One Impossible Question Each For Harris And Trump – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

If
you
watch
an
interview
of
Kamala
Harris,
or
Donald
Trump,
or
any
other
politician,
the
politician
will
answer
some
questions
and
filibuster
in
response
to
others.
Instead
of
answering
a
difficult
question,
the
politician
speaks
endless
nonresponsive
words,
permitting
the
politician
to
make
a
point
—
or
simply
waste
time
—
while
the
interviewer’s
clock
runs.
(In
court,
of
course,
this
tactic
doesn’t
work
as
well:
There’s
no
time
limit,
and
there’s
a
judge
present
to
insist
on
responsive
answers.)

You
could
ask
Trump
or
Harris
hard
questions
in
interviews,
but
you’d
never
hear
an
answer.
They’d
filibuster.

What
are
the
truly
hard
questions
for
each
of
the
two
major
party
presidential
candidates?

A
terribly
difficult
question
for
Harris
is
this:
When
did
you
first
notice
Joe
Biden’s
cognitive
decline?

What’s
Harris
to
say?

“Biden’s
not
in
decline”?
We
all
saw
Biden
at
the
debate.
He’s
in
decline.
And
Biden
himself
was
ultimately
convinced
to
withdraw
from
the
race
(although
he
of
course
says
that
he
withdrew
because
of
the
polls,
rather
than
his
condition).
If
Harris
insists
that
Biden
hasn’t
lost
a
step
or
two,
everyone
knows
that
Harris
is
lying.
“Biden’s
not
in
decline”
can’t
be
the
answer.

So
when
did
Harris
notice
Biden’s
decline?

She
didn’t
notice?

Then
she’s
not
a
very
observant
person.
I’m
not
sure
I’d
care
to
have
her
in
charge.

Perhaps
Harris
noticed
Biden’s
decline
last
year?

Then
why
didn’t
she
say
something?
POTUS
can
no
longer
handle
the
job,
and
Harris
is
remaining
silent?
What
kind
of
patriot
is
she?

Can
Harris
say
that
she
thought
Biden
was
surrounded
by
good
people
and
could
thus
handle
the
presidency
even
though
he
personally
had
lost
a
step?
That
doesn’t
say
much
for
the
office
of
the
presidency.

Thus,
my
impossible
question
for
Harris:
“When
did
you
first
notice
Joe
Biden’s
cognitive
decline?”
Harris
can’t
answer
that
question,
and
you’ll
never
hear
her
try.
She’ll
filibuster
instead.

What’s
an
impossible
question
for
Trump?

There
are
a
ton
of
hard
questions
for
Trump,
but
he
has
answers
(that
convince
his
loyalists)
for
many
of
them:
Why
did
a
jury
find
that
you
committed
sexual
assault
(which
a
judge
later
found
was,
in
the
usual
sense
of
the
word,
rape)?
It
was
a
biased
New
York
jury!
Why
did
a
jury
convict
you
of
34
felony
charges? 
It
was
a
witch
hunt
by
the
prosecutors,
and
the
jury
was
biased!
Why
did
you
incite
an
insurrection
on
January
6?
I
didn’t
incite
an
insurrection!
I
told
the
crowd
to
walk
peacefully
and
patriotically
down
the
street!

But
I
think
the
hardest
question
for
Trump
is
this:

On
January
6,
why
did
you
say
absolutely
nothing
for
three
hours
while
you
watched
a
mob
attack
the
Capitol
Building?

There’s
no
answer
to
this.

None
of
Trump’s
answers
work:
Consider
“The
mob
was
antifa!”
or
“The
mob
was
the
FBI!”
or
“Nancy
Pelosi
didn’t
have
enough
police
at
the
Capitol
Building
that
day!”

