, corporate data and dozens of interviews with former employees, doctors, industry experts, health care regulators and insurance executives. Almost everybody interviewed spoke on condition of anonymity because they continue to work in the industry.

An analysis of the company’s own data shows that, since 2021, EviCore turned down prior authorization requests, in full or in part, almost 20% of the time in Arkansas, which requires the publication of denial rates. By comparison, the equivalent figure for federal Medicare Advantage plans was about 7% in 2022.

They love to deny things.

EviCore has several ways to cut costs for insurers. Chief among them is the dial, the proprietary algorithm that’s the first stop in evaluating a prior authorization. Based on data entered by a doctor’s office, it can automatically approve a request.

The algorithm cannot say no, however. If it finds problems, it sends the request for review to a team of in-house nurses and doctors who consult company medical guidelines. Only doctors can issue a final denial.

This is where tweaking the dial comes in. EviCore can adjust the algorithm to increase the number of requests sent for review, according to five former employees. The more reviews, the higher the chance of denials.

Here’s how it works, the former employees said: The algorithm reviews a request and gives it a score. For example, it may judge one request to have a 75% chance of approval, while another to have a 95% chance. If EviCore wants more denials, it can send on for review anything that scores lower than a 95%. If it wants fewer, it can set the threshold for reviews at scores lower than 75%.

“We could control that,” said one former EviCore executive involved in technology issues. “That’s the game we would play.”

Over the years, medical groups have repeatedly complained that EviCore’s guidelines were outdated and rigid, resulting in inappropriate denials or delays in care. Frustration with the rules has led some doctors to refer to the company as EvilCore. There is even a parody account on X.

The guidelines are also used as a tool to cut costs, the investigation found. Company executives “would say, ‘Keep a closer eye on the guidelines for reviews for a particular company because we’re not showing savings,’” said a former EviCore employee involved in the radiation oncology program.

EviCore says that it develops its guidelines with the input of peer-reviewed medical studies and professional societies, and that they are routinely updated to stay current with the latest evidence-backed practices. It said its decisions are based solely on the guidelines and are not interpreted differently for different clients.

EviCore is not alone in engaging in the denials-for-dollars business. The second-biggest player is Carelon Medical Benefits Management, a subsidiary of Elevance Health, the health insurer formerly known as Anthem. It has been accused in court of wrongfully denying legitimate requests for coverage. The company has denied all charges. Several smaller companies do the same kind of work.

Simply put, EviCore uses the latest evidence-based medicine to ensure that patients receive the care they need and avoid the services they do not.

There is no question that prior authorizations play an important role in modern medicine. They serve to guard against doctors who recommend unnecessary and even potentially harmful treatments. They also protect insurers from fraudulent physicians who overbill for services.

In a response to questions, a Cigna spokesperson provided a statement on behalf of EviCore. “Simply put, EviCore uses the latest evidence-based medicine to ensure that patients receive the care they need and avoid the services they do not,” it said.

The statement acknowledged that EviCore used algorithms for some clinical programs, but “ONLY to accelerate approval of appropriate care and reduce the administrative burden on providers.”

The statement noted that doctors have the ability to appeal prior authorization denials, and that the company routinely monitors the outcomes “as part of our continuous quality improvement to ensure accurate and timely medical necessity decision-making.”

Prior authorization reviews provided by EviCore save money for the entire health insurance system, the statement said. “The natural product of improved care quality and reduced waste is savings for our clients, lower out-of-pocket costs for patients, and fewer health care premium increases for Americans.”

In the fall of 2021, when the air grew crisp and the leaves reddened in central Ohio, Little John Cupp began feeling short of breath. He gasped while pushing a shopping cart. His feet and ankles swelled. He could only sleep while sitting up.

An echocardiogram revealed that his heart was having trouble pumping blood. Cupp’s doctor suggested more testing, including the insertion of a catheter to examine whether his arteries were blocked.

A few days after the doctor made the request, Cupp received a letter from his insurance company, UnitedHealthcare. The procedure, it said, was “not medically necessary.”

One sentence in 8-point type revealed that the insurer had outsourced the decision to EviCore.

Cupp’s doctor put him on medications to reduce swelling and high blood pressure and tried a second time to win approval for a left heart catheter examination. EviCore turned it down again. He revealed his disappointment in shorthand in Cupp’s medical records: “ideally he needs LHC (denied twice by insurance).”

Cupp was 5-foot-7 and 282 pounds, with a wedding ring the size of a quarter. He had a white beard, his face wide and warm. He wore blue jean overalls and scuffed leather work boots. He had spent most of his life as a welder, working at metal fabrication shops in and around his hometown of Circleville, Ohio, population 14,063. He was 61, nearly the same age as his father when he died from a massive heart attack. Cupp was a stoic, his daughter Chris said, but the denial worried him.

“Well, I have to call the doctor and see what we’re going to do,” he told her after the second rejection.

The doctor decided to give up on getting an approval for the catheter exam. In challenging EviCore, he was fighting not just a company but an industry.

EviCore is the product of a massive, decadeslong push by insurance companies to control health care costs. They point to studies that show 20% to 45% of some medical treatments are wasteful or ineffective. To decrease such spending, insurers began requiring doctors to seek permission for medical care before agreeing to pay for it — a process known as “utilization review.” As treatments became more complex, the reviews proved costly in themselves.

Created from a 2014 merger of two smaller companies, EviCore offered a solution: It allowed insurers to outsource prior authorization decisions for the most specialized and expensive procedures. EviCore today issues recommendations for imaging, oncology, cardiology, gastroenterology, sleep problems and many other fields.

It works with more than 100 insurers across the country, including industry titans such as UnitedHealthcare, Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield and some Medicare and Medicaid contractors. Cigna took over the company in 2018, but EviCore maintains its independence by blocking insurers from prying into one another’s proprietary data.

In responses to inquiries, the large insurance companies said they hired EviCore as a way to make sure that customers received safe and necessary medical treatments, while holding down costs for inappropriate care.

EviCore built its business by relying on different types of contracts. In one, a health insurance company pays EviCore a flat rate to review coverage requests.

Another type is more lucrative, providing an incentive for EviCore to cut costs, former employees said. Known as risk contracts, EviCore takes on the responsibility for paying claims. As an example, say an insurer spends $10 million a year on MRIs. If EviCore keeps costs below that figure, it pockets the difference. In some cases, it splits the savings with the insurance company.

“Where you really made your money was on a risk model,” a former EviCore executive said. “Their margins were exponentially higher.”

EviCore teams involved in developing the algorithms and contracting with clients “operate separately” from reviewers “to prevent any potential conflicts of interest,” according to the statement from Cigna’s spokesperson.

Insurers do not make explicit demands for more denials, a former EviCore sales executive said, Instead, they asked about “controlling the spend” — the amount of money paid out on certain procedures, he said. Nor would EviCore always use the word “denials” — they employed circumlocutions like “inappropriate determinations.”

Aetna and Cigna are two of the companies that have requested “high touch” plans — those that would send more cases to clinical review and thus generate more denials, according to the former employee involved in data issues.

Aetna did not directly respond to whether it used “high touch” plans. “Although we never automate medical necessity denials, we automate and provide real-time approval of some services to ease administrative burden and allow providers to focus on patient care,” the insurer said in a statement. Cigna did not respond to questions about its use of such plans.

The fact that these big companies focused on profits and can play all these games is quite disturbing to me.

“When you have human eyes on something, you can pick up where there might be a gray area where the algorithm might not pick up,” a former EviCore account executive said. “That is how you would increase the denial rate.”

EviCore can also adjust the algorithm to achieve its internal goals, without the knowledge of clients, former employees said. This happened when EviCore was not generating enough savings to demonstrate its value to insurers, several former employees told ProPublica.

“The pressure from our business leaders was to make sure that we were able to provide evidence of a strong enough impact to justify the contracts with clients,” said the former employee involved with technology.

The system also runs in reverse. When doctors or employer health plans complain about high rejection rates, insurance companies can ask EviCore to back off. The company simply adjusts its algorithm to approve more prior authorization requests.

Dave Jones, a former California insurance commissioner and now director of the climate risk initiative at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said arbitrarily increasing or decreasing manual reviews didn’t appear to violate any standards. Still, he questioned whether a payment structure or contract for EviCore based on reducing claims payments or authorizations would result in objective and thorough evaluations of prior authorization requests, as required by law.

“That to me is troubling,” Jones said. “It suggests that the claim settlement procedure is not objective, right?” He added, “It calls into question everything that’s occurring.”

Other industry experts found the manipulation of denial rates upsetting.

“The fact that these big companies focused on profits and can play all these games is quite disturbing to me,” said Martin Lustick, a former insurance executive and the author of a book on industry practices. “They know the more reviews they do, the more denials they get.”

On March 2, 2022, Cupp and his daughter entered the Adena Regional Medical Center, a gray and glass building surrounded by central Ohio’s low rolling hills.

It had been almost three months since EviCore first turned down coverage for the catheterization. Changing tack, Cupp’s doctor ordered a new exam, which EviCore approved, called a nuclear stress test. It shows how well blood flows through your heart.

A heart catheterization generally costs around $3,500 when done in network, according to Fair Health, a nonprofit that tracks health care prices. A nuclear stress test runs about $315.

Afterward, Cupp greeted Chris in the waiting room. He told her he felt fine. They went for lunch at a favorite hamburger spot. At the time, they did not know the results of the stress test, which showed that his heart was pumping even less blood than indicated by his echocardiogram.

At each step of the way, EviCore had steered Cupp’s medical treatment by denying or approving his doctor’s coverage requests based on its own internal guidelines.

Those guidelines have long been the subject of complaints from doctors. Over the past five years, organizations ranging from the American College of Cardiology to the Society for Vascular Surgery to ASTRO, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, have written to EviCore or regulators that the guidelines are flawed and can interfere with delivering the right care for patients. Benjamin Durkee, a doctor who chairs ASTRO’s payor relations committee, said EviCore had generally made “a good faith” effort to respond to the society’s concerns. But, he noted, the company continues to consistently deny a radiation treatment called proton beam therapy for some pelvic tumors that is more costly but supported by ASTRO’s recommendations.

A 2023 academic study examined the criteria EviCore used to approve payment for imaging of the lower spine in cases of extreme pain. It found the guidelines deficient. Two of five medical experts who reviewed the guidelines even recommended not using them.

A 2018 audit by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, found that Health Care Service Corporation, a Blue Cross Blue Shield insurer, had hired EviCore to review prior authorizations. EviCore, the audit found, played a role in making “inappropriate denials” for 30 patients because it failed to keep its cancer guidelines up to date. As a result, EviCore retrained its staff. HCSC did not respond for comment.

Former employees have also questioned how the guidelines were put to use.

A maternal-fetal medicine physician in Colorado, Gail Miller, took a job as a doctor at EviCore in 2018. The idea of ensuring safe medical practices appealed to her. But she soon grew convinced that EviCore was more interested in saving money.

EviCore rejected her suggestions for improving its maternal fetal health guidelines. Her supervisor required her to decide at least 15 cases an hour — or one every four minutes. She often reviewed requests by physicians outside her specialty.

Nine months after starting at EviCore, Miller quit, disappointed by the attitudes of some of her colleagues. “Most of the physicians who work at these places just don’t care,” she said. “Any empathy they had is gone.”

EviCore noted its clinical staff had “high engagement, satisfaction and retention rates.” It said the most common reason for denying a prior authorization is because doctors neglect to include necessary information.

EviCore meets regularly with insurers and state Medicaid programs. It is a critical part of the business. The company has to demonstrate savings or clients will have little reason to continue their contracts.

Typical was a 2019 meeting with Vermont’s Medicaid program, which for years had used EviCore to review coverage requests for advanced radiology and cardiology scans. A slide show demonstrated how the company had helped lower costs for cardiac imaging through denials. Rates had zigzagged, from a high of almost 15% of requests in one three-month period to a low of 6.1% in another.

But the presentation, obtained through Vermont’s Public Records Act, revealed another way that EviCore saved money for insurers. Prior authorization requests for radiology imaging services had dropped to 3,629, a decline of 16%. Cardiology requests had plummeted even more — down 38% in a little more than a year. Doctors had simply stopped asking for procedures for their patients.

An EviCore executive called this the “sentinel effect” at a legislative hearing in Kansas. It is like the sheriff coming to town. Once doctors know EviCore is watching, they make fewer inappropriate prior authorization requests, he said.

Doctors, however, say that such decreases reflect how difficult it is to fight EviCore and similar companies. Their entrance into the market frustrates doctors from making otherwise legitimate requests.

In its statement, Cigna described the sentinel effect differently. The company said that it helps doctors stay up to date on best practices. “Sentinel effect refers to the reduction in frequency with which physicians order inappropriate services because they are now aware of the latest clinical evidence,” the statement read.

A spokesperson for Vermont’s Medicaid program said the state does not believe that EviCore made unfair or unsound coverage recommendations. Instead, EviCore helped Vermont make “sound decisions from both a fiscal and patient care perspective.”

“It is never a goal for the state of Vermont or our third-party contractors to deny service,” said Alex McCracken, spokesperson of Department of Vermont Health Access. “We are committed to delivery of service for our customers.”

Vermont eventually ended its contract with EviCore because it decided to no longer require prior authorization for advanced imaging scans in its Medicaid program.

The day after his stress test, Cupp drove to his granddaughter’s high school to drop off her archery bow — it had been left behind in the morning rush. He and his wife went shopping at the grocery store. That evening, he watched as his grandkids showed off some baby frogs they had purchased at a pet store.

He went to bed at 8:30 p.m. in order to wake at 2:30 a.m. for the hourlong drive to his job as a maintenance worker at a medical supplies warehouse just south of Columbus.

At about 10:30 p.m., Cupp’s wife, Vivian, shook Chris awake. “Your dad’s breathing funny,” she told her. Chris ran into their bedroom. Her father was gasping for air. Suddenly, he stopped. Chris began CPR. She told her mom to call 911.

By the time the ambulance arrived at Adena Regional Medical Center, where he had received his nuclear stress test 36 hours earlier, his body was mottled and cool. He had suffered cardiac arrest. The time of death was 11:39 p.m.

ProPublica asked four cardiology experts to review Cupp’s medical situation. One cardiologist said she would not have recommended a heart catheterization. Given his symptoms, which did not include complaints about chest pain, the best diagnostic tool would have been the stress test, she said.

