Lawmakers fight to cut red tape for terminally ill patients seeking experimental drugs

Should people fighting for their lives have to battle red tape?
That’s the question lawmakers are considering in four states where the “Right to Try” act is moving forward – proposed legislation aimed at giving terminally ill people access to experimental, but potentially life-saving, drugs before they have FDA approval.
Americans like Keith Knapp, of California, have fought hard for this kind of legislation.
Keith Knapp married his high school sweetheart Mikaela. He and Mikaela thought they had their whole lives ahead of them --- until last year, when she was diagnosed with a terminal form of kidney cancer. This began a fight that the two of them never imagined, as they tried to gain access to a promising, but not-yet-FDA-approved, drug that was doing well in clinical trials. The couple learned that without being in one of these trials, current law would not allow them access to the experimental treatment. 
From her hospital bed, Mikaela said recently: “People die from not being able to access these drugs all the time. I don't want to be one of them.”
But sadly, she was. Despite her husband’s passionate efforts to lobby members of Congress, pharmaceutical companies and the FDA -- and a huge media campaign -- Mikaela lost her battle just two weeks ago.
“The amount of effort you have to put into doing this is just far too much at this time in our life when you really just want to slow things down and enjoy being together,” Keith said.
Currently, it takes the FDA about 10 years to complete a clinical trial on a new drug -- and while many try, only 3 percent will gain access to a trial during that time. Meanwhile, 500,000 Americans died last year from cancer alone, with thousands more dying of other illnesses.
In states where the “Right to Try” act has been introduced, bill sponsors often have personal reasons for pushing the issue. In Missouri, state Rep. Jim Neely is trying to save his dying daughter. In Colorado , the law is sponsored by a clinical pharmacologist fighting for her dying brother. In Arizona, the driver of the bill is a man who lost his wife. A similar bill also has been introduced in Louisiana.
For many people who get a terminal diagnosis, they’re willing to try anything -- but once a clinical trial is closed, patients cannot get access to the potentially life-saving medication until it is approved by the government.
A family in Vermont is facing a similar situation. Jennifer McNary’s two young sons Max and Austin have the same disease. Max got into a clinical trial for an experimental drug called eteplirsen and is doing better. Austin did not get into the trial, and is getting worse.
“If Austin is never given the chance to get on eteplirsen, we know with 100 percent certainty that he will die,” she said.  
Austin wants access to the drug that he’s seen make a big difference for his little brother. “My brother Max can run and walk, I can only sit in my wheelchair and watch him. He’s been on eteplirsen for two years -- it’s safe and effective and I want access,” he said.
Despite the heart-wrenching stories, many doctors warn against this -- saying these drugs could actually lessen quality of life and heighten the risk of side effects.
“You don't know that it's better than nothing,” UCLA endocrinologist Dr. Stanley Korenman said. “You don't know that this won't reduce your life expectancy rather than increase your life expectancy because you don't know what the side effects are.” 
Other doctors agree, saying that many of these drugs turn out to be useless and give false hope. They also say it can lead to “snake-oil salesmen” taking advantage of desperate, dying people.
But the Goldwater Institute’s Darcy Olsen believes it’s time for a change. “Every day thousands of Americans are dying when there are potentially life-saving drugs that they could be taking if we simply got this regulatory process up to date and modernized,” Olsen said.
And Keith Knapp agrees.
“This is one area in which policy just does not match what the American people would want, and I would love to see that change so people don't have to go through this in the future,” he said.