It
doesn’t
matter.
There
was
still
a
mob.
The
mob
was
still
attacking
the
Capitol
Building.
Perhaps
you
didn’t
know
who
the
mob
was,
perhaps
the
Capitol
was
inadequately
defended.
You
still
should
have
immediately
said:
“I
don’t
know
who
you
people
in
the
mob
are.
But,
if
I
have
any
influence
over
you
at
all,
please
listen
to
me:
Don’t
attack
the
Capitol
Building!
This
is
wrong.
This
is
not
what
I
had
in
mind.
This
is
criminal.
You
will
be
prosecuted
for
this.
Please
leave
the
building
and
go
home!”

What
possible
(and
nonincriminating)
reason
is
there
for
Trump
not
to
have
said
that?

The
stuff
I’ve
heard
from
Trump
supporters
when
I
pose
this
question
is
all
drivel:
“It
was
only
three
hours.”
Yeah?
Trump
was
the
president;
he’s
supposed
to
care
about
the
country.
The
Capitol
Building
was
being
ransacked
and
people
were
getting
hurt.
Under
those
circumstances,
I
give
him
about
three
minutes
to
make
a
statement;
he
sure
doesn’t
get
three
hours.

Trump
supporters
also
say:
“Trump’s
got
a
big
ego.
He
didn’t
believe
he’d
lost
the
election.
It
took
him
three
hours
to
pull
himself
together
and
say
something.”
No,
no,
no:
Trump
knew
he
had
lost
the
election
shortly
after
election
day,
eight
weeks
earlier.
Trump
had
been
told
by
many,
many
people
that
he’d
lost.
I
might
give
a
person
with
the
emotional
capacity
to
be
president
a
few
hours
to
get
over
the
loss
—
after
all,
throughout
history,
losing
candidates
have
pulled
themselves
together
on
election
night
to
give
public
concession
speeches
—
and
the
loss
surely
stings
for
a
while.
In
fact,
I
suspect
that
the
loss
probably
stings
forever
—
you
probably
go
to
your
grave
regretting
the
night
you
lost
the
presidency.
But
that
doesn’t
mean
that
you
allow
a
mob
to
attack
the
Capitol
Building
for
three
hours.

Trump
simply
can’t
answer
this.

What
are
the
real
answers
to
my
two
questions?

Why
didn’t
Harris
tell
the
public
that
she
saw
Biden
suffering
from
mental
decline?

I
suspect
that
Harris
saw
that
Biden
was
weakening.
But
everyone
in
the
White
House
was
saying
that
they
could
hide
Biden
during
the
campaign,
prop
him
up
for
a
few
public
events,
permit
him
to
win
reelection,
and
then
cover
for
him
for
the
next
four
years.
That
was
the
company
line
among
all
of
Biden’s
staffers,
none
of
whom
wanted
to
lose
their
cushy
jobs.
Harris,
a
loyal
Democrat,
played
along.

Does
that
stink?
You
bet
it
does;
that’s
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
dislike
politicians.
I’m
nonpartisan
in
this
regard:
I
dislike
all
politicians.
How
many
Republicans,
for
the
sake
of
their
political
futures,
have
hidden
the
fact
that
Trump
is
unfit
for
the
presidency?

What
about
my
impossible
question
for
Trump?
Why
didn’t
Trump
ask
the
mob
to
call
off
the
attack
on
the
Capitol
Building
while
he
watched
for
three
hours?

Because
he
wanted
to
keep
power,
even
though
he’d
lost
the
election.

You
decide
whether
Harris
or
Trump
committed
the
greater
sin.