Three others said the heart catheterization was appropriate. One cardiologist noted that Cupp was diabetic, overweight and showed signs of having suffered a prior heart attack. “It’s very reasonable to say we’ll just go straight to a heart catheterization,” the cardiologist said.

If Cupp had received the procedure when first ordered, his life may have been saved, one expert said. “The doctor was absolutely right to order the catheterization. It was certainly necessary,” said Jonni Cooper, president of American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine and a board certified cardiovascular nurse practitioner.

State and federal regulators rarely impose onerous penalties on companies like EviCore.

Connecticut’s Insurance Department recently reviewed EviCore and Carelon. It found no problems with Carelon. EviCore was fined $16,000 this year for more than 77 violations found in a review of 196 files. EviCore is also accredited by two trade associations, which review companies periodically for compliance with industry standards.

Holding the companies legally responsible for their decisions is also difficult. In 2022, Carelon settled a lawsuit for $13 million that alleged the company, then called AIM, had used a variety of techniques to avoid approving coverage requests. Among them: The company set its fax machines to receive only 5 to 10 pages. When doctors faxed prior authorization requests longer than the limit, company representatives would deny them for failing to have enough documentation. Carelon denied the allegations in court and admitted no fault. A spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Elevance, Carelon’s parent company, said its subsidiary “is focused on improving health outcomes while also lowering the cost of care.”

This year, Chris, representing Cupp’s estate, sued United Healthcare, EviCore, the Adena Regional Medical Center and Cupp’s doctor, accusing them of malpractice, among other allegations. Cupp’s attorney, John Markus, later decided to drop United and EviCore. Lawsuits against employer-funded health plans, like the one Cupp had with United, must be tried in federal court, where case law favors insurance companies. For instance, insurers found at fault do not pay punitive damages, only the cost of treatment. The medical center and the doctor declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. In court, both denied any wrongdoing. United and EviCore declined to discuss Cupp’s case, despite an offer from Chris to sign a waiver of medical privacy rights.

Her father’s death wracked Chris. He had been her best friend. He helped raise her three kids. He provided for the family. Two years before his death, he purchased a new double-wide trailer to replace a rusting single-wide the family had lived in for years. It had four bedrooms, enough for everyone. It stood on the side of a hill, surrounded by oak and maple, a leafy retreat with a view of the valley below.

Cupp was buried at a cemetery across from a cornfield on March 9. A gray granite headstone marks his date of death.

Chris Cupp drives a school bus to make ends meet. For extra pay, she picks up a lot of the trips for night games. She says she hopes that no one else has to go through what she did.

“Insurance has too much say over something that can save your life,” she said. “When it comes to your heart, something that’s going to kill you, they have too much say in that. That’s my thought about it.”

Do You Have Insights Into Dental and Health Insurance Denials? Help Us Report on the System.

Agnel Philip contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by .

“By refusing Andrei Mialeshka and Arsen Kharatyan entry to Georgia on obscure grounds, the Georgian authorities are sending a worrying signal to all journalists who sought refuge in the country or use it as a base for their work,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Georgian authorities should allow Mialeshka and Kharatyan to enter the country and ensure that Georgia is a safe place for independent journalists.”

On Monday, border guards at the airport in the western Georgian city of Kutaisi held Mialeshka, a freelance reporter working with independent Belarusian media, for a day after denying him and his 11-year-old daughter entry when they arrived from Poland.

Authorities gave Mialeshka, who has been living in Georgia for the last three years, a document stating that he was not allowed to enter under “other cases envisaged by Georgian legislation,” confiscated his and his daughter’s passports, and placed them in a room for deportees, the journalist posted on his Facebook page and told Radio Svaboda, the Belarusian service of U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, while being detained.

After Radio Svaboda published the interview, airport employees took away their phones and a laptop, saying, “You talk too much.” Mialeshka and his daughter were put on a plane back to Poland on Monday evening.

CPJ is also investigating the denial of entry Tuesday of Kharatyan, the founder of independent Armenian-languageoutlet AliQ Media, based in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi. Kharatyan told CPJ that he was traveling to Georgia for work from Luxembourg when immigration authorities denied him entry at Tbilisi international airport and gave him the same written refusal as Mialeshka. After being held for four hours, he was sent on a plane back to Luxembourg.

Authorities have previously denied entry to several Russian journalists following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

CPJ sent a request for comment to the Georgian Interior Ministry via an online form but did not immediately receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department refused on July 10, 2024, to include a freelance journalist and a local video news outlet that relies on stringers on its email list for notifications of press conferences.

Doug Roberts, a freelance video journalist for Las Vegas Live, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he has been trying for two years to get on the email list and has been barred from attending three press conferences.

The email list is primarily used to alert journalists about news briefings on developing crime stories, often held near the crime scenes, Roberts explained to the Tracker. He has missed some events, he said, but has been getting by with help from other journalists who share the information with him. Some have even taken his camera into the news conferences when he has been barred from entering.

“We’ve basically been getting by without being added to that list just because of the relationships that we’ve built with other people in the industry,” Roberts said. “Luckily they’re seeing us little guys being discriminated against so they’re helping us.”

In one instance, which Roberts recorded on a body cam and shared with the Tracker, a police public information officer denied him access to a June 26, 2024, press conference on the sidewalk. When he said it was a public space, she moved the press conference inside the police tape, excluding him.

Roberts wrote police a letter on June 27 seeking inclusion on the email distribution list, explaining that he is affiliated with both Las Vegas Live and OnScene.tv, a video distribution company. He wrote his request on letterhead from Live Core Productions, the company that he created for his freelance work. He sought inclusion on the list for Las Vegas Live, OnScene.tv and Live Core Productions.

In a response written by a lawyer for the department on July 10, Las Vegas police denied Roberts’ request, citing a Nevada statute that says criminal history information must be provided to “any reporter or editorial employee who is employed or affiliated with a newspaper, press association or commercially operated, federally licensed radio or television station.”

The letter stated that Roberts’ Live Core was not “a ‘press association’ or any other type of news media.” It didn’t address Las Vegas Live or OnScene.tv, but police didn’t add them to the list.

In the letter, the police argued that a press association had a limited definition, such as The Associated Press, which is a worldwide news cooperative.

“As such, LVMPD may not disseminate criminal history information to Live Core therefore and must exclude Live Core from media briefings,” the letter said.

The police department’s public information office didn’t respond to the Tracker’s repeated phone calls and emails requesting comment.

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press wrote a letter to the police department on behalf of freelance reporters on July 22.

“The protections of the First Amendment apply equally to traditional and non-traditional journalists and news organizations, including freelance reporters and stringers,” the letter said.

It pointed out that the Nevada Supreme Court, in interpreting the state’s reporter shield law, “clarified that courts ‘are not required to make a fortress out of the dictionary,’ and explained that these protections extend to journalists, including bloggers.”

Roberts filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the police department and received the email distribution list in redacted form. It includes more than 100 email addresses, some for online-only publications, such as tabloid entertainment news TMZ.

Roberts said that his exclusion from the email list and briefings has a chilling effect, because other journalists see that police could restrict access to them, too.

“I think that the media in Las Vegas is not being critical of the police, or they’re not doing their job in terms of holding the police accountable because they become reliant upon the police for information and for leads and for stories,” Roberts told the Tracker. “And if they become critical of police, they might end up in the same boat that we are.”

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

“For the second time in as many months, the Supreme Court will hear a case with extraordinary impacts on our ability to get the essential, and in some cases life-saving, health care we need,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Anti-abortion politicians have brought this case to the nation’s highest court to challenge long-standing federal protections for emergency care abortion care. If these extreme politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients, and pregnant people will suffer severe, life-altering health consequences, and even death. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, where medical evacuations to transport patients to other states for the care they need have dramatically spiked since the Supreme Court allowed state politicians to block emergency abortion care. This case once again highlights the extraordinary lengths extremist politicians will go to control our bodies, our lives, and our ability to get the health care we need.”

The case comes to the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Idaho in August 2022, seeking an injunction to allow patients to receive abortions in emergency circumstances. The case argues that EMTALA — a nearly 40-year-old federal statute that requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide emergency stabilizing treatment to any patient that needs it — prevents Idaho from banning emergency abortions. A lower court granted the injunction, but anti-abortion politicians appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction and took the case in January.

Medical professionals, from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Hospital Association to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have underscored that doctors must be able to provide their patients with the emergency abortion care they need.

Idaho is home to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, which went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022. As a result of this ban, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing stabilizing care to a pregnant patient and facing criminal prosecution from the state, or declining medical care and leaving a patient in crisis while facing federal sanctions for violating EMTALA.

As a result, Idaho has lost nearly 1 in 5 obstetricians and gynecologists who have chosen to leave the state and practice elsewhere, which has led to hospital obstetrics programs around the state shuttering their doors.

The brief in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Indonesia’s military regional command in Papua has denied claims made by a pro-independence West Papuan group that abducted New Zealand pilot Phillip Mehrtens more than a year ago that the army had staged a bombing attack, The Jakarta Post reports.

Responding to a claim by the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) that aerial bombing had taken place in an area in Nduga regency where Mehrtens had been taken hostage on February 7 last year, the Indonesian Military (TNI) said it had deployed only flyby operations there.

Lieutenant Colonel Candra Kurniawan, a spokesperson for the Cendrawasih Regional Military Command in Papua province, denied that any military operation involving aerial bombs had taken place.

• READ MORE: Other NZ pilot reports

He said soldiers from the Nduga District Military Command 1706 only carried out routine patrols in the region.

TNI denies bombing Papua district in bid to free NZ pilot – Archipelago – The Jakarta Post #jakpost https://t.co/gHCbBA5Uy4 pic.twitter.com/aKNW7nFmMJ

— The Jakarta Post (@jakpost) April 1, 2024

“This [patrol] was conducted together with the local community. There has been nothing like an air strike,” Candra told the Bahasa-language Tempo on Saturday.

He also rebuffed TPNPB’s claim that TNI soldiers had engaged in a firefight with members of pro-independence group.

“Many [TNI] members are in the field serving the community, the situation is also conducive,” Colonel Candra said.

On March 30, TPNPB spokesperson Sebby Sambom said in a statement received by Tempo that the military had deployed aerial attacks using “military aircraft, helicopters and drones” and destroyed four of the group’s posts in Nduga.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Indonesia’s military regional command in Papua has denied claims made by a pro-independence West Papuan group that abducted New Zealand pilot Phillip Mehrtens more than a year ago that the army had staged a bombing attack, The Jakarta Post reports.

Responding to a claim by the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) that aerial bombing had taken place in an area in Nduga regency where Mehrtens had been taken hostage on February 7 last year, the Indonesian Military (TNI) said it had deployed only flyby operations there.

Lieutenant Colonel Candra Kurniawan, a spokesperson for the Cendrawasih Regional Military Command in Papua province, denied that any military operation involving aerial bombs had taken place.

• READ MORE: Other NZ pilot reports

He said soldiers from the Nduga District Military Command 1706 only carried out routine patrols in the region.

TNI denies bombing Papua district in bid to free NZ pilot – Archipelago – The Jakarta Post #jakpost https://t.co/gHCbBA5Uy4 pic.twitter.com/aKNW7nFmMJ

— The Jakarta Post (@jakpost) April 1, 2024

“This [patrol] was conducted together with the local community. There has been nothing like an air strike,” Candra told the Bahasa-language Tempo on Saturday.

He also rebuffed TPNPB’s claim that TNI soldiers had engaged in a firefight with members of pro-independence group.

“Many [TNI] members are in the field serving the community, the situation is also conducive,” Colonel Candra said.

On March 30, TPNPB spokesperson Sebby Sambom said in a statement received by Tempo that the military had deployed aerial attacks using “military aircraft, helicopters and drones” and destroyed four of the group’s posts in Nduga.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Israeli scholar Maya Wind’s new book, Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, documents how Israeli universities directly constrain Palestinian rights by supporting and even developing the policies of occupation and apartheid used by the Israeli state. “In the West, Israeli universities are considered bastions of pluralism and democracy. But in fact … they are a central pillar of Israel’s regime of oppression against Palestinians,” says Wind, who also discusses Israel’s “scholasticide, [or] the intentional destruction of Palestinian education,” and the movement of conscientious objectors to Israel’s mandatory conscription, in which she took part when she refused to enlist in the army at age 18 and served 40 days in a military prison.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent for Vox, called the denial a “big victory for Trump.”

Legal expert, George Conway, denying that this was a win for Trump, theorized that the Circuit Court will hear the appeal and decide “within days” by early January and the trial will go ahead in timely fashion, so there is no need for SCOTUS to take now. (Conway, a founder of the Lincoln Project, won the landmark 1997 Supreme Court immunity case that forced Bill Clinton to sit for a deposition in a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.)

Who is right? While Honig is correct that the DOJ has a general policy prohibiting prosecutors from investigating during an election, he’s blowing hot air. I believe Conway is right about the reason for SCOTUS’s denial.

The DOJ policy prohibits prosecutors from selecting “the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” (Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this policy provision requires consultation with and must be approved by the Public Integrity Section.)

However, according to ProPublica, the DOJ apparently issued (via an email) an exception in late 2020 that permits public investigation where “the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy including but not limited to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency.”

Nonetheless, it is unclear whether this exception would apply now to Smith’s prosecution of Trump (as a former federal official) or whether it remains in effect.

In any case, the Supreme Court would likely agree that resolution of Trump’s immunity claim is an urgent matter (for the very reason that it could affect the outcome of the case and the presidential election).

But the Court, as is its general policy, prefers to stay out of the fray as long as possible and let the lower courts do the preliminary analyses. Where the appellate court can still timely rule, SCOTUS doesn’t need to and should not. In other words, the issue is not quite ripe for SCOTUS review.

And the D.C. Circuit Court is clearly moving rapidly, having set a January 9th date for oral arguments, which will be live-streamed here.

The post Why Did SCOTUS Deny Jack Smith’s Expedited Petition for Review? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jennifer Van Bergen.

The post #23 – “Informal Removal” Policies Deny Educational Opportunities for Students With Disabilities appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Shealeigh.

DEFEND ID said its firearms subsidiary, PT Pindad, had exported only sports ammunition products to Myanmar in 2016 for a regional shooting contest. It also said that aircraft maker PT Dirgantara Indonesia and shipbuilder PAL Indonesia had no cooperation or sales agreements with Myanmar.