California school district cancels lesson plan that involved Holocaust denial

Following a storm of criticism – and at least one death threat – a California school district Monday canceled a lesson plan that instructed middle school students to make arguments denying the Holocaust happened.
The assignment, aimed at eighth-grade students in Southern California’s Rialto Unified School District, sought to teach children to learn the nature of propaganda.
“Some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain,” the assignment said, according to a document posted by The Daily Bulletin. “You will read and discuss multiple, credible articles on the issue, and write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe this was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.”
But critics said the assignment risked misleading the 13- and 14-year-old students into believing that propaganda about the Holocaust bears factual legitimacy.
“Whatever (the district’s) motivation, it ends up elevating hate and history to the same level,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, told FoxNews.com on Monday. “We should train our kids to have critical thinking, but the problem here is the teacher confused teaching critical thinking with common sense, because common sense dictates you don’t comingle propaganda with common truth.”
Cooper added that although teaching children about the nature of propaganda is a worthy lesson plan, the district would have been better off having children research Holocaust denial, while meeting with local survivors of the genocide.
In a statement, the district said Monday afternoon the interim superintendent will be speaking with its educational services department to “assure that any reference to Holocaust ‘not occurring’ will be stricken on any current or future argumentative research assignments.”
“The Holocaust is and should be taught in classrooms with sensitivity and profound consideration to the victims who endured the atrocities committed,” the statement reads. “We believe in the words of George Santayana, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are bound to repeat it.’”
Rialto police said one person made a number of calls to police with specific death threats directed at a district spokeswoman and the interim superintendent. Two officers were at the campus on Monday and authorities are investigating the incident.
The Holocaust, which began in 1933 and ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, was the mass extermination of up to 11 million people, including six million Jews, resulting in the murder of nearly two-thirds of Europe’s Jewery.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Teachers unions get Discovery Channel to cancel 'Bad Teachers' show

After a pressure campaign by teachers unions, the Discovery Channel has knuckled under and canceled the program "Bad Teachers." The true-crime series, which examines cases where teachers became sexually involved with their students, aired its only episode last week.
Steve Dembo, director of social media for the cable channel's Discovery Education website, said in a statement Tuesday to the "millions of dedicated professionals" in education that "we share your concerns" with the Investigation Discovery program "Bad Teacher."
"We appreciate the support of the educational community for bringing [their objections to the show] to our attention and we are pleased to share that Discovery Communications has decided to immediately cancel this program, removing it from ID's on-air and online schedule," Dembo said.
The National Education Association touted the news of the cancelation, and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten celebrated it:

I was surprised to learn, through a barrage of tweets Sunday night after "Bad Teacher" aired, that Discovery would use its brand to promote such an offensive program. However, I am heartened that it has taken steps to cancel the show and publicly affirm that Discovery Education's mission is to celebrate and support educators.

Every day, educators go into the classroom to make a difference in the lives of our children. Their work should be honored and valued, not bashed, and we hope to work with Discovery to showcase the real work teachers do every day to help kids achieve their dreams.

The network presumably feared that a backlash from the unions would hurt sales of the many educational products that it provides to schools.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group

EXCLUSIVE: Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks.
The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.
"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John Boehner of a select committee to investigate.
Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.
The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.
The email released to Judicial Watch is now marked "SECRET," and the same email released to the Oversight Committee is marked "Confidential." Both are marked to "DECLASSIFY" on Sept. 13, 2037 -- 25 years after the terrorist attack which killed four Americans.
Fox News also reviewed an email from Sept. 12, 2012 from Rice to members of the U.S. team at the United Nations where Rice was U.S. ambassador at the time. This unclassified email, whose subject line and text are also redacted in full, was retroactively classified on April 16, 2014, one day before it was released. While the contents and subject line were redacted in both versions, the email released as a result of the federal lawsuit to Judicial Watch does include the names, while the other does not. 
Fox News does not have access to all the emails released to the House committee to assess whether this is part of a broader pattern. A spokesman for the oversight committee said they are still reviewing the 3,200 pages.  
The spokesman said: "By withholding information, this Administration has only itself to blame for the continued questions about the before, during, and after of the Benghazi attacks. Removing information from documents subpoenaed by Congress, while the same documents with more information are released publicly, underscores the games the State Department continues to play as Congress presses for full and truthful answers about the deaths of four brave Americans."
When asked about reported differences in the released emails, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week that the administration was forthcoming.
"We have, again, in a rather unprecedented way, provided documents that normally White Houses and administrations have not or would not provide because they were being mischaracterized," he said.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said there was no effort to slow-walk the release of the emails.
"The notion that we are somehow deliberately doing any of that is just false. We've produced tens of thousands of documents. We've done nine hearings, 46 briefings. Everything we've seen come out in these document releases and on the Hill has underscored the exact same set of facts as we talked about yesterday about what happened in Benghazi and what happened since," Harf explained.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Economy