Mark Herrmann


spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of



The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

Morning Docket: 10.21.24 – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

*
Former
Biglaw
partner
sentenced
to
16
months
in
prison.
What’s
the
matter
number
on
that
time?
[ABA
Journal]

*
Prosecutor
sues
Georgetown
over
data
breach
in
rare
instance
where
a
Georgetown
graduate
doesn’t
want
everyone
to
know
about
it.
[Reuters]

*
With
a
new
film
out
there
about
Trump’s
relationship
with
Roy
Cohn,
the
Advocate
has
a
deep
dive
into
the
famed
lawyer’s
life
and
times.
[Advocate]

*
Oklahoma
is
asking
the
Supreme
Court
to
force
the
federal
government
to
give
back
funding
for
medical
services
that
it
withheld
after
Oklahoma
declared
that
it
wasn’t
going
to
allow
those
medical
services.
[Law360]

*
Law
school
clinic
working
on
Supreme
Court
case
aimed
at
protecting
the
rights
of…
straight
people?
[Balls
and
Strikes]

*
FTC’s
new
merger
rules
exemplify
ongoing
fight
within
the
agency.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Biglaw
firms
building
out
alumni
programs.
[American
Lawyer]

Colonial white boys in Zimbabwe: John Eppel’s autobiography is a welcome book, but a difficult read

Posted on by TSA Press
John
Eppel
is
better
known
for
his
mastery
of
poems
and
fiction.


Joe
Eppel/Wikimedia
Commons,

CC
BY-SA


Nhlanhla
Dube,


University
of
Cape
Town

Zimbabwean
writer

John
Eppel’s
literary
career
has
always
been
defined
by
one
peculiar
trait.
He
publishes
fictional

work,
in
stark
contrast
to
the
majority
of
the
country’s
other
white
writers
who
have
fetishised
the
autobiographical
mode.

During
the
post
2000s
period,
white
Zimbabwean

narratives
of
crisis
which
focused
on
the

land
reform
programme
gained
an

international

following.


Zimbabwe’s
liberation
struggle
was
fought
primarily
over
the
land
question.
In
colonial

Rhodesia,
racist
apportionment
of
fertile
land
meant
that
the
black
majority
was
removed
from
productive
farmland.
The
land
reform
programme
sought
to
correct
this
historical
injustice.


Eppel’s
focus
on

novels,

poetry
and

short

stories
explains
why
he
is
rarely
ever
mentioned
with
autobiographical
writers
such
as

Peter

Godwin,

Alexandra

Fuller,

Judith
Todd
and

Douglas
Rogers.

His
shift
to
the
autobiographical
mode
with

A
Colonial
Boy:
Sketches
of
My
Life
Before
Zimbabwean
Independence,
1950-1980
from
indie
publisher

Pigeon
Books,
invites
those
of
us
who
are

scholars
of
his
work
to
re-interrogate
his
writing.

The
literary
sketch

In
A
Colonial
Boy,
Eppel
takes
the
reader
through
his
early
days
in
South
Africa
and
Swaziland
and
his
arrival
in
Southern
Rhodesia
with
his
family.
In
the
prologue,
he
sets
up
the
context:

For
this
collection
I
wanted
to
write
about
the
comic
side
of
my
life
as
a
Rhodesian,
and
the
sketch,
as
a
literary
genre,
seemed
more
appropriate
than
a
conventional
autobiography.
Although
the
sketch
has
a
pedigree
going
back
to
the
16th
century,
my
interest
in
it
was
sparked
by
Charles
Dickens’
first
published
book

Sketches
by
‘Boz’.

Eppel
is
an
English
teacher
and
literary
critic.
Literary
analysis
even
informs
some
of
his
fictional
characters.
One
gets
the
sense
that
he
intends
to
make
A
Colonial
Boy
Dickensian
in
gravity,
scope
and
quality.

The

literary
sketch
is
an
uncommon
mode.
This
complicates
our
understanding
of
how
Eppel
tries
to
deliver
his
life’s
story.
Sketches
are
meant
to
be
brief
chronicles
of
particular
events
which
are
not
usually
connected
to
a
larger
story.
It’s
doubtful
that
the
linear
timeline
of
a
human
life
can
be
accurately
represented
through
the
literary
sketch.