“We always follow the Indonesian government’s foreign policy and regulations, including the U.N. resolution to stop violence in Myanmar,” Bobby Rasyidin, chief executive of DEFEND ID, said in a statement.

The company was responding to allegations by a group of plaintiffs, led by former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, that the three subsidiaries had sold assault rifles, handguns, ammunition, combat vehicles and other equipment to the Burmese military over the last decade, including possibly after the February 2021 coup.

In a complaint filed Monday with the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), Marzuki and rights activists said they had evidence that the Indonesian firms had transferred weapons and ammunition through a Myanmar-based company owned by the son of a junta-appointed minister. 

They petitioned the commission to investigate and refer the case to a human rights court if there was sufficient evidence of serious violations.

Indonesia, which holds this chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, has been vocal in criticizing the Myanmar junta for its role in post-coup violence.

Indonesia has been at the forefront of ASEAN’s five-point regional consensus, a blueprint for peace in Myanmar that the regional bloc adopted shortly after the coup. It called for an immediate end to violence, dialogue among all parties, a special envoy to mediate, humanitarian assistance and a visit by the envoy to Myanmar. However, the junta has not implemented any of these steps so far.

Myanmar’s military seized power on Feb. 1, 2021, following a general election that it claimed was fraudulent. The coup provoked widespread protests and civil disobedience from the civilian population, as well as armed resistance from ethnic armed groups and militias.

The military responded with a brutal crackdown, killing more than 4,100 people and arresting more than 25,000 others, according to the Thai-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.

The United Nations has warned that Myanmar is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, noting that millions of people are in need of aid and protection.

DEFEND ID has five subsidiaries producing defense systems and equipment such as ships, aircraft, firearms, ammunition and explosives. 

In a separate statement, PAL Indonesia, which produces ships and submarines, said it “never cooperated with the Myanmar government or any business entities in the country,” adding its exports were carried out with the knowledge and support of the Indonesian government.

Pindad, meanwhile, said it had exported small-caliber ammunition to Myanmar in 2016 for military sport purposes as the country was participating in the ASEAN Armies Rifle Meet shooting competition. It also said it had never exported weapons or combat vehicles to Myanmar.

Both subsidiaries expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Myanmar and support for human rights. They also said they were committed to complying with Indonesia’s foreign policy, which is based on active neutrality.

Marzuki did not immediately respond late Wednesday to BenarNews requests for comment regarding the manufacturers’ response earlier in the day. BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news service.

Fact-finding mission

In August 2019, while he then served as chairman of the U.N. fact-finding mission on Myanmar, Marzuki and his team called for an arms sales embargo against Naypyidaw. More than a dozen foreign companies, including state-owned companies in China, had been supplying weapons and other equipment used by the Myanmar military against ethnic minorities, the team reported that month.

Announcing the complaint earlier this week, Marzuki issued a statement saying: “The fact that defense equipment has been actively promoted after the genocidal campaign against the Rohingya and the 2021 coup is cause for serious concern and casts doubt on the Indonesian government’s willingness to comply with its obligations under international human rights law and humanitarian law.” 

On Wednesday, an analyst at the Institute for Security and Strategic Studies commented on the activists’ complaint.

“If the report about the weapons sales were true, the government could be seen as negligent,” Khairul Fahmi said. 

He noted that talks regarding arms sales to Myanmar had started before atrocities by the military, beginning in August 2017, forced more than 740,000 Muslim-minority Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh.

The analyst said the government could use a provision in a 2012 law on defense industries that allows MPs to prohibit or grant exceptions to the sale of defense equipment based on national strategic interests and foreign policy goals. In addition, he proposed that the government add a special clause in the arms contracts that specifies the weapons could not be used for domestic situations or internal security operations.

Muradi, a defense analyst at Padjadjaran University, said it was difficult to control how countries buying weapons from Indonesia use them because there are no specific rules.

He said most of the defense industry’s sales were to the domestic market, which accounted for 80 percent of its revenue while noting Indonesia has sought to increase its exports.

“But when we try to increase exports, we can’t impose our will on other countries. This is a dilemma. We can’t tell the buyer country’s government what they can or can’t do with the weapons,” said Muradi, who goes by one name.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated news service.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tria Dianti and Arie Firdaus for BenarNews.

But Milley’s comments have been misrepresented. He said during the interview that the aircraft “was a spy balloon,” but noted that U.S. officials believed it had neither gained nor transmitted any intelligence back to China.

“The U.S. Department of Defense admitted: So-called Chinese spy balloon incident is a sheer lie,” reads a claim shared here by a Weibo user with more than 5.5 million followers.

The claim was shared alongside a five-minute, 28-second clip that features Milley’s interview. 

Similar claims have been shared by several influential Chinese social media users including a Weibo user called “Stuka 98” who claimed: “Milley admitted that the Chinese balloon incident was merely a misunderstanding.”

In late January and early February, a huge balloon carrying electronic equipment traveled across the United States from Alaska in the northwest to South Carolina in the east. 

Its route over critical military bases raised alarms that Beijing might be gathering crucial intelligence. The balloon was intercepted and brought down near the South Carolina coast on Feb. 4. Subsequently, the U.S. military retrieved it from the Atlantic Ocean.

The incident aggravated Sino-U.S. relations, with Chinese officials denying U.S. claims that the high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, informally termed a “spy balloon”, was used to gather intelligence and insisting that it was solely intended for civilian use. 

Chinese netizens have attempted to control public narratives about the balloon by claiming that shooting down the balloon violated international norms and that the Pentagon itself had admitted their assessment of the balloon’s intelligence gathering capabilities were mistaken.

But the claim about Milley’s remark is false. Below is what AFCL found. 

Milley’s interview

A combination of reverse image search and keyword searches found misleading social media posts cited Milley’s interview with the CBS program Sunday Morning on Sept. 17, 2023.

During the interview, Milley was quoted as saying that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the balloon had not collected any intelligence. 

“The intelligence community, their assessment – and it's a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon,” he said. 

Towards the end of the piece however, the interviewer also asked the chairman whether the aircraft could appropriately be termed a “spy balloon” and if so, whether it had actually gathered any intelligence while in flight. 

Milley stated in reply, “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn’t transmit any intelligence back to China.”

Milley’s comments echoed what the Pentagon announced in June. 

At that time, Pentagon spokesman Brigadier General Pat Ryder said: “We assess that it [a Chinese spy balloon] did not collect while it was flying over the U.S.”

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang and

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) is a branch of RFA established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. Our journalists publish both daily and special reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of public issues.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

In the spring of 2022, Hann Henson accepted a job as a communications specialist for a North Carolina school district. Not long after his insurance kicked in, he pored over the hundred-page booklet outlining the state health plan for district employees.

When he came to the list of services that aren’t covered, he paused at a tiny footnote: North Carolina’s plan did currently pay for gender-affirming care — but only because of a temporary federal court order.

Henson’s heart rate rose as he considered his options. Since he was a child, he’d been burdened by a sense of deep distress about the mismatch between the gender he was assigned at birth and the gender he knew himself to be.

Henson had grown accustomed to state leaders and insurance plans playing political tug of war with his rights. In 2016, early in his transition, a Republican governor signed into law the country’s first statewide ban on transgender people using the bathroom aligned with their gender — forcing Henson to worry about violence from strangers when entering public restrooms. A Democratic governor largely scrapped it a year later. Henson spent the next several years jumping through every hoop his insurance company required before it would cover one of his transition-related surgeries, with a representative at one point telling him the company didn’t cover “tranny health care.”

Now, yet again, he faced obstacles to health care access because of his gender identity. As Henson found out after he started his new job, North Carolina had been fighting a legal battle since 2019 against transgender people on the state’s health plan, some of whom had sued the state for coverage of transition-related care. In 2022, a judge ordered the state to cover the care while the fight dragged on. But any moment, another court ruling could whisk it away.

As Henson had become more confident as a transgender man, the world around him seemed to grow increasingly hostile, with conservative rhetoric against transgender people accelerating an avalanche of restrictive laws. In the last year, state lawmakers across the country have considered nearly 500 proposals targeting transgender rights, and more than 80 became law — both unprecedented numbers. This legislative session, North Carolina passed laws banning gender-affirming care for youth, limiting instruction in elementary schools about gender and sexuality, and preventing transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams. A Republican supermajority in the legislature overrode the Democratic governor’s vetoes on all three.

In May, Dale Folwell, North Carolina’s state treasurer, sat for an interview with a far-right activist to explain his decision to keep fighting the lawsuit filed by transgender people over the state health plan. North Carolina is one of more than a dozen states with a health plan that explicitly denies coverage for gender-affirming care, and this lawsuit — one of several arguing that states cannot block access to the coverage — is the first to make it to a federal appeals court. Folwell, who is running for governor, argued that the state health plan’s board of trustees should have the authority to determine the scope of employee benefits — echoing the argument North Carolina makes in court documents that covering gender-affirming care would be a financial burden.

“When you have a plan this large,” Folwell said in the interview, “you have to focus on doing the most good for the most number of people. That’s how you set benefits.” He did not respond to ProPublica’s questions or interview requests.

Lawyers and experts for the transgender plaintiffs have pointed to evidence showing that covering the care would likely cost the state very little — and have argued that withholding it is discriminatory.

For several weeks this spring, Henson repeatedly checked the federal court website for an update on the lawsuit, gripped by a feeling of panic, “like somebody has got their hands around my neck.” One more major surgery separated him from the relief of his body fully matching his gender, and he wasn’t sure when the court would make a decision.

A few days after Folwell’s interview, Henson learned that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, would hear arguments on the case in late September. It was far from the ideal time: His surgery was scheduled for late November, and he’d need a follow-up surgery about six months later.

The tight legal timeline has made the waiting period for the surgery almost unbearable for Henson: “You’re on the highway in the car and you’re driving and you’re like, ‘I’m gonna make it, I’m gonna make it.’ And then your gas starts running out.”

A 28-year-old self-described nerd with a youthful face and quiet voice, Henson distracts himself with his hobbies: playing video games with friends and attending anime conventions in costume. He regularly visits his parents in rural North Carolina and talks on the phone daily with his fiancee, who lives a few hours away. He has a calm demeanor, except for the nervous giggles that punctuate his speech, especially when he describes his darkest moments.

As the last academic school year came to a close, Henson stayed late to take photos at a school board meeting, sporting a blue suit jacket and hefty camera as he herded together groups of students and teachers who had won awards. He headed down the hall to his office to upload the photos. The live video of the board meeting played on the computer in the background.

Several minutes into the public comment period, a man approached the podium, introducing himself as a clergy member and a parent. His voice grew louder as he questioned whether board members were “perverts” and “child molesters.” He listed children’s books featuring transgender or gender-nonconforming characters and insisted they would be used to groom children, “push down their throat puberty blockers or move them towards mutilation.” As he began to read a passage from the Bible, his mic turned off. His time had run out. The audience applauded him.

Henson watched the screen, horrified. He felt like the man was speaking specifically about him. Few of his co-workers attending the board meeting knew he was transgender. He had cautiously told only his boss and closest colleagues, nervous about gossip or uncomfortable questions. Alone in the room, the office door ajar, he began to cry.

In recent months, Henson had often considered where he would be if the attacks on transgender people had been as aggressive when he first came out a decade ago as they are now. “I probably would be dead,” he said.

During Henson’s senior year of college, North Carolina passed House Bill 2, a prototype for the state bathroom bills that conservatives across the country stamped into law this year. HB 2 prohibited transgender people from using the public bathroom aligning with their gender and stripped the ability from cities and counties to pass local nondiscrimination policies. On the floor of the state House in late March of 2016, Republican lawmakers emphasized that the bill would help people travel more freely across the state, knowing each business would have the same policy.

Henson had moved cautiously through his college experience. Years earlier, as a freshman, he came out as transgender to his new group of friends. It was the first time he had been so widely open about his gender identity, and he hoped they would understand. Instead, they told him he was just looking for attention.

Already burdened by feelings of shame and low self-worth, Henson tried to kill himself. His resident assistant rushed him to the emergency room, where he told a doctor that he’d been stressed about chemistry class and a recent medication change, and had fought with a friend about “some kind of gender identity issues,” according to his medical notes.

Henson never spoke with those friends again, but their comments looped in his mind after he returned to school and continued to move forward in his gender transition.

In his senior year, after several months on testosterone, his beard had begun to grow in, and though it was patchy, he wore it like armor to shield himself from strangers’ scrutiny. It didn’t always work.

He remembers walking into one of the men’s bathrooms on campus the first week after the law passed. A man standing at the urinal turned and asked, “Are you allowed to come in here anymore?”

Henson frequently experienced panic attacks, fearful of potential assault and furious at public policies that restricted his rights. He recalls standing in the middle stall at school and sending an angry email from his phone to then-Gov. Pat McCrory: I’m a transgender man in a public men’s room. Come and get me.

In the months after the law passed, when he and his sister, Ashlee Park, ran errands at the suburban Walmart near her home, she stood outside the men’s bathroom protectively while he was inside. Park knew her brother was struggling. He had recently seen a therapist who waved away his gender dysphoria as a “pathological need to be different,” Park recalled. Since then, he had stopped mental health treatment and continued to spiral.

“He would say things that were just like: ‘I shouldn’t be alive. I’m an abomination,’” Park said. She would respond, “There’s nothing wrong with you. There’s something wrong with the world. You need to get out of your head.”

Henson couldn’t absorb her words. “It just felt like my state had said: ‘I don’t want you. You don’t deserve to be here,’” he said. “And when you’re told you don’t deserve to be here, you sort of feel like, ‘Where is there to go?’”

One day in the spring of 2016, Henson was visiting Park at her home. Park and her mother were about to leave the house, when Park suddenly felt uneasy. She went back inside to look for her brother and found him in her husband’s closet, looking at the collection of firearms in his gun case.

Henson immediately grew ashamed and pleaded with them not to tell anyone that he’d considered killing himself. “He was begging. I remember him standing on the landing in the studio and looking at me with these incredibly brown eyes,” his mother, Kim Crenshaw, recalled. “And telling me how hard it was for him to be in his body and to feel like such a freak.”

He asked his mother and sister not to take him to the emergency room. They agreed, under the condition that he find a good therapist, and they began calling him every week to ensure he was searching for one. Crenshaw thinks back on the effort it took to bring her son back up from his lowest point. “That scares me so badly for all the kids out there that are going through this now,” she said.