NLRB rules workers must pay year's worth of dues to decertified union

If you are a worker trying to sever your relationship with a union, you have to make extra certain you didn't make even the tiniest error when you do it. That's what the National Labor Relations Board said Tuesday when it ruled that nine workers who decertified their union in 2012 still had to pay it another year's worth of membership dues because they sent in some of the paperwork too early.
The case involved nine workers for a Brooklyn condo complex who voted unanimously on Sept. 26, 2012, to get rid of United Workers of America Local 621 as their bargaining representative. The following week, the workers individually sent the union letters announcing that they "elected to terminate any and all such membership obligations" with it.
However the NLRB did not officially recognize the decertification vote until Oct. 11, 10 days after the union received the workers' letters. On the basis of that, Local 621 claimed it never received proper termination letters. The union was able to get the workers' employer to continue to deduct membership dues from their paychecks for another full year after they had voted to get rid of it.
The workers filed a complaint, and an administrative NLRB judge ruled in their favor in July, finding that the letters should not have been invalidated just for being a few days early.

Newspaper Reporter Nigel Jaquiss

This narrow minded idiot was actually awarded a  Pulitzer Prize.

Wow! It must be pretty easy to get one. 

Below is the rest of the story. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/04/power-trip-gop-candidate-booted-from-editorial-meeting-after-calling-out-blah/ 

New ObamaCare Numbers: 8M Enrollees with 28% Being Young Individuals

The enrollment figures for the Affordable Care Act’s first open enrollment period continue to climb, as do the number of young enrollees, according to the latest statistics from the Department of Health and Human Services.
The department announced 8,019,763 people have selected plans on both state and federal exchanges through April 19. This includes enrollment activity after the formal end of open enrollment on March 31 that was extended for those who had continued issues signing up or life circumstances that caused them to enroll late.
The latest enrollment numbers didn’t differ much from President Obama’s April 17 announcement that 8 million people had signed up for coverage, but the report did provide a clearer picture of just who signed up.
The demographic breakdown shows that 2.2 million (28%) of the enrollees were young people, ages 18-34. That number increases to 2.7 million when including those ages 0 to 34.
HHS also announced that more than 4.8 million people had enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) through the end of March 2014.
The original goal for the first enrollment period was 7 million people with 2.7 million of them being young and healthy enrollees between 18 and 34. Young people are needed to offset the costs of insuring older and less healthy people on exchanges, who can no longer be charged more for their care, under the Affordable Care Act.
The report also shows that 2.6 million enrollees have signed up on state-based marketplaces and 5.4 million on the federally-facilitated exchange. Of the 8 million, 54% are male and 46% are female. In addition, 85% had selected a plan with financial assistance.
Under the ACA, every individual in the country has to have insurance by the end of open enrollment period, which passed on March 31, or they will face a fine of $95 a year or 1% of their annual income for failing to comply.
Questions Remain About Payments
The enrollment figures include everyone who has selected a plan on the exchanges. The insurance industry typically defines someone as enrolled once they made their first month’s premium payment. It is not yet clear how many people have made that payment, although the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is reporting that on the federal marketplace, only 67% had made their first month’s premium payments through April 15.
The subcommittee sent letters to every insurer participating on the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov, requesting payment information.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had reported in late March that between 80% and 90% of enrollees had made their premium payments.  HHS is pushing back against the subcommittee’s report.
“These claims are based on only about half of the approximately 300 issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace and they do not match up with public comments from insurance companies themselves, most of which indicate that 80 to 90 percent of enrollees have paid their premium.  Additionally, given the significant surge in enrollments at the end of March, it stands to reason that not all enrollees would have paid by the date of this so-called report since many people’s bills were not even due yet,” HHS spokesperson Erin Shields Britt said in an email statement to FOXBusiness.com.
Yevgeniy Feyman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says the likelihood of payment increases with age, which isn’t a good sign since young people’s participation is important.
“The investigation found that only 25% had paid between the ages of 18 and 34,” Feyman says. “It is not good to see that. But on the other hand, this is only through April 15, so we don’t have information on the surge that may have happened after that date.”
That being said, Feyman argues payment data may not be the best “talking point” to use against ObamaCare.
“This will work itself out,” he says. “This could be problematic for Democrats to deal with, but not harmful to the law itself.”
Analysts are already projecting double-digit increases in premium costs for 2015, which are priced in, but it’s based on risk pool composition and not payment data, Feyman points out. If and when the public is privy to payment data, it will be at a politically-beneficial time, he says, as this could impact democrats during the midterm elections.
“Eventually they have to release this data,” Feyman says. “For months they were claiming they didn’t have it, and there is no reason to keep it hidden.”