The
randomness
of
the
sketch
as
a
stylistic
method
does
not
adhere
well
to
the

classical
image
of
the
autobiographer
as
a
“self-interested
individual
intent
on
assessing
the
status
of
the
soul”.
This
becomes
apparent
when
Eppel
moves
quickly
from
sketch
to
sketch
without
giving
full
details
and
reflection
on
the
incidents
being
invoked.

Even
when
writing
this
book
review,
it
is
difficult
to
give
you,
the
reader,
an
accurate
idea
of
what
Eppel
has
to
say,
on
reflection,
about
his
earlier
years.
The
scenes
(or
sketches)
do
not
demonstrate
a
unity
of
purpose.
Rather
than
Eppel
saying
“this
is
what
happened
in
my
life
and
I
would
like
you
to
know
about
it
so
that
you
get
to
know
me
better”,
the
reader
gets
“this
is
what
happened
on
a
random
day
in
a
particular
year
in
colonial
Rhodesia,
so
make
of
it
what
you
will”.
To
be
fair,
Eppel
does
warn
the
reader
in
advance:

What
you
will
find
in
these
pages
is
a
series
of
anecdotes
about
me
from
toddlerhood
to
my
early
thirties.

Fine.
But
what
is
the
point
of
this
randomness?

My
reading
is
that
it’s
an
attempt
to
introduce
narrative
detachment
–
in
the
same
way
as
an
author
would
create
distance
between
themself
and
their
character.
The
problem
is,
this
is
not
a
novel.
There
should
not
be
a
border
between
the
narrator
and
the
protagonist
in
self
life
writing.

White
men
and
war

Of
course,
Eppel
might
have
good
reason
for
wanting
to
create
narrative
detachment.
Other
white
Zimbabwean
writers
have
seen
their
autobiographical
writings
affect
their
daily
lives.
David
Coltart’s

memoirs,
for
example,
generated
much

discussion
over
his
role
in
the
Rhodesian
security
forces.
He
was
one
of
the
many
white
men
required
to
undergo
compulsory
service
by
the
white
minority
government.

In
his
sketches,
Eppel
gives
very
brief
details
about
his
time
serving
in
the
armed
forces.
Ever
the
renegade
with
a
problem
with
authority,
he
describes
his
time
in
the
Rhodesian
army
as
“eight
weeks
of
institutionalised
hell”.
The

Chimurenga
war
was
fought
by
black
nationalists
in
order
to
bring
about
democracy
and
black
majority
rule.
Eppel
essentially
acknowledges
that
morally,
he
was
on
the
wrong
side
of
that
war.

Eppel
is
also
aware
of
how
the
literary
establishment
has

labelled
his
work
as
Rhodesian
racist
rhetoric.
This
is
a
charge
Eppel
scholars
like
myself
have
tried
to
fight.
Regardless,
Eppel
wisely
refuses
to
elaborate
on
his
operational
activities
in
the
war:

I
was
involved
in
one
contact,
near
a
post
on
the
Mozambique
border
called
Vila
Salazar.
I
have
recorded
this
contact
in
poetry
(confessional)
and
in
prose
(satirical),
but
there
is
no
place
for
it
on
these
pages.

The
political
considerations
Eppel
had
in
mind
when
writing
these
sketches
prevent
the
reader
from
gaining
a
non-fictional
account
of
his
wartime
experience.

Autobiographies
can
come
in
the
form
of
an

apologia.
This
is
often
a
memoir
written
by
politicians
at
the
end
of
their
careers
to

defend
certain
policy
positions
they
took.
By
avoiding
the
military
issue,
Eppel
wisely
moves
away
from
turning
these
sketches
into
an
apologia.

A
welcome
book
but
a
difficult
read

A
Colonial
Boy
is
a
welcome
book
for
Eppel
scholars
such
as
myself.
It
does
a
lot
to
connect
the
man
to
his
fiction.
However,
I
struggle
to
see
its
relevance
to
the
general
readership.