With his family’s encouragement and support, Henson began regular therapy after graduating from college and started to feel more comfortable in his identity. He decided to move forward in his medical transition, wanting chest reconstruction surgery so he could stop binding his chest flat every day. But the prospect of engaging with the health care system was daunting.

His medical records from past emergency room visits provide some insight into his experiences: Several times, doctors incorrectly referred to him as “female” (or, in especially erroneous language, as a “transgendered female”), at times using his previous name and alternating between pronouns.

In 2016, the Obama administration prohibited medical facilities and insurance companies from categorically refusing to cover all health services related to gender transition. But despite the new federal rule, his insurance company at the time, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, threw up barrier after barrier.

Henson recalled that on one occasion, while on the phone with the claims department, the person on the call threw out a transphobic slur: “We don’t do tranny health care.” He hung up the phone and burst into tears.

At the time, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina required transgender patients seeking gender-affirming surgery to provide a supportive letter from a doctoral-level mental health professional — an incredibly high hurdle given the shortage of those providers across the country. After an exhaustive search, Henson found one in 2018 and later that year was able to get chest surgery. He remembers the surgery practice’s billing department filing an appeal with his insurance to get the procedure covered. Doctors there told him he was one of their first patients who received insurance approval for chest surgery related to a gender transition.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina broadened its policy in 2020 to allow any licensed mental health professional to provide letters for transgender patients seeking gender-affirming care. In response to questions from ProPublica, spokesperson Jami Sanchez said the company provides training on gender identity to its customer service team to “ensure members are treated with dignity and respect.”

As the years passed, Henson found that more and more doctors understood how to treat transgender patients. After he took the job at the school district, he spoke with his general practitioner, Sydney Hendry, about getting a hysterectomy to treat the severe uterine spasms and cramps that can sometimes accompany testosterone therapy.

Hendry had to write a letter to the University of North Carolina Health surgical team verifying that Henson met the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and that a total hysterectomy would improve his quality of life. It was the first letter she had ever written for gender-affirming surgery. UNC Health provided a template that eased the process, avoiding the frustrating series of appeals and revisions that plagued Henson’s previous surgery.

Because of the federal court order, his state employee insurance agreed that it would cover the procedure. Henson had the surgery this March. But Hendry’s other transgender patients have told her that they’re scared about North Carolina limiting gender-affirming care for adults in the next year. “I tell them that they are my priority and that I will advocate for them,” she said.

“It feels like through my transition, there was this shift, where people became more educated about it and more knowledgeable,” Henson said. “And then in the past year or two, it’s starting to go back rapidly at a pace that is kind of scary.”

Henson feels that most people walking by him on the street see his full beard and stocky frame and don’t assume he is transgender. His fiancee, Aly Young, appreciates the sense of safety that comes with Henson “passing” but hates feeling like they’re hiding their true selves. “I don’t have thoughts in the back of my head like: ‘Should I be kissing him in public? Should I be holding his hand in public? Are people looking at us? Are we in danger?’” she said. “But at the same time, it makes me really sad. Because I don’t feel authentic. I don’t think Hann feels authentic.”

The two met when Henson began attending her small charter school in 11th grade, after years of home-schooling. One day, Young was hanging out in the hallway, when a math teacher called her over and asked her to comfort the new student crying in the bathroom. Young slowly coaxed Henson out and started to pursue a friendship. When Young moved away the following year, she kept in touch, writing letters that Henson now keeps in a box under his bed.

The pair talk often about moving away from North Carolina, even leaving the South altogether.

The South goes back generations in both their family lines, but this home feels increasingly hostile. Henson’s parents live in Sanford, where the Proud Boys showed up to a local brewery to protest a drag brunch. On the drive to Sanford, he passes by a supersized Confederate flag, which the Sons of Confederate Veterans erected in 2020 to protest the removal of Confederate memorials.

Looking forward, Henson counts down the days until his final set of surgical procedures, a genital reconstruction process commonly called bottom surgery. He had used up all his paid sick leave recovering from the hysterectomy, so he scheduled this next surgery for November, letting him use winter break to recover. Even if he is able to get the surgery before a ruling in North Carolina’s favor, the procedure requires a revision surgery about six months later, and Henson worries about being stuck with it incomplete.

On the morning of Sept. 21, all the active judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will preside over a second-floor courtroom in Richmond, Virginia, and listen to arguments from lawyers on both sides.

They will hear North Carolina’s case on the same day that they hear a similar one out of West Virginia that will determine whether that state’s Medicaid program must cover gender-affirming surgery. In both cases, federal judges in lower courts have already found the states’ policies discriminatory.

Recently, more than 20 conservative states filed an amicus brief in support of North Carolina, calling gender-affirming care “at best experimental and at worst deeply harmful” — a characterization that contradicts the consensus of major medical associations. More than 15 Democratic-led states wrote a brief in favor of the transgender plaintiffs, citing their own regulations that prevent insurance companies from “discriminating against medically necessary, transition-related care.”

In late August, Henson learned that the pastor who had railed against the school board back in June would soon be meeting privately with district leaders. He realized the man would be coming into the administration building where he works, meaning he could run into him face-to-face.

He thought about the benefits and drawbacks of not being immediately recognized as transgender: feeling safer but also forced underground, in a way, having to hear the vitriol against his community but powerless to stand up to it. He thought about how tired he was of feeling helpless and invisible.

That morning, he got dressed deliberately. Dress pants. A short-sleeved button-down shirt. And on the collar, a heart-shaped symbol of defiance — a pin in the colors of the transgender flag.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Aliyya Swaby.

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy Theory!”

“Power elite of war industry in collusion with the US government (i.e., the “corpocracy”) killing hundreds of millions of people for profit, plunder, and more power.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

“The power elite cause widespread poverty.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

“911 tragedy was an inside job.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

“US operates a criminal injustice system.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

 “Covid-19 was a CIA operation.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

“US industry buys and bribes politicians’ votes.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

“US corpocracy “dumbs down” Americans via contrived public education, mass media propaganda, etc., etc.”

“We deny it!”
“Conspiracy theory!!”

And just who is this denial and conspiracy choral group? America’s power elite, and their functionaries, that’s who! Especially the CIA. It “plausibly denies” responsibility and aims to  divert attention away from its evil actions.

The True Cause Scale

Consider referring to the following “true cause scale” if you haven’t yet decided who exactly and solely is doing all the ruling, ruining, and ridding:

1. Intuition. Aka “gut feelings.”

2. Circumstantial evidence. A causes B because B is always associated with the true existence of A.

3. Eyeball evidence. If I saw what caused A, I know what caused A.

4. Hypotheses and scientific theory. Rigorous and replicable production and testing of data in attempts to discover probable causes. Relatively applicable.

5. Causal inference. A complex and sophistical statistical analysis of data to tease out probable causes. Rarely applicable.

6. Empirical, scientific evidence. Produced from the findings of testing hypotheses and causal inferences. Rarely applicable.

7. Website reports from professional investigative reporters.

I rely on 1, 2, 3, and 7!

“Plausible Deniability”

A CIA Escape Hatch

According to Douglas Valentine, author of three revealing books on the CIA based on his rare access to the agency’s officials, the CIA does not launch any clandestine operation such as engineering a bloody regime change without creating and being able to show “plausible deniability” of their actions. ¹ For example, the CIA underwrites massive killings to install friendly (i.e.. submissive) regimes in foreign countries, and then issues its plausible denials. The public is then spoon fed this fiction via the corporatized news media.

In Closing

Do not believe the plausible denials of America’s corpocracy!

Notes

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Gary Brumback.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A key congressional committee asked insurance giant Cigna on Tuesday to provide corporate documents so that lawmakers can examine the company’s practice of denying health care claims without ever opening a patient file.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce joined several state and federal regulators in scrutinizing the legality of Cigna rejecting the payment of certain claims using a system known as PXDX.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington who chairs the committee, noted that policyholders under Cigna’s Medicare Advantage plans appeal about one in five denials for requests for medical procedures, known as prior authorizations. Of those denials, about 80% are overturned.

“If these figures are at all illustrative of Cigna’s commercial appeal and reversal rates, it would suggest that the PXDX review process is leading to policyholders paying out-of-pocket for medical care that should be covered under their health insurance contract,” Rodgers wrote in a letter to Cigna.

The letter follows an investigation by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum that found Cigna doctors blocked payment for certain tests and procedures by automatically labeling them “not medically necessary.” In two months last year, Cigna doctors refused to pay for 300,000 claims in this way, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, according to internal spreadsheets that tracked how fast they worked.

A Cigna spokesperson on Tuesday said that the company welcomes “the opportunity to fully explain our PxDx process to regulators and correct the many mischaracterizations and misleading perceptions ProPublica’s article created.” Cigna has not responded to the news organizations’ requests to detail what those might be.

In the past, Cigna has said the PXDX system was built to process claims more quickly.

But state insurance commissioners contacted in recent weeks criticized Cigna, with several saying that they wanted to more closely examine the company’s use of algorithms to deny claims.

Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner for Washington, said it is an “abhorrent” practice “to routinely deny just to enhance the bottom line.”

Kreidler said he and other state insurance regulators are reviewing their records for customer complaints that seem to describe an auto-denial process.

“I’m afraid it might be the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “We darn well better start paying attention to it.”

Industry sources there told the news organizations that other large insurers operate similar systems.

The investigation by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum has also raised red flags in California.

The California Department of Insurance said in a statement that it is “looking closely at health insurance companies’ handling of claims, while simultaneously exploring all options in coordination with other state regulators.”

Other state insurance commissions said they, too, were interested in a deeper examination of Cigna’s practices.

“Given your article, this will likely warrant a closer look,” said a spokesperson for the Delaware Department of Insurance.

The U.S. Department of Labor regulates a common kind of insurance held by many Americans: plans sponsored by employers that cover their own health care costs. Federal officials said they were alarmed by the auto-deny practices.

“This is very concerning,” said one senior Labor Department official who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak on a sensitive matter. “I don’t see a scenario where we’re not taking a hard look at these kinds of practices.”

Two organizations accredit health insurers to make sure plans are abiding by certain standards. Both of these groups, the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission and the National Committee for Quality Assurance, have opened investigations into the denials system. They did not immediately respond to detailed questions about the investigations.

The letter from the energy and commerce committee asked for the company to hand over “copies of all memoranda analyzing the legality of the PXDX review process.”

The records requested include details about the number of claims denied using PXDX, the number denied by individual medical directors employed by the insurer and details on how often those decisions were appealed and overturned.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Patrick Rucker, Maya Miller and David Armstrong.

“Terms-of-service agreements are just edicts placed on unsuspecting consumers designed to ensure the future legal and financial victory for the credit card issuer,” said Martha Perez-Pedemonti, civil justice and consumer rights counsel for Public Citizen. “Credit card companies know that customers are unlikely to review their options until after a dispute arises because consumers simply lack the time and resources to deal with volumes of fine print.”

The report also found that although an estimated 76% of credit card terms of service agreements containing forced arbitration clauses include opt-out provisions, customers must overcome onerous requirements to use them, requirements buried deep in the lengthy and difficult to read fine print. Eleven of the 13 opt-out clauses Public Citizen examined required consumers to submit a “request to reject” letter and send it to a specific address via snail mail within 30, 45, or 60 days before their request can be approved. None of the contracts containing opt-out provisions specified whether or how customers might be notified if their opt-out was received and approved.

Arbitration firms are extrajudicial systems heavily influenced by corporations, where consumers are placed at a significant disadvantage. These firms lack the structure of state and federal courts, their proceedings are notoriously secretive, and arbitrators have an incentive to favor the companies that use their services over wronged customers. Private arbitration firms follow their own general arbitration rules and procedures, have their own filing and fee structures, and have their own standards for assigning arbitrators. Rules of evidence are established by the firm, and rulings are almost impossible to appeal. The arbitrators are not even required to have prior judicial experience.

Because there is no public right of access to arbitration proceedings, and federal law does not require decisions to be reported, it is nearly impossible to learn the substance of how arbitration firms adjudicate matters. This veil of secrecy deprives the public of potentially valuable information that might emerge during a trial, such as instances of safety hazards, fraud, and discrimination that may affect many consumers.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Russian authorities have held Danylovych, a nurse and freelance journalist covering the healthcare system, since April 2022. During her detention, authorities have beaten and threatened to kill her.

On March 22, 2023, the Ukrainian human rights group Zmina published a letter from Danylovych saying that her health had deteriorated while behind bars, that she had been denied medical treatment, and she had begun a dry hunger strike, refusing all liquids until she was granted access to adequate medical care.

Also on March 21, Danylovych fainted while being transported to a Crimean court, according to multiple news reports, a report by Zmina, and Lutfiye Zudiyeva, a representative of the human rights group Crimean Solidarity, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

“Russian authorities in occupied Crimea should immediately grant journalist Iryna Danylovych access to medical assistance and stop punishing members of the press for their work,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Danylovych should not be in prison in the first place, and authorities should stop retaliating against Crimean journalists by depriving them of their basic rights.”

In her letter, Danylovych said that she had suffered from hearing loss and a constant ringing in her left ear for four months, causing her “unbearable pain.” She wrote that she suspected that she had suffered “a mini stroke” but had not been examined or treated, and that local authorities had been aware of her condition since late November 2022.

Danylovych’s father Bronislav Danylovych told CPJ by phone that she was “suffering from strong headaches and had a constant noise in her ears, as if she was standing close to an aircraft engine,” when he last met with her on March 20.

Bronislav Danylovych told CPJ that he met with representatives of the detention center and the penitentiary system’s medical service on March 27. During that meeting, those representatives told the journalist’s father that Danylovych was receiving medication, but he told CPJ that he did not believe them. He said he considered her treatment to be retaliation for her journalism.

Zudiyeva told CPJ that such medical assistance is required to be administered at a civilian hospital, and said the journalist had not been transferred to such a facility.

During a March 21 meeting with her lawyer, Danylovych said she could not properly study her case files because of her health, Zudiyeva told CPJ. In her letter, she wrote that she would not study her files until she recovers and considered her treatment “torture.”

Danylovych worked at a medical center in the village of Vladyslavivka and contributed to local news websites InZhir Media and Crimean Process.

On December 28, 2022, she was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined 50,000 rubles (US$690) for allegedly handling explosives. She denied the charges and wrote that explosives had been planted to incriminate her.

Danylovych appealed her conviction, but a date for an appeal hearing has not been set, according to Zudiyeva and Zmina’s international advocacy officer, Tetiana Zhukova, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app and email.

