Editorials from around New England

Editorials from around New England:

___

MASSACHUSETTS

The Cape Cod Times

May 27

Last week, President Trump stood before the American people, ostensibly to make good on a campaign promise that he would dramatically improve the lot of average, ordinary people by actively working to curb runaway prescription drug prices. The president, who has verbally eviscerated the pharmaceutical industry with great dramatic flair - once claiming that they were “getting away with murder” - announced what he contended was a sweeping plan to rein in the cost of prescription medicines.

In actuality, however, his proposal is more placebo than actual cure, relying as it does on the very industry he has condemned to police itself.

As with other politicians before him, Trump is aware that the pharmaceutical industry enjoys roughly the same level of popular support as Congress. This makes it an ideal target for righteous bluster, especially as so many drug companies have profited mightily, even as everyday citizens have become addicted to some of their products and find it increasingly difficult to absorb the rising costs of prescription medicines.

But there is a wide gulf that separates merely railing against something and actually doing something about it. With the same level of modesty that has typified his time as president, Trump declared his plan the “most sweeping action in history to lower the price of prescription drugs for the American people.” In terms of substance, however, it falls more than a little short of such lofty praise.

Trump’s plan calls for a combination of more transparency and regulations designed to enhance competition between drug manufacturers. It would require that pharmaceutical companies share the cost of their medications in television advertising and allow pharmacists to tell customers when there are lower-cost alternative medications available. What it does not do is anything that would actually reduce the cost of medications.

In fact, what is most striking about Trump’s plan is not what it contains, but rather what it does not contain. Totally absent from the regulation is Trump’s campaign promise to leverage the purchasing power of Medicare as part of an effort to drive down drug prices for seniors.

That’s because this approach, despite the fact that it might produce some tangible results, is not favored by either the Republican-controlled Congress or the drug industry, which spent a record-breaking $26 million on lobbying efforts in 2017 to help maintain the status quo. That money, designed to help maintain the obscene levels of pharmaceutical profits, seems to have been well spent.

The American pharmaceutical system stands in sharp contrast to much of the rest of the developed world. In many industrialized nations, governments regulate the costs of most prescription medicines. Then again, most industrialized nations also believe in single-payer, government-regulated health care, which has repeatedly been demonstrated to offer quality, cost-efficient medical treatment. In fact, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, America’s per-person drug costs are more than double those of residents of the United Kingdom, which provides a government-funded health care system.

Trump indirectly alluded to this fact in his speech. However, rather than praising other governments for acting on behalf of their citizens by negotiating lower prescription prices, he instead condemned these same nations for extorting lower medication prices from American drug manufacturers.

The pharmaceutical industry undoubtedly breathed a collective and considerable sigh of relief after Trump’s self-proclaimed grand pronouncement. All that remains to be seen now is whether the American people realize that instead of being offered a prescription for change, all they have truly received is a placebo; a simple sugar pill that ultimately offers nothing.