Avid
readers
of
fast
paced
white
Zimbabwean
autobiographies
will
likely
lament
the
lack
of
action
in
these
sketches.
They
will
probably
abhor
the
sketch
form
itself.
There
are
no
clear
villains
here.
The
thematic
identifiers
that
define
white
Zimbabwean
autobiography
are
absent.
There
are
no
enduring
images
of
black
Zimbabwean
suffering,
no
corruption,
no
racial
violence,
no
farms
taken,
and
no
white
people
beaten
up.

Perhaps
though,
this
is
the
point
Eppel
is
trying
to
make.
A
life
well
lived
should
not
have
to
be
a
spectacle.The Conversation


Nhlanhla
Dube,
Postdoctoral
Research
Fellow,
Department
of
English
Literary
Studies,


University
of
Cape
Town

This
article
is
republished
from

The
Conversation
under
a
Creative
Commons
license.
Read
the

original
article.

Senate endorses PVO Bill: This will clean up civic space,’ Ziyambi declares

Posted on by TSA Press


BY
NewZimbabwe.com

The
controversial
bill
was
read
for
the
third
time
after
it
was
reported
without
amendments.

The
bill
had
been returned
to
the
National
Assembly
by
the
Senate
a
fortnight
ago
for
amendments.

This
is
the
second
time
the
Senate
has
passed
the
controversial
bill
as
it
awaits
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
approval
into
law.

In
September
2023,
President
Mnangagwa
declined
to
sign
the
PVO
Amendment
Bill
into
law,
sending
it
back
to
Parliament
for
reconsideration.

The
Senate
passed
the
bill
on
February
1,
2023,
before
Mnangagwa’s
disapproval
sending
it
back
to
Parliament.

Acting
Senate
President,
Mashonaland
Central
Province
Senator
Eleven
Kambizi,
after
the
PVO
bill
went
through
today
(Thursday)
said
“It
will
clean
up
a
lot
of
issues
that
were
happening
within
our
charity
organisations
and
it
is
a
historic
day.”

Justice
minister
Ziyambi
Ziyambi
said,
“l
want
to
thank
the
Hon.
Senators
for
this
day
that
the
Lord
has
made,
whereupon
our
Parliament
has
passed
the
Private
Voluntary
Organisations
Amendment
Bill
[H.B.
2A,
2024].”

Before
the
passing
of
the
PVO
Bill,
Ziyambi
had
told
the
Senate
that
the
Bill
before
them
was
a
very
necessary
measure
to
improve
the
administration,
accountability,
and
transparency
of
charities
in
the
country.

“The
legal
word
for
charity
in
our
country
is
Private
Voluntary
Organisation
(PVO),
under
our
law
every
charity
that
uses money
collected
from
the
public
or
donated
from
a
foreign
government
or
foreign
agencies
is
required
to
be
registered
as
a
PVO,
in
terms
of
the
PVO
Act
which
the
Bill
before
you
seeks
to
amend.

“As
the
government,
we
are
also
aware
that
some
so-called
charities
act
in
a
partisan
manner
by
directing
money
to
favoured
political
parties
or
candidates
at
the
expense
of
other
political
parties
or
candidates.

“Partisan
assistance
using
foreign
money
or
money
collected
from
the
public
under
the
guise
of
charity must
never
be
allowed
to
influence
the
outcome
of
national
or
local elections.
In
many
developed
countries,
this
kind
of
behaviour
is
understood
to
be
harmful
to
the
very
idea
of
charity,”
said
Ziyambi.

Ziyambi
said
that
in
the
United
States,
for
example,
one
cannot
register
any
organisation
as
a
non-profit
organisation
for
tax
purposes
if
that
organisation
campaigns
or
canvasses
for
any
political
candidate
or
party.

“It
is
in
this
context
that
this
Bill
seeks
to
clean
up
the
space
within
which
PVOs
may
operate.”