CPJ emailed the Feodosia City Court, where Danyloych’s trial is taking place, as well as the Simferopol detention center, where she is being held, and the Crimean Federal Penitentiary Service but did not immediately receive any responses.

At least 19 journalists, including Danylovych, were behind bars in Russia and Russian-occupied Crimea on December 1, 2022, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Russian authorities have held Danylovych, a nurse and freelance journalist covering the healthcare system, since April 2022. During her detention, authorities have beaten and threatened to kill her.

On March 22, 2023, the Ukrainian human rights group Zmina published a letter from Danylovych saying that her health had deteriorated while behind bars, that she had been denied medical treatment, and she had begun a dry hunger strike, refusing all liquids until she was granted access to adequate medical care.

Also on March 21, Danylovych fainted while being transported to a Crimean court, according to multiple news reports, a report by Zmina, and Lutfiye Zudiyeva, a representative of the human rights group Crimean Solidarity, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

“Russian authorities in occupied Crimea should immediately grant journalist Iryna Danylovych access to medical assistance and stop punishing members of the press for their work,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Danylovych should not be in prison in the first place, and authorities should stop retaliating against Crimean journalists by depriving them of their basic rights.”

In her letter, Danylovych said that she had suffered from hearing loss and a constant ringing in her left ear for four months, causing her “unbearable pain.” She wrote that she suspected that she had suffered “a mini stroke” but had not been examined or treated, and that local authorities had been aware of her condition since late November 2022.

Danylovych’s father Bronislav Danylovych told CPJ by phone that she was “suffering from strong headaches and had a constant noise in her ears, as if she was standing close to an aircraft engine,” when he last met with her on March 20.

Bronislav Danylovych told CPJ that he met with representatives of the detention center and the penitentiary system’s medical service on March 27. During that meeting, those representatives told the journalist’s father that Danylovych was receiving medication, but he told CPJ that he did not believe them. He said he considered her treatment to be retaliation for her journalism.

Zudiyeva told CPJ that such medical assistance is required to be administered at a civilian hospital, and said the journalist had not been transferred to such a facility.

During a March 21 meeting with her lawyer, Danylovych said she could not properly study her case files because of her health, Zudiyeva told CPJ. In her letter, she wrote that she would not study her files until she recovers and considered her treatment “torture.”

Danylovych worked at a medical center in the village of Vladyslavivka and contributed to local news websites InZhir Media and Crimean Process.

On December 28, 2022, she was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined 50,000 rubles (US$690) for allegedly handling explosives. She denied the charges and wrote that explosives had been planted to incriminate her.

Danylovych appealed her conviction, but a date for an appeal hearing has not been set, according to Zudiyeva and Zmina’s international advocacy officer, Tetiana Zhukova, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app and email.

CPJ emailed the Feodosia City Court, where Danyloych’s trial is taking place, as well as the Simferopol detention center, where she is being held, and the Crimean Federal Penitentiary Service but did not immediately receive any responses.

At least 19 journalists, including Danylovych, were behind bars in Russia and Russian-occupied Crimea on December 1, 2022, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On Tuesday, March 14, border guards at the airport in Tbilisi, the capital, held Aleksandra Shvedchenko, a reporter with independent broadcaster Dozhd TV, for about 30 minutes before denying her entry to the country, according to her outlet and media reports.

In recent months, authorities have similarly denied entry to at least three other journalists, according to media reports and journalists who spoke to CPJ. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, scores of Russian journalists have fled the country, with many seeking refuge in Georgia.

“Georgia has an opportunity to host hard-hitting independent Russian journalists no longer able to work in their home country. Authorities should embrace this responsibility instead of shirking it,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “Dozhd TV journalist Aleksandra Shvedchenko and all other Russian journalists seeking a safe place to do their reporting should be allowed to work freely in Georgia.”

Authorities gave Shvedchenko a document stating that she was not allowed to enter the country under “other cases envisaged by Georgian legislation,” and put her back on a plane to Riga, Latvia, according to her outlet and Dozhd TV chief editor Tikhon Dzyadko, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app. She had been living in Tbilisi for a year, her outlet said.

In November 2022, authorities denied entry to Yekaterina Arenina, a journalist with investigative outlet Proekt, according to media reports and Arenina, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app. A border guard who gave her the same written refusal as Shvedchenko told her that he could not explain anything verbally, and that their conversation was recorded.

In December 2022, authorities at the Tbilisi airport gave a similar document to Aleksei Ponomarev, a podcast editor with independent news website Holod, and made him return to Riga, where he was flying from, according to his outlet and media reports.

Ponomarev told CPJ that he had lived in Georgia for almost two years at the time of the incident, and that he was able to return to the country two weeks later but was unsure if he could leave and reenter in the future.

On February 19, 2023, Tbilisi airport authorities told Filipp Dzyadko, a Russian writer and journalist, that he could not enter the country because their computer was frozen, and told him they “could not comment on anything,” according to news reports and the journalist, who spoke to CPJ in a phone interview. He said he stayed in the airport until the following day, when he took a flight to Armenia.

Dzyadko had lived in Georgia since March 2022, he said. He told CPJ that he believed the refusal was linked to his former journalistic activities as a Dozhd TV journalist, the chief editor of the now-shuttered newspaper Bolchoy Gorod, and an “anti-war” novel he published in April 2022. He said it was also possibly related to his brother Tikhon’s work as chief editor of Dozhd TV.

CPJ is also investigating Georgian immigration authorities’ November 2022 denial of Gala Latygovskaya, who works in an administrative capacity for the independent news website Mediazona. Latygovskaya told CPJ by phone that she was traveling to the country for her work when authorities denied her entry without giving her any explanation or documentation.

In September 2022, Grigol Liluashvili, the head of the Georgian State Security Service, stated that an “uncontrolled influx” of Russian opposition figures would be “just as dangerous” as Russian government supporters entering the country as tourists.

Previously, in March 2022, Georgian authorities denied entry to Dozhd TV journalist Mikhail Fishman and to Mediazona journalist David Frenkel. In June 2022, Russian blogger Insa Lander was stranded for more than two weeks at the Georgian border before being eventually allowed in.

CPJ emailed the Georgian Interior Ministry police and the State Security Service for comment, but did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

The West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) has denied Indonesian media claims that Egianus Kogoya, the commander of a TPNPB faction, asked for money and weapons to free the New Zealand pilot they are holding hostage.

“No, we never asked for money and weapons in exchange for releasing pilot Philip Mark Mehrtens. That’s just propaganda from the Indonesian security forces,” said TPNPB spokesperson Sebby Sambom.

“This is a political issue, the New Zealand pilot is a guarantee of political negotiations.”

• READ MORE: Other NZ pilot hostage reports

Previously, Papua Police spokesperson Senior Commander Ignatius Benny Ady Prabowo had said the police would not follow a request for firearms and cash in exchange for releasing the Susi Air pilot.

“That was their request at the beginning. But of course we don’t respond. We will not give weapons that will later be used to shoot the authorities and terrorise the community,” Prabowo told reporters.

‘Psychologically disturbing’
The Papuan Church Council said the capture of Philip Mehrtens as a hostage was “psychologically disturbing” for his wife, family and children.

The council demanded that the pilot be released in an open letter. With his release, of Philip Mark Mehrtens, the council said Kogoya would get sympathy from the global community and the people of Indonesia.

“There must be a neutral mediator or negotiator trusted by both the TPNPB, the community, and the government to release the pilot. Otherwise, many victims will fall,” said Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman, a member of the Papuan Church Council.

A New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said the welfare of its citizens was a top priority.

“We are doing everything we can, including deploying New Zealand consular staff to ensure the safe release of our citizen taken hostage,” she said.

The spokesperson added that New Zealand was working closely with Indonesian authorities to ensure the safe release of Mehrtens.

Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis — an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Kavanaugh replied.

David Opperman is an insurance broker who works for UnitedHealthcare. Victoria Kavanaugh is a nurse for United. In this recorded phone call from 2021, the two express relief that a doctor has turned down Penn State student Chris McNaughton’s claim as “not medically necessary.”

Opperman then complained about McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for McNaughton's treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America's leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed FDA guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Kavanaugh said of McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”

Now 31, McNaughton grew up in State College, Pennsylvania, just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For two years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring McNaughton to Dr. Edward Loftus Jr. at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Loftus in May 2015, McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the five-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Loftus looked at McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection and fatigue. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Loftus and McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases like colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prescribing drugs for purposes other than what they are approved for or at higher doses than those approved by the FDA is a common practice in medicine referred to as off-label prescribing. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates 1 in 5 prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctor’s expertise and experience with the drug.“In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose — to reduce inflammation in the large intestine — but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate — as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to three or four. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by McNaughton would be covered by United.

McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive McNaugton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Light and McNaughton’s father, David, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

McNaughton had been on the treatment for three years and it had put his disease in remission with no side effects.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of McNaughton’s care, overseen by Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice known as “off-label prescribing.”

MRIoA sent the case to Dr. Vikas Pabby, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021 report, Pabby concluded McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Opperman and Kavanaugh agreed that if McNaughton were to appeal Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Loftus, the Mayo physician treating McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually only occurs after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Kavanaugh called Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Loftus told Pabby that McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Loftus, Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Opperman claimed that Loftus and Pabby had agreed that McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down” — or reducing the dosage — “to a normal dose range.” Opperman wrote that United would cover McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper — saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year — than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Loftus wrote that changing McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by McNaughton’s lawyers, Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Dr. Nady Cates, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn't a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of McNaughton’s case.

In the deposition, Cates tells McNaughton’s lawyer that he copied the recommendation of Pamela Banister, a nurse for United, rather than writing his own decision.

Watch video ➜

Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Cates was looking at McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Dr. Nitin Kumar, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Kumar discussed the harm that McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Kavanaugh learned of Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Pabby again rejected McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Pabby for review.

Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.

When McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous six years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

If you or someone you know needs help, here are a few resources:

• Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988
• Text the Crisis Text Line from anywhere in the U.S. to reach a crisis counselor: 741741

McNaughton and his parents talked about him possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Loftus connected McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, said McNaughton was not an unusual case. About 1 in 3 patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of McNaughton, Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would only pay for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the U.S. is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on only paying for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Opperman notified Truxal and a United lawyer that McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than two decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.

McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give — with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services webpage, and has a university phone number, a university address and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Light said. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to reenroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

Do You Have Insights Into Health Insurance Denials? Help Us Report on the System.

Doris Burke and Lexi Churchill contributed research.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker and Maya Miller.

Yang Zijing, who uses the social media handle "Dim Sum," was taken away on Dec. 4 by plainclothes police from her home in Guangzhou on suspicion of "picking quarrels and stirring up trouble," a charge frequently used to target critics of the government, the Hubei-based Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch website reported on Dec. 14.

Yang was detained after getting home from a Dec. 4 protest on Guangzhou's Haizhu Square, and her friends warned not to post details of the arrest to social media, the website said.

The Beijing Road police station confirmed on Dec. 7 she was being held under criminal detention, despite the fact that she had neither held up a sheet of paper, nor made any kind of public speech in Haizhu Square.

Yang's mother Gao Xiusheng flew to Guangzhou as soon as she heard the news, she told Radio Free Asia in a recent interview.

"When I arrived in Guangzhou at 10.00 p.m. that evening, I went straight to the police station, who told me the officer in charge of the case wasn't there," Gao said. "They told me she was in criminal detention but didn't tell me why."

"I asked them to explain why they had brought Dim Sum in, but they said I wasn't allowed to have that information, just to know that she had been detained," she said.

"I went back to the police station with my lawyer the next day, but they told me that they couldn't let me meet with her, and the lawyer couldn't either," Gao said.

Makes no sense

She said it made no sense that people who protested for an end to the zero-COVID policy should be locked up now that it had been lifted.

"Dim Sum was just going along with everyone else," Gao said. "Maybe the means weren't right, but her intentions were good."

"Now, everyone else is allowed to move around freely, but Dim Sum is still locked up," she said.

Uncertainties remain over Yang's exact location.

While a police detention notice claimed she was being held in the Yuexiu District Detention Center, the civil rights website said she was still in Beijing Road police station as of Dec. 12.

Gao said she is concerned for Yang's well-being in police detention.

"I'm most worried about her health, because of the [current COVID-19] outbreak," she said. "I tried to deliver some clothes, but the police officer told me they can't take them, because prisoners aren't allowed to wear their own clothes."

'White paper' protests

Gao's lawyer recently tested positive for COVID-19, and is currently in self-isolation, making it impossible to proceed any further with their attempts to get a meeting with Yang, she said.

"She is a good kid who has always been obedient and never did anything illegal," Gao said. "I had no idea it was so serious at first; I just thought it would be a question of bringing her back home."

"I've been here more than 10 days, and I'm not even allowed to see her ... I've never experienced anything like this before," she said. "All I want is for her to get out as soon as possible, even if we're told we can't talk to anyone about it, and go back home."

Three other Guangzhou-based protesters were detained around the same time for their role in "white paper" demonstrations, in which protesters held up blank sheets of paper in a mute protest at the lack of freedom of speech around ruling Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping's zero-COVID policy.

The authorities relaxed most restrictions under the policy within days of the protests, which were sparked by public anger over a fatal lockdown fire in Xinjiang's regional capital Urumqi, and included calls for Xi to step down and call elections.

Chinese human rights lawyers have been scrambling to assist the friends and families of people arrested during a wave of anti-lockdown protests at the end of November, many of whom have little experience being treated as dissidents by Chinese authorities. 

While the legal volunteers have reported large numbers of enquiries in the aftermath of the protests, lawyer Wang Shengsheng said the authorities have been contacting the dozens of attorneys who signed up and putting pressure on them to withdraw their services.

The Communist Party, faced with the biggest challenge to its rule in decades, views the "white paper" protests as the work of "foreign forces" infiltrating China, a notion that has been met with widespread derision among protesters and social media users.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Cantonese.

U.S. Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden on Monday pressured federal regulators to reject a Canadian company's attempt to expand a fracked gas pipeline, citing President Joe Biden's climate promises, threats to Oregon's frontline communities, and efforts by their state to fight the planetary crisis.

"Rather than helping Americans, GTN Xpress would be supporting a market for dirty fossil gas from a foreign country."