The
minister
highlighted
that
sometime
now,
the
government
had
noticed,
that
the
so-called
charities
(some)
had
completely
bypassed
the
Private
Voluntary
Organisations
Act
by
forming
“trusts”
sanctioned
by
the
Registrar
of
Deeds,
Companies
and
Intellectual
Property.

However,
the
Bill
met
some
resistance
from
different
sectors
including
CSOs.

“When
the
PVO
Amendment
Bill
was
gazetted
on
November
5,
2021,
it
attracted
widespread
national,
regional
and
international
condemnation
for
purporting
to
address
the
risk
of
money
laundering
and
countering
the
financing
of
terrorism,
albeit
without
adhering
to
the
standards
of
the
Financial
Action
Task
Force
(FATF)
of,
among
others,
using
a
proportionate
risk-based
approach
to
identify,
assess
and
address
any
money
laundering
and
terrorist
financing
risks
in
the
non-profit
sector,
in
consultation
with
CSOs,”
part
of
an
Amnesty
International
statement
read
then.

Zimbabwe launches Health Workforce Strategy, signs Health Workforce Compact

Posted on by TSA Press

This comprehensive strategy addresses critical gaps in the health workforce and is set to be the foundation for a sustainable healthcare system. In conjunction with this strategy, the Government has signed the Health Workforce Compact (2024-2026), underscoring a commitment to accelerate investments in health workforce development and to enhance collaboration across sectors.

Zimbabwe is a pacesetter country in operationalizing the principles of the Africa Health Workforce Investment Charter which admonishes countries to use health labour market evidence to prioritise health workforce investments through national dialogues and formalize the commitments through investment compacts.

“The Signing of the Zimbabwe Health Workforce Investment Compact is a powerful demonstration of Zimbabwe’s commitment to invest in improving the workforce situation in the country. It is a bold step that will contribute to improving the health of the Zimbabwean people.” Said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti WHO Regional Director for Africa.

“I encourage all partners to align with the Compact to amplify our collective impact, tackle infant mortality and infectious diseases, and provide essential services, like vaccinations, to all Zimbabweans,” she added.

The Zimbabwe Health Workforce Strategy outlines five strategic areas that will guide the country’s efforts to strengthen its health workforce: planning and financing; production, training and development; deployment, utilization and governance; retention and migration management as well as monitoring and evaluation, ICT and research.

To enhance the financial sustainability of the health workforce, the strategy aims to improve stakeholder involvement in funding initiatives and increase public sector health workforce spending from $9 per capita to at least $32 per capita by 2030. It also seeks to align investments among government, private sector, and development partners to ensure a sustainable health workforce.

Another critical component of the strategy is training, with the country planning to align health worker training programmes with the needs of the sector and increase annual training outputs from 3,334 in 2022 to at least 7,000 by 2030. Additionally, the strategy emphasizes the need to create 32,000 new health workforce positions, progressively integrate community health workers, foster geographical equity in workforce distribution, and strengthen governance and leadership within the health sector.

To address the issue of health worker retention, the strategy seeks to reduce the attrition rate of health workers by 50% and progressively increase their remuneration. Moreover, efforts will be made to raise health worker satisfaction levels to at least 80% by 2030, alongside managing ethical emigration to ensure experienced health workers remain within the country.

To support these strategic areas, the Health Workforce Investment Compact, developed jointly by the Government and development partners with technical support from the World Health Organization (WHO), outlines critical investment areas necessary to transform the health workforce. The compact aims to accelerate country’s aspiration of attaining a Universal Health Coverage (UHC) service coverage to at least 80 index points and ensure the availability of a resilient, motivated, and fit-for-purpose health workforce.

To realize these ambitious goals, a total investment of US$1.63 billion is needed between 2024 and 2026. An additional US$475 million is required to meet the objectives outlined in the investment compact.

“Through this compact, the Government commits to allocating 75% of the required resources ensuring that these funds are ring fenced, thereby inviting collaborations from development partners ad private sector,” noted Dr Douglas Mombeshora, Honourable Minister of Health and Child Care.