In a letter to the five members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Merkley and Wyden detailed their opposition to TC Energy's Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) Xpress project, which would increase the capacity of a fracked gas pipeline that runs from British Columbia to California, cutting through Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.

Pointing to Biden's pledge to cut emissions in half by 2030 and FERC's final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that the project would produce 2.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, they argued that "adding new emissions through pipeline expansions like the GTN Xpress is incompatible with President Biden's pledge."

"Approving the GTN Xpress would also undermine efforts by Oregon to lead the fight against climate chaos," their letter continues, citing state efforts to cut planet-heating emissions and invest in renewable energy. "The GTN Xpress would risk the safety of frontline communities and the planet for a project that isn't necessary."

The letter also takes aim at FERC's review of the project:

The GTN Xpress FEIS illustrates flaws in FERC's environmental reviews that lead to systemic undercounting of the climate impacts from pipeline projects. FERC discarded the established and growing body of peer-reviewed, academic literature indicating that supply side policies have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions by not even considering emissions from upstream production. FERC also assumes that fossil gas will be completely combusted without fugitive emissions despite academic literature showing that leaks exist throughout the entire fossil gas supply and distribution chain. FERCs methodology biases its analysis by minimizing the impacts that projects have on the climate.

In the final EIS FERC disregarded the downstream emissions for fossil gas subscribed to by a Canadian fossil gas producer—a third of the total subscribed gas—because FERC claims it is not "reasonably foreseeable" where the fossil gas would be used. FERC took this step despite the fact that no public comment on the [draft EIS] even recommended it. FERC's decision creates a perverse incentive for companies to hide the actual usages of their products in order to hide the full impacts of their project and is a deeply troubling practice.

"We strongly urge FERC to listen to Oregon when it says that the GTN Xpress is incompatible with climate objectives and is not in the public interest," the senators wrote. "Expanding fossil gas through the GTN Xpress will undermine the efforts in Oregon to support a cleaner, safer, and effective alternative to fossil gas. Rather than helping Americans, GTN Xpress would be supporting a market for dirty fossil gas from a foreign country."

Merkley and Wyden's letter comes after green groups and the state attorneys general from California, Oregon, and Washington have spoken out against the project in recent months.

Meanwhile, leading up to a massive oil spill by TC Energy's Keystone pipeline in Kansas earlier this month, the Canadian fossil fuel giant "solicited and authored a letter that Idaho Republican officials submitted to federal regulators urging them to approve the company's proposal to expand natural gas shipments in the Pacific Northwest" with GTN Xpress, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute via public records requests and exclusively reported on by HuffPost last week.

The outlet noted that the letter authored by the fossil fuel company was signed, wholly or nearly verbatim, by Republican Idaho Gov. Brad Little and the state's full congressional delegation—Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo along with Reps. Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson—who are all in the GOP.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Kolodner and Ma noted that informal removal is defined by the Department of Education as “an action taken by school staff in response to a child’s behavior that excludes the child for part or all of the school day–or even indefinitely.”

Due to the nationwide shortage of teachers, students with behavioral needs are often pushed out of the classroom because inadequately trained teachers cannot handle the disruptions. Students of color with disabilities are disproportionately affected by this dynamic, even though students with disabilities are supposed to be protected under the federal American Disabilities Act (ADA).

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the frequency and consequences of “informal removal.” According to Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, “The practice has taken hold in a way that is dangerous for students and needs to be addressed.”

This issue not only affects students but also their parents. The Associated Press and the Hechinger Report interviewed twenty families in ten states with children who had been subjected to informal removal. Some of these parents had lost jobs or felt the need to switch school districts as a result of the practice.

Informal removals of students with disabilities have not received news coverage that conveys the scope of the problem. Most coverage has originated from local sources, such as WTOP News, a Washington, DC radio station, which reported that special education students in Fairfax County, Virginia, were at higher risk of being suspended for more than 10 days, compared to the general population of students. Though important, locally-focused coverage cannot convey the national scope of the problem, as reported by Kolodner and Ma’s article for the Hechinger Report.

Source: Meredith Kolodner and Annie Ma, “Students With Disabilities Are Often Met With Off-The-Books Suspensions,” The Hechinger Report, October 4, 2022.

Student Researchers: Isabella Arbelaez, Taylor Callahan, Alexa DeMaria, Talia Panacy (University of Massachusetts Amherst)

Faculty Evaluator: Allison Butler (University of Massachusetts Amherst)

The post “Informal Removal” Policies Deny Students With Disabilities of Educational Opportunities appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Vins.

One of the most horrific legacies of Trump is the unwillingness of Republican candidates to commit to being bound by election results.

The same poison has now spread to senatorial and gubernatorial candidates who refuse to commit to November's election results.

Senate candidates who have refused to commit to accepting the results are Republicans Ted Budd in North Carolina, Blake Masters in Arizona, Kelly Tshibaka in Alaska, and J.D. Vance in Ohio, according to news reports.

Two candidates for governor have also refused to be bound: Tudor Dixon, the Republican nominee for the governor of Michigan, and Geoff Diehl, the Republican nominee for governor of Massachusetts.

It's one thing to reserve the right to call for recounts if elections are close and irregularities are evident and to appeal the results through the courts.

But that was not Trump's circumstance in the 2020 presidential election. Recounts were taken but showed the same results; Trump's appeals through the courts were rejected.

And that's not what these Republican candidates are asserting now, in Trump's shameful wake.

But tell me: If these Republican candidates are not bound by the election results, what are they bound to? These candidates are in effect issuing open invitations to their supporters to contest electoral losses in the streets.

American democracy is based on our commitments to be bound by the outcomes of elections. These are commitments we make to democracy over any specific outcomes we may want. The peaceful transition of power depends on these commitments.

Before Trump, these commitments were assumed. And at least since the Civil War they have been honored.

When losing candidates congratulate winners and deliver gracious concession speeches, they demonstrate their commitment to democracy over the electoral victory they sought.

And that demonstration is itself a means of reasserting and reestablishing civility. It sends an unambiguous message to all the candidate's supporters that the process can be trusted.

Think of Al Gore's concession speech to George W. Bush in 2000, after five weeks of a bitterly contested election and just one day after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush:

"I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of the country …. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy. Now the Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. … And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."

Gore made the same moral choice made by his predecessors who lost elections, and for the same reason: The democratic process (even one that included the judgements of Supreme Court justices) was more important than winning a specific election.

This all changed in September 2020 when Trump refused to commit to be bound to the results of the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

"Well, we're going to have to see what happens," he said when asked whether he'd commit to a peaceful transition of power. "You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster," Trump added, presumably referring to mail-in ballots -- which he baselessly claimed would lead to voter fraud.

This is when his poison began seeping directly into the bedrock of American democracy.

That poison spread deeper and faster after he lost the election, when he refused to concede—claiming, again without any basis in fact, that it had been "stolen" from him.

The poison came to the surface on January 6, 2021, when a group of his supporters—wielding weapons of war—invaded the U.S. Capitol and threatened the lives of members of Congress. Five people were killed.

The same poison has now spread to senatorial and gubernatorial candidates who refuse to commit to November's election results.

The commitment to be bound by the results of an election is the most important commitment in a democracy. It is also the most important qualification for public office. It is the equivalent of an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Candidates who refuse to commit to being bound by the results of elections should be presumed disqualified to hold public office.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Robert Reich.

Starbucks management is reportedly planning to deny new paid leave benefits to unionized workers, another wrinkle in the company's aggressive and unlawful campaign to stamp out organizing momentum nationwide.

According to an internal memo obtained by More Perfect Union, Starbucks is set to announce Monday that it is ending Covid-19 sick pay benefits that offered employees two five-day rounds of paid leave per quarter if they contracted the virus or were exposed to it.

The memo adds that Starbucks intends to unveil new paid leave benefits that include "faster sick time accrual." However, the document states specifically that the company will attempt to exclude unionized workers from the new benefits, citing federal labor law requiring management to bargain with unions over any changes to wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Starbucks, currently led by billionaire CEO Howard Schultz, insists it is barred by federal law from "making or announcing unilateral changes," even as it unilaterally moves to end Covid-19 benefits for both unionized and nonunion employees.

"The memo suggests that Starbucks is legally permitted to unilaterally strip unionized stores of the current Covid leave benefits, but banned from implementing the new benefits in those stores," More Perfect Union notes.

Starbucks Workers United, the group leading the organizing campaign that has racked up more than 220 union wins across the U.S. since December, immediately slammed the memo as further evidence that company management "has no regard for the law."

"We are demanding that Starbucks bargain over their attempts to end Covid pay and benefits," the group wrote on Twitter. "Interesting how Starbucks claims to not legally be able to give us new benefits in THE SAME letter they unilaterally take away benefits."

"If Starbucks actually believed they couldn't give union stores new benefits unilaterally, they wouldn't be unilaterally stripping us of our benefits now," Starbucks Workers United continued. "Their goal is to retaliate against and punish union stores."

Starbucks' latest anti-union move comes as the company is facing a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint for illegally denying unionized workers wage and benefit boosts that it provided to nonunion employees. A hearing in the case is scheduled for October 25.

Bloomberg Law reported earlier this month that "Workers United International President Lynne Fox sent a letter to Starbucks on behalf of union stores waiving their right to bargain over the pay and benefit changes, and calling for the company to provide them to union stores as well."

Robert Giolito, an attorney who represents Starbucks Workers United in California and Arizona, told the outlet that "Schultz's stated reason for not affording wage increases and benefits to union stores was wiped out once the union presented its waiver."

"The minute the union gave the waiver, he can give those wages and benefits," Giolito added. "But if he did that, it would undercut the entire motivation of this policy, which is to discourage unionization."

The coffee giant's plan for new sick leave benefits was reported just days after the Biden White House facilitated a deal between rail carriers and unions that—at least temporarily—averted a nationwide railroad strike. At the center of the yearslong labor dispute was paid sick leave, which—unlike other wealthy countries—the U.S. government doesn't guarantee to workers.

"This, as much as anything that has been written, emphasizes the need for the U.S. to guarantee sick workers some form of paid sick days and paid medical and family leave legislation," Eileen Appelbaum, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in a statement last week.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

In the United States, having health insurance does not guarantee that you will receive the care you need. Every year, insurance companies reject tens of millions of claims from people seeking all kinds of medical services, ranging from surgeries to MRIs.

A patient who is denied care and tries to push back faces many obstacles. Challenging the insurance company can require filing an appeal with the insurer, requesting an independent medical review or even filing a lawsuit. We are especially interested in connecting with individuals who have tried to appeal denials. These cases might involve you, your child or another loved one.

We are also hoping to hear from people working for insurance companies, since you know how the system works better than most. Please fill out the below form if you work as a medical director, nurse or customer service representative or have the expertise that can help us understand the health insurance system and its pressures.

Doctors and other medical professionals have already begun telling us that they are frustrated by the hours they spend trying to get insurance companies to approve care for their patients. We would like to hear about those experiences as well.

Our team may not be able to respond to everyone personally, but we will read everything you submit. We appreciate you sharing your story, and we take your privacy seriously. We are gathering these stories for the purposes of our reporting and will contact you if we wish to publish any part of your story.

We are the only ones reading what you submit. If you would prefer to use an encrypted app, see our advice at propublica.org/tips.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker and Maya Miller.

This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...

Brazilian police and a local Indigenous association are denying reporting Monday that a pair of bodies were found in the Amazon in the search for Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira.

"A full and transparent investigation is urgently needed."

Phillips, a longtime contributor to The Guardian, and Pereira, an Indigenous expert, were last seen over a week ago in the Javari region of the Brazilian state Amazonas. Their disappearance has alarmed human rights and press freedom defenders around the world.

News of the alleged discovery of unidentified bodies "was first reported by the Brazilian news outlet G1, citing Mr. Phillips' wife," according to the Independent, which added that the claim was denied by both a federal police statement and a spokesperson for local indigenous association UNIVAJA, which has been involved with the search.

"I've spoken with the team in the field and it's not true," said UNIVAJA lawyer Eliesio Marubo.

The Guardian shared the police statement, which said that "the information being shared that the bodies or Mr. Bruno Pereira and Mr. Dom Phillips have been found are without merit."

"As was previously stated, biological materials and personal belongings of the missing men were found and are being examined," the police statement continued, referencing items found on Saturday in an area of flooded forest by an Indigenous search team. "As soon as any finds are made the family, and the media will be immediately informed."

The newspaper noted that the Phillips' family said that the claim about the bodies came during a call with an aide to the Brazilian ambassador to the United Kingdom:

"He said he wanted us to know that… they had found two bodies," said Paul Sherwood, Phillips's brother-in-law. "He didn't describe the location and just said it was in the rainforest and he said they were tied to a tree and they hadn't been identified yet."

Sherwood added: "He said that when it was light, or when it was possible they would do an identification."

Phillips' sister told the BBC it is an "incredibly distressing and awful situation," and that "I think it's likely they've been ambushed by some illegal criminal activity there, possibly to do with illegal fishing."

Pereira had recently faced threats from people involved with illegal fishing in the region.

Monday's reporting led to new calls for an independent investigation into the case.

PEN International tweeted Monday that "we urge the authorities to carry out a prompt, thorough, impartial, independent and transparent investigation into the disappearance of journalist Dom Phillips and Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira and hold those responsible to account."

The U.S.-based Freedom of the Press Foundation similarly said that "a full and transparent investigation is urgently needed" and "it is vital those responsible are held accountable."

Others expressed support for the loved ones of the missing men.

"We are shocked and horrified," said Rainforest Foundation Norway. "Our thoughts are with their families."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Sources who visited the prison on the outskirts of Myanmar’s commercial capital Yangon told RFA Burmese that dozens of prisoners have been forced to drink from the toilet after the taps were turned off more than two weeks ago, leaving them with no other source of water.

“The authorities cut off the drinking water since the protest,” said one recent visitor, who spoke to RFA on condition of anonymity.

“They put 60-70 female prisoners in one prison hall. I was told that all of them are now forced to drink water from the toilet.”

The source said that some of the prisoners have contracted cholera and other diseases after drinking the unclean water.

Last month, a 24-year-old political prisoner at Insein named Cherry Bo Kyi Naing, who is serving a three-year prison sentence for “unlawful association,” suffered an early-term miscarriage after authorities delayed sending her to the hospital for treatment.

On May 23, the female political prisoners held a protest, claiming that Cherry Bo Kyi Naing’s miscarriage was avoidable and the result of negligence by the guards. Two days later, prison authorities shut down the protest and relocated all the female political prisoners to the single prison hall, before shutting off the water supply.

When asked by RFA for comment on the situation at Insein, Prison Department spokesperson Khin Shwe denied reports that the women had been cut off access to drinking water.

“In Insein prison, we provide adequate water supplies for both drinking and hygiene,” he said.

“We don’t give such punishments for incidents that occur in the prison. We have no such thing.”

Attempts by RFA to reach the International Committee of the Red Cross in Bangkok, Thailand, went unanswered Friday. The Bangkok-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) told RFA it is still making inquiries into the protest at Insein and the response by authorities and was unable to comment.

Kaythi Aye, a former political prisoner in Myanmar who now lives in Norway, told RFA that female prisoners require better hygiene conditions than their male counterparts, and access to clean water is crucial.

“Prisoners are in serious trouble when they don’t have access to clean water, especially during the monsoon season, when mosquitos proliferate and people suffer skin conditions,” she said.

“Wet conditions cause disease to spread further. It’s inhumane to cut off clean water for the female prisoners.”

According to the AAPP, security forces have arrested more than 11,000 civilians in Myanmar since the military seized power in a Feb. 1, 2021 coup. There are nearly 1,200 female prisoners across the country, around 200 of which are held in Insein Prison.

Translated by Ye Kaung Myint Maung for RFA Burmese. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

Sources who visited the prison on the outskirts of Myanmar’s commercial capital Yangon told RFA Burmese that dozens of prisoners have been forced to drink from the toilet after the taps were turned off more than two weeks ago, leaving them with no other source of water.

“The authorities cut off the drinking water since the protest,” said one recent visitor, who spoke to RFA on condition of anonymity.

“They put 60-70 female prisoners in one prison hall. I was told that all of them are now forced to drink water from the toilet.”

The source said that some of the prisoners have contracted cholera and other diseases after drinking the unclean water.

Last month, a 24-year-old political prisoner at Insein named Cherry Bo Kyi Naing, who is serving a three-year prison sentence for “unlawful association,” suffered an early-term miscarriage after authorities delayed sending her to the hospital for treatment.

On May 23, the female political prisoners held a protest, claiming that Cherry Bo Kyi Naing’s miscarriage was avoidable and the result of negligence by the guards. Two days later, prison authorities shut down the protest and relocated all the female political prisoners to the single prison hall, before shutting off the water supply.

When asked by RFA for comment on the situation at Insein, Prison Department spokesperson Khin Shwe denied reports that the women had been cut off access to drinking water.

“In Insein prison, we provide adequate water supplies for both drinking and hygiene,” he said.

“We don’t give such punishments for incidents that occur in the prison. We have no such thing.”

Attempts by RFA to reach the International Committee of the Red Cross in Bangkok, Thailand, went unanswered Friday. The Bangkok-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) told RFA it is still making inquiries into the protest at Insein and the response by authorities and was unable to comment.

Kaythi Aye, a former political prisoner in Myanmar who now lives in Norway, told RFA that female prisoners require better hygiene conditions than their male counterparts, and access to clean water is crucial.

“Prisoners are in serious trouble when they don’t have access to clean water, especially during the monsoon season, when mosquitos proliferate and people suffer skin conditions,” she said.

“Wet conditions cause disease to spread further. It’s inhumane to cut off clean water for the female prisoners.”

According to the AAPP, security forces have arrested more than 11,000 civilians in Myanmar since the military seized power in a Feb. 1, 2021 coup. There are nearly 1,200 female prisoners across the country, around 200 of which are held in Insein Prison.

Translated by Ye Kaung Myint Maung for RFA Burmese. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

Leading up to the next global climate summit in November, a report released Thursday uses climate mis- and disinformation related to last year's conference to spotlight emerging strategies that impede action and to offer Big Tech and government clear solutions.

"Far from helping to mitigate this issue, tech platform systems appear to be amplifying or exacerbating the spread of such content."

The report—entitled Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 and Beyond—was published by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the coalition Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD).

ISD and CAAD point out that institutions worldwide recognize misinformation as a barrier to action, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did in a February report underscoring the need for governments—particularly those of rich nations—to improve their responses to the planetary emergency.

"Rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent," the IPCC report states. "Additionally, strong party affiliation and partisan opinion polarization contribute to delayed mitigation and adaptation action, most notably in the U.S.… but with similar patterns in Canada."

As the new publication's executive summary explains, "Drawing on research compiled over the past 18 months, and especially in the margins and aftermath of COP 26, we have clear evidence of the challenge at hand: The failure to stem mis- and disinformation online has allowed junk science, climate delayism, and attacks on climate figures to become mainstreamed."

"Our analysis has shown how a small but dedicated community of actors boast disproportionate reach and engagement across social media, reaching millions of people worldwide and bolstered by legacy print, broadcast, and radio outlets," the report continues. Such actors include right-wing figures Dinesh D'Souza and Sebastian Gorka, self-described "Greenpeace dropout" Patrick Moore, University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, the Canadian group Friends of Science, and the media company PragerU.

"Far from helping to mitigate this issue, tech platform systems appear to be amplifying or exacerbating the spread of such content," the document adds. "Moreover, the taxonomy of harm relating to climate mis- and disinformation has been poorly defined to date, providing an inadequate basis for response."

Jennie King, head of climate disinformation at ISD, said in a statement Thursday that "our analysis has shown that climate disinformation has become more complex, evolving from outright denial into identifiable 'discourses of delay' to exploit the gap between buy-in and action."

The report warns that "even with broad consensus on the issue of climate, there is a long road ahead to achieving meaningful policy change in line with IPCC warnings and the goals of the Paris agreement," and those opposed to bold moves scientists say are necessary—such as phasing out fossil fuels—focus on that gap to "maintain the status quo."

As the document details:

Arguments framed as 'pro-green' can still advocate for inertia or inactivism, often using the veneer of fiscal pragmatism, free market logic, and concerns about individual liberty. In this way, environmentalism has followed policy issues like migration and public health as a new front in the culture wars, becoming ever-more enmeshed in broader identity and grievance politics. Whether through conspiracies like 'climate lockdown,' or by conflating climate with divisive issues like critical race theory, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion access, the goal of much climate change mis- and/or disinformation is now is to distract and delay. Yet, with the window to act deemed "brief and rapidly closing," such an approach may prove fatal.

Social media monitoring by CAAD during and after COP 26 in Glasgow, Scotland revealed four key discourses of delay—hypocrisy and elitism, absolutionism, unreliability of renewables, and ineffective electric vehicles—though the report acknowledges that "such narratives are not always clear-cut and in some cases overlap."

King said that "governments and social media platforms must learn the new strategies at play and understand that disinformation in the climate realm has increasing crossover with other harms, including electoral integrity, public health, hate speech, and conspiracy theories."

"We've proposed seven concrete measures they can take to thwart the prominence and impact of this content, in order to build public mandates based on credible science and good-faith debate," she noted.

Those seven "policy asks" are:

• Implement a unified definition of climate mis- and disinformation within key institutions (e.g. IPCC, UNFCCC) and reflect these criteria in tech company community standards or terms of service;
• Enforce platform policies against "repeat offender" accounts;
• Limit media exemption loopholes within legislation;
• Improve transparency on climate disinformation trends and the role played by algorithmic amplification;
• Strengthen platform labeling on "missing context" and the re-posting of old or recycled content;
• Restrict paid advertising and sponsored content from fossil fuel companies, known front groups, and/or actors repeatedly found to spread disinformation around climate; and
• Enable API image-based searches to support research on viral disinformation.

"While climate misinformation continues to evolve and undermine the work of well-meaning companies, NGOs, and government bodies, those same institutions are often fighting against it like we are still in the 1990s," declared Stop Funding Heat campaign manager Sean Buchan. "We need to catch up fast. We hope this report will help kickstart a step change in how we come together and fight this incredibly dangerous problem."

Michael Khoo, co-chair of the Climate Disinformation Coalition at Friends of the Earth U.S., emphasized that "governments must require social media companies to be transparent and accountable about the harms their products create, as they do with every other industry from airlines to cars to food processing."

As Khoo put it: "We should not continue this endless game of climate denial whack-a-mole."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that China is building a new facility­–its second overseas military installation after a base in Djibouti–on the northern part of Ream Naval Base on the Gulf of Thailand, where Cambodia will host a groundbreaking ceremony on Thursday.

The newspaper quoted a Chinese official in Beijing as saying that “a portion of the base” will be used by “the Chinese military.” The official denied it was for “exclusive” military use, telling the Post that scientists would also use the facility.

Cambodian government spokesperson Phay Siphan echoed the Beijing official’s denial that it would be for exclusive Chinese military use.

“There is no agreement or law saying that the construction is reserved for Chinese benefit exclusively,” he told RFA’s Khmer Service.

He said the base remains open for visits from other countries, including the United States, but the Post report said Cambodian and Chinese authorities have worked hard to hide the Chinese presence in Ream, keeping the Chinese areas off limits to third-country visitors and altering their dress to avoid scrutiny.

Ream base became the center of controversy in July 2019 after The Wall Street Journal cited U.S. and allied officials as confirming a secret deal to allow the Chinese to use part of the base for 30 years—with automatic renewals every 10 years after that—and to post military personnel, store weapons and berth warships.

The reported deal, which would provide China with its first naval staging facility in Southeast Asia and allow it to significantly expand patrols on the South China Sea, was vehemently denied by Hun Sen, who said permitting foreign use of a military base in the country would “be in full contradiction to Cambodia’s constitution.”

Last year, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman voiced concern about the Chinese military presence at Ream Naval Base during a visit to the country, citing Cambodia’s razing of two U.S.-constructed buildings on the base in 2020.

After meeting with Prime Minister Hun Sen, she arranged for the U.S. Embassy to send its defense attaché for regular visits.

Ten days later, the attaché arrived at the base, but he cut the tour short when he was not allowed full access, including to the sites of the two buildings.

The U.S. had offered to renovate one of them, and the choice to destroy it suggested that Cambodia had accepted Chinese assistance to develop the base, a Pentagon report released last year said.

A Cambodian official told RFA at that time that Cambodia never agreed to give the attaché a full tour, and that the U.S. had committed a breach of trust for asking more than what was agreed upon.

Exiled political analyst Kim Sok told RFA that Cambodia and China are hiding the truth with their denials.

“If any suspicions about the Chinese naval base are not resolved, Cambodia could face serious consequences—not only a diplomatic crisis in the form of pressure from the U.S.—but also it will lead to a security crisis. This will affect regional issues if there is no solution,” Kim Sok said.

The base will bring more Chinese into Cambodia for purposes other than tourism or business, Cambodian-American rights activist and legal expert Theary Seng told RFA.

“The Cambodian political situation is fragile, especially in terms of building good communication with the free world, because the ruling party dissolved its competitors to bolster the dictatorial regime. This has enabled China to [pounce on] the opportunity to increase its influence [in the region],” she said.

Australia-based political scientist Carl Thayer said the semantics don’t change the situation.

“Ream Naval Base is a Cambodian base on its own territory. Are they allocating a section that China can use? And if so, can Cambodians gain access to it without seeking prior permission?” he asked.

“So Hun Sen says it's not a base, it is a facility, and it's still a base. Or [as] Shakespeare [said], ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,’” added Thayer, an emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“A Chinese navy base in Cambodia, if it's called a facility, it's still a Chinese navy base,” he said.

Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Khmer.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that China is building a new facility­–its second overseas military installation after a base in Djibouti–on the northern part of Ream Naval Base on the Gulf of Thailand, where Cambodia will host a groundbreaking ceremony on Thursday.

The newspaper quoted a Chinese official in Beijing as saying that “a portion of the base” will be used by “the Chinese military.” The official denied it was for “exclusive” military use, telling the Post that scientists would also use the facility.

Cambodian government spokesperson Phay Siphan echoed the Beijing official’s denial that it would be for exclusive Chinese military use.

“There is no agreement or law saying that the construction is reserved for Chinese benefit exclusively,” he told RFA’s Khmer Service.

He said the base remains open for visits from other countries, including the United States, but the Post report said Cambodian and Chinese authorities have worked hard to hide the Chinese presence in Ream, keeping the Chinese areas off limits to third-country visitors and altering their dress to avoid scrutiny.

Ream base became the center of controversy in July 2019 after The Wall Street Journal cited U.S. and allied officials as confirming a secret deal to allow the Chinese to use part of the base for 30 years—with automatic renewals every 10 years after that—and to post military personnel, store weapons and berth warships.

The reported deal, which would provide China with its first naval staging facility in Southeast Asia and allow it to significantly expand patrols on the South China Sea, was vehemently denied by Hun Sen, who said permitting foreign use of a military base in the country would “be in full contradiction to Cambodia’s constitution.”

Last year, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman voiced concern about the Chinese military presence at Ream Naval Base during a visit to the country, citing Cambodia’s razing of two U.S.-constructed buildings on the base in 2020.

After meeting with Prime Minister Hun Sen, she arranged for the U.S. Embassy to send its defense attaché for regular visits.

Ten days later, the attaché arrived at the base, but he cut the tour short when he was not allowed full access, including to the sites of the two buildings.

The U.S. had offered to renovate one of them, and the choice to destroy it suggested that Cambodia had accepted Chinese assistance to develop the base, a Pentagon report released last year said.

A Cambodian official told RFA at that time that Cambodia never agreed to give the attaché a full tour, and that the U.S. had committed a breach of trust for asking more than what was agreed upon.

Exiled political analyst Kim Sok told RFA that Cambodia and China are hiding the truth with their denials.

“If any suspicions about the Chinese naval base are not resolved, Cambodia could face serious consequences—not only a diplomatic crisis in the form of pressure from the U.S.—but also it will lead to a security crisis. This will affect regional issues if there is no solution,” Kim Sok said.

The base will bring more Chinese into Cambodia for purposes other than tourism or business, Cambodian-American rights activist and legal expert Theary Seng told RFA.

“The Cambodian political situation is fragile, especially in terms of building good communication with the free world, because the ruling party dissolved its competitors to bolster the dictatorial regime. This has enabled China to [pounce on] the opportunity to increase its influence [in the region],” she said.

Australia-based political scientist Carl Thayer said the semantics don’t change the situation.

“Ream Naval Base is a Cambodian base on its own territory. Are they allocating a section that China can use? And if so, can Cambodians gain access to it without seeking prior permission?” he asked.