Zimbabwe’s healthcare system has been facing challenges in critical areas of human resources for health (HRH), such as quantity, size, absorption of health workers, geographic and health facility level distribution of health workers, skill mix and health workforce management capacity. With an annual average population growth of 1.5% and high burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases, the rising demand for healthcare services has put pressure on available health workforce.

Zimbabwe moves to carry out lab diagnosis of infectious diseases locally

Posted on by TSA Press

<br /> Zimbabwe<br /> moves<br /> to<br /> carry<br /> out<br /> lab<br /> diagnosis<br /> of<br /> infectious<br /> diseases<br /> locally



19.10.2024

20:11


by
Staff
Reporter

Zimbabwe
moves
to
carry
out
lab
diagnosis
of
infectious
diseases
locally.

Prof
Gift
Matope,
dean
of
the
University
of
Zimbabwe
Faculty
of
Veterinary
Science
speaks
about
the
capacity
of
the
UZ
Biotechnology
Centre
Laboratory
in
the
diagnosis,
monitoring,
surveillance
and
control
of
infectious
diseases.
📹:
Sifelani
Tsiko

Post
published
in:

Featured


Manage
consent

Developments In Equity Partnerships! — See Also

Posted on by TSA Press

Where Trump & Harris Stand on Payers, AI, Drug Pricing and CMS – MedCity News

Posted on by TSA Press

The
2024
presidential
election
is
less
than
three
weeks
away.
Whether
Kamala
Harris
or
Donald
Trump
win
the
race,
the
U.S.
healthcare
system
is
certain
to
undergo
some
changes
as
a
result
of
the
election.

This
week,
international
consultancy

BRG
hosted
a
webinar
in
which
its
experts
discussed
some
of
the
candidates’
key
stances
on
healthcare.  


Corporate
governance
and
payer
ramifications

A
Harris
presidency
would
be
more
active
on
the
antitrust
front
than
a
Trump
presidency,
said
Thomas
O’Neil,
managing
director
at
BRG.

During
the
Biden-Harris
administration,
the
Department
of
Justice
has
initiated
an
“unprecedented
number”
of
antitrust
and
anticompetitive
behavior
investigations,
he
noted. 

Although
the
prior
Trump-Pence
administration
initiated
significantly
fewer
antitrust
investigations,
it
did
challenge
key
deals,
such
as
the

CVS
Caremark-Aetna
deal,
O’Neil
pointed
out.

He
also
noted
that
both
presidential
candidates
have
demonstrated
a
commitment
to
improving
Medicare
Advantage.

The
current
Biden-Harris
administration
is
increasing
transparency
in
the
Medicare
Advantage
insurance
market,
as
well
as
working
toward
strengthening
programmatic
data,
O’Neil
remarked.
As
for
Trump,
he
signed
executive
orders
that
improved
Medicare
Advantage
beneficiaries’
access
to
tax
advantaged
savings
accounts
and
paid
for
limited
long-term
care
expenses,
he
said.

Additionally,
O’Neil
pointed
out
that
a
Harris
presidency
would
probably
be
tougher
on
healthcare
fraud
than
a
Trump
presidency.

The
Biden-Harris
administration
has
increased
the
enforcement
of
regulations
related
to
healthcare
fraud,
waste
and
abuse
—
particularly
in
response
to
the
Covid-19
pandemic,
he
said. 

A
Trump
presidency
would
most
likely
mean
“more
regulatory
flexibility”
and
“looser
standards”
for
the
enforcement
of
fraud
protection
laws,
O’Neil
remarked.
He
noted
that
the
Trump
administration
increased
regulatory
flexibility
for
the
Anti-Kickback
Statute
and
Physician
Self-Referral
(Stark)
Law.