“So Hun Sen says it's not a base, it is a facility, and it's still a base. Or [as] Shakespeare [said], ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,’” added Thayer, an emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“A Chinese navy base in Cambodia, if it's called a facility, it's still a Chinese navy base,” he said.

Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Khmer.

A government watchdog revealed Thursday that Medicare Advantage plans—which are offered by private companies but required to follow rules set by the government healthcare program—deny medically necessary care to tens of thousands of enrollees each year.

"It couldn't be more clear that these problems are systemic and widespread in Medicare Advantage."

The revelation came in a report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), which examined a random sample of 250 prior authorization denials and 250 payment denials issued by 15 of the largest Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) during the first week of June in 2019.

Government investigators found that 13% of the 12,273 prior authorization denials met Medicare coverage rules. "In other words," the report explains, "these services likely would have been approved for these beneficiaries under original Medicare (also known as Medicare fee-for-service)."

"These denials can delay or prevent beneficiary access to medically necessary care; lead beneficiaries to pay out of pocket for services that are covered by Medicare; or create an administrative burden for beneficiaries or their providers who choose to appeal the denial," the report continues. "These denials may be particularly harmful for beneficiaries who cannot afford to pay for services directly and for critically ill beneficiaries who may suffer negative health consequences from delayed or denied care."

Examples featured in the report include denying a follow-up MRI by claiming a patient's lesion was too small as well as a request for a walker from a 76-year-old with post-polio syndrome.

The report points out that "for 3% of prior authorization denials, MAOs initially denied requests that met Medicare coverage rules, and later reversed these denials within three months and approved the requests."

The investigators also found that 18% of the 160,378 reviewed payment denials "met Medicare coverage rules and MAO billing rules and should have been approved by the MAOs."

"For an annual context, if these MAOs denied the same number of payment requests (28,949) in each of the other 51 weeks of 2019," the report states, "they would have denied 1.5 million payment requests that met Medicare coverage rules and MAO billing rules that year. "

"For 6% of payment denials, MAOs initially denied payment requests that met Medicare coverage rules and MAO billing rules, and later reversed these denials within three months and paid the claims," the document adds, acknowledging that some initial decisions were the result of system or manual errors.

While Medicare Advantage plans are intended to cover the same services as the federal program, MAOs receive a flat fee from the government per enrollee. The report notes that "to manage care for beneficiaries and to help control costs, MAOs may impose additional requirements, such as requiring that beneficiaries use only in-network providers for certain healthcare services; requiring prior authorization before certain services can be provided; or requiring referrals for specialty care services."

"A central concern about capitated payment models—including the model used in Medicare Advantage—is the potential incentive for insurers to deny access to services and payment in an attempt to increase profits," the document recognizes.

Based on the OIG's findings from the probe, the report offers three primary recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):

• Issue new guidance on the appropriate use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews;
• Update its audit protocols to address the issues identified in this report, such as MAO use of clinical criteria and/or examining particular service types; and
• Direct MAOs to take steps to identify and address vulnerabilities that can lead to manual review errors and system errors.

According to the report, "CMS concurred with all three recommendations."

Problems with MAOs impact millions of people, particularly seniors, as Medicare plans primarily serve those age 65 and older. Over 26 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan last year—42% of Medicare beneficiaries—and the Congressional Budget Office projects that over half of all enrollees will opt for the private plans by 2030.

The federal watchdog's review follows a letter last week led by U.S. Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), which urged the Biden administration not to increase taxpayer funding for Medicare Advantage plans after another government report exposed $12 billion in overpayments in 2020.

The OIG report also comes as some progressives in Congress have renewed a push for Medicare for All—and as they continue to criticize the Biden administration for its redesign of a Trump-era experiment that opponents have framed as an attempt to fully privatize Medicare.

Some critics noted the Direct Contracting program—now rebranded as ACO REACH, which stands for Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health—in their responses to the new report.

"It couldn't be more clear that these problems are systemic and widespread in Medicare Advantage—that's why this week I led a letter calling for dedicated funding to investigate inappropriate care denials and fraud by private insurers," tweeted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"This is also a clear-cut argument for why we must immediately end Medicare privatization programs like ACO REACH," Jayapal added. "There's no excuse for allowing the same Medicare Advantage organizations to now administer 'care' for traditional Medicare beneficiaries."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

A government watchdog revealed Thursday that Medicare Advantage plans—which are offered by private companies but required to follow rules set by the government healthcare program—deny medically necessary care to tens of thousands of enrollees each year.

"It couldn't be more clear that these problems are systemic and widespread in Medicare Advantage."

The revelation came in a report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), which examined a random sample of 250 prior authorization denials and 250 payment denials issued by 15 of the largest Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) during the first week of June in 2019.

Government investigators found that 13% of the 12,273 prior authorization denials met Medicare coverage rules. "In other words," the report explains, "these services likely would have been approved for these beneficiaries under original Medicare (also known as Medicare fee-for-service)."

"These denials can delay or prevent beneficiary access to medically necessary care; lead beneficiaries to pay out of pocket for services that are covered by Medicare; or create an administrative burden for beneficiaries or their providers who choose to appeal the denial," the report continues. "These denials may be particularly harmful for beneficiaries who cannot afford to pay for services directly and for critically ill beneficiaries who may suffer negative health consequences from delayed or denied care."

Examples featured in the report include denying a follow-up MRI by claiming a patient's lesion was too small as well as a request for a walker from a 76-year-old with post-polio syndrome.

The report points out that "for 3% of prior authorization denials, MAOs initially denied requests that met Medicare coverage rules, and later reversed these denials within three months and approved the requests."

The investigators also found that 18% of the 160,378 reviewed payment denials "met Medicare coverage rules and MAO billing rules and should have been approved by the MAOs."

"For an annual context, if these MAOs denied the same number of payment requests (28,949) in each of the other 51 weeks of 2019," the report states, "they would have denied 1.5 million payment requests that met Medicare coverage rules and MAO billing rules that year. "

"For 6% of payment denials, MAOs initially denied payment requests that met Medicare coverage rules and MAO billing rules, and later reversed these denials within three months and paid the claims," the document adds, acknowledging that some initial decisions were the result of system or manual errors.

While Medicare Advantage plans are intended to cover the same services as the federal program, MAOs receive a flat fee from the government per enrollee. The report notes that "to manage care for beneficiaries and to help control costs, MAOs may impose additional requirements, such as requiring that beneficiaries use only in-network providers for certain healthcare services; requiring prior authorization before certain services can be provided; or requiring referrals for specialty care services."

"A central concern about capitated payment models—including the model used in Medicare Advantage—is the potential incentive for insurers to deny access to services and payment in an attempt to increase profits," the document recognizes.

Based on the OIG's findings from the probe, the report offers three primary recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):

• Issue new guidance on the appropriate use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews;
• Update its audit protocols to address the issues identified in this report, such as MAO use of clinical criteria and/or examining particular service types; and
• Direct MAOs to take steps to identify and address vulnerabilities that can lead to manual review errors and system errors.

According to the report, "CMS concurred with all three recommendations."

Problems with MAOs impact millions of people, particularly seniors, as Medicare plans primarily serve those age 65 and older. Over 26 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan last year—42% of Medicare beneficiaries—and the Congressional Budget Office projects that over half of all enrollees will opt for the private plans by 2030.

The federal watchdog's review follows a letter last week led by U.S. Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), which urged the Biden administration not to increase taxpayer funding for Medicare Advantage plans after another government report exposed $12 billion in overpayments in 2020.

The OIG report also comes as some progressives in Congress have renewed a push for Medicare for All—and as they continue to criticize the Biden administration for its redesign of a Trump-era experiment that opponents have framed as an attempt to fully privatize Medicare.

Some critics noted the Direct Contracting program—now rebranded as ACO REACH, which stands for Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health—in their responses to the new report.

"It couldn't be more clear that these problems are systemic and widespread in Medicare Advantage—that's why this week I led a letter calling for dedicated funding to investigate inappropriate care denials and fraud by private insurers," tweeted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"This is also a clear-cut argument for why we must immediately end Medicare privatization programs like ACO REACH," Jayapal added. "There's no excuse for allowing the same Medicare Advantage organizations to now administer 'care' for traditional Medicare beneficiaries."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

A parody Twitter handle that goes by the name “Maha Vinash Aghadi”, which literally means “Maharashtra destruction alliance”, was among those who shared the video.

"Pakistan Zindabad" being chanted and stone pelted, during a Ram Navami procession in Nevasa, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra.

Listen to the names of those arrested. pic.twitter.com/zu8zVNp14p

— Maha Vinash Aghadi ᴾᵃʳᵒᵈʸ (@MVAGovt) April 15, 2022

An identical video with the same communally-charged allegations was also tweeted by Twitter users Treeni, Sharansh Guha and Gopi.

The video is also being shared on different social media platforms including Facebook. A right-wing propaganda page “पंच तत्व” too posted the video with similar claims.

Fact-check

It is noteworthy that the claim – “pro-Pakistan slogans were raised by Muslims” – is made by the narrator and the audio of the Ram Navami rally hasn’t been played. This is the first 29 seconds where we can also spot the logo “हिंदुत्व वार्ता” on the top right corner. To give authenticity to the claim, “breaking news” slugs run throughout the video.

The remaining 51 seconds of the video were lifted from a video report by Youtube channel “The Column – Crime”.

Alt News reached out to Ahmednagar Superintendent of Police (SP) Manoj Patil. He said, “A large crowd had gathered during the rally. Some of our policemen were also present at the spot. It is true that friction was sparked after some youths from the Muslim community waved a green coloured flag when the Ram Navami rally was passing from the state transport stand to Kholeshwar Ganpati Temple. But our probe has found that no such slogan of Pakistan Zindabad was raised.”

The officer said that despite hundreds of youths recording videos of the rally, the police could not find any video of pro-Pakistan slogans being chanted during the incident that took place on the evening of April 9 in front of Kismat Tea Center.

Based on the complaint lodged by head constable Tulsiram Gite on April 10, Newasa police arrested eight suspects from the Muslim community. They have been charged with rioting, unlawful assembly, and using criminal force to deter a public servant from performing his duty. Police have also booked Hindu youths for holding a rally sans permission.

Gite, who was also an eyewitness to the incident, told Alt News that neither “Pakistan Zindabad” slogans were shouted, nor was there any stone-pelting. He said, “After learning about the Ram Navami rally being taken out sans permission, we reached the spot and were accompanying the crowd of people. A group of Muslim youth was standing near Kismat Tea Center and one of them was waving a green coloured flag. I asked him not to do so and he got into argument with me. But soon he, along with his accomplices, left. This argument caught the attention of Hindu youths attending the rally. They suspected that a 15-year-old boy, Altaf Bagwan, was an accomplice of the suspects and began assaulting him. But Altaf had nothing to do with the Muslim youth who raised a green flag.”

Kishor Pathade, a resident from Ahmednagar who was an eyewitness to the incident, further informed, “I, along with HC Gite, Akshay Tekade, Altaf Pathan and Jaideep Jamdar saved the minor from the assault. We also sustained minor scratches.”

Hence, a video of a Ram Navami rally taken out on the evening of April 9 in Newasa, Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra, is viral on social media. It has been shared with the false claim that Muslim youth chanted “Pakistan Zindabad” when the rally was passing. There is no video evidence of the same and moreover, the police has denied that pro-Pakistan chants were raised during an altercation between two communities.

The post Ahmednagar police deny Muslims raised pro-Pak slogans during Ram Navami celebration appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Mohammed.

Chhoun Narin, police chief of the Sihanoukville Police Department, told RFA’s Khmer Service that more than 100 Thais have crossed over the border between the two countries to illegally take jobs in casinos located in Sihanoukville province.

“We hear fake stories about detentions and torture,” he said. “There are no illegal detentions.”

The denial contradicts reports in the Bangkok Post and other Southeast Asian outlets that there are between 2,800 and 3,000 Thais working illegally in Cambodia who have been tricked by gangs to take positions as scammers, according to Thai police estimates.

Despite the denial, Chhoun Narin said the police will cooperate with Thai officials in repatriating Thai citizens. But he declined to comment on whether Cambodia will charge Thais found to be in the country illegally.

RFA was unable to reach National Police spokesman Chhay Kim Khouen for comment on Friday.

After the Cambodian government opened up the company following COVID-19 restrictions, reports of criminal activities in Sihanoukville province flooded the offices of the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association, Cheap Sotheary, the group’s Sihanoukville province coordinator, told RFA.

She urged Cambodian authorities to work with their Thai counterparts to resolve complaints about kidnapping and detentions in Cambodia.

“There should be an investigation to see how many separate incidents there are. If Thai delegates come, there should be a cooperation to avoid any misunderstanding,” she said.

Police in Malaysia, meanwhile, have information indicating a human trafficking syndicate has trapped Malays as forced labor in Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Myanmar, BenarNews, an RFA-affiliated online news service, reported.

Since 2021, the Anti-trafficking  unit of Malaysia’s Federal Criminal Investigation Department received six police reports of involving 26 victims — 24 men and two women—in need of rescue from crime syndicates.

The police believe that there are still many people in similar situations but have not lodged reports with authorities. 

Police say that the victims were duped by job advertisements offering relatively high salaries doing social media work as customer service officers in other countries. 

Interested job seekers were encouraged to contact agents via WeChat, WhatsApp or Facebook who then would arrange travel costs for the unsuspecting victims. Once they arrived at the destination, the syndicate would confiscate or destroy travel documents and mobile devices, leaving the migrants with no way to call for help or escape on their own.

The victims then would be sent to specific locations such as Preah Sihanouk in Cambodia, Mae Sot in Thailand, Vientiane in Laos and Kayin State in Myanmar and forced to work in scams involving online gambling, fake investments and Bitcoin mining.

They would not be allowed to return home if they did not reach the company's sales targets or they could pay between U.S. $7,125 and $11,875 for their release.

The Royal Malaysian Police is working with Interpol and Aseanapol to seek help in tracking and rescuing Malaysian victims. 

RFA reported last month that dozens of Thais and hundreds of Lao citizens were duped into working in casinos in Laos’ Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone. If these victims failed to meet sales quotas, they were told they would be sold to employers at different companies, including for positions in the sex trade.

Multiple groups of Thais escaped last month back to Thailand or were rescued and repatriated.

Translated by RFA’s Khmer Service and BenarNews. Written in English by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA’s Khmer Service and BenarNews.