Value-based
care
and
CMS

The
candidates
have
different
stances
on
Affordable
Care
Act
exchange
subsidies. 

The
Biden-Harris
administration
expanded
subsidies
through
the
end
of
2025,
and
Harris
would
likely
support
extending
them
if
she
is
elected
president,
said
Patrick
Dooley,
managing
director
at
BRG.
The
Trump
administration
unsuccessfully
attempted
to
repeal
the
ACA,
he
added.

As
for
Medicaid,
Harris
would
probably
work
to
expand
access,
while
Trump
would
work
to
reduce
access,
Dooley
said. 

He
noted
that
Harris
is
likely
to
expand
Medicaid
in
states
that
have
not
already
done
so,
as
well
as
extend
more
Medicaid
benefits
to
cover
health-related
social
needs. 

As
for
Trump,
Dooley
said
that
he
is
likely
to
continue
efforts
from
his
first
term
to
increase
work
requirements
for
Medicaid
enrollees.
He
also
said
that
Trump
may
make
cuts
to
the
Medicaid
program
or
explore
block
grants
for
states.


AI
regulation

Despite
their
stark
differences
in
rhetoric,
Harris
and
Trump
campaigns
have
pretty
similar
views
when
it
comes
to
AI,
pointed
out
Amy
Reeder
Worley,
managing
director
at
BRG.

“Both
Vice
President
Harris
and
President
Trump
have
been
focused
on
what
I’ll
call
the
supply
side
of
AI
in
healthcare
—
really
focusing
on
initiatives
to
drive
innovation
for
better
care,
for
patients,
for
providers
and
for
payers.
I
would
say
both
Vice
President
Harris
and
President
Trump
are
optimistic
about
AI’s
promises
to
help
more
than
it
hurts,”
she
declared.

Both
candidates
would
support
further
AI
innovation
if
elected,
Reeder
Worley
added.
She
noted
that
Harris
is
a
Californian
with
knowledge
of
the
tech
sector,
and
J.D.
Vance
has
connections
to
Silicon
Valley
leaders
who
have
historically
opposed
regulation.


Drug
pricing
reform

Whoever
wins
the
presidential
election
will
be
tasked
with
implementing
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act,
which
allows
for
the
negotiations
of
Medicare
drug
prices,
said
John
Barkett,
managing
director
at
BRG.

“If
the
person
receiving
that
baton
is
Vice
President
Harris,
I
expect
her
to
build
off
President
Biden’s
and
her
administration’s
drug
pricing
reform
efforts.
She’s
talked
about
how
she
would
want
to
see
Medicare
drug
negotiations
expanded
—
meaning
more
drugs
for
negotiations.
It
could
also
mean
selecting
drugs
that
have
been
on
the
market
for
less
time.
It
could
also
mean
lowering
the
ceiling
price
for
offers
that
the
Secretary
could
make
to
drug
manufacturers
when
they
negotiate,”
he
explained.

He
also
noted
that
Harris
would
likely
expand
the
$35
insulin
price
cap
to
all.
This
means
she
would
support
legislation
applying
the
$35-or-less
co-pay
policy
to
non-Medicare
populations.

Barkett
added
that
Harris
would
support
efforts
to
reform
pharmacy
benefit
managers
—
including
more
oversight
from
federal
competition
authorities.

As
for
Trump,
he
might
try
to
establish
international
reference
pricing
policies,
Barkett
said.
These
are
policies
in
which
Medicare
wouldn’t
pay
any
more
for
a
drug
than
the
prices
charged
for
that
same
drug
in
other
countries. 

Trump
may
also
try
to
bring
back
policies
that
his
previous
presidential
administration
failed
to
establish.
Some
of
these
include
policies
eliminating
rebates
and
relaxing
formulary
standards
in
Medicare
Part
D,
as
well
as
laws
that
would
increase
state
adoption
of
drug
importation
policy,
Barkett
remarked.


Photo:
Niyazz,
Getty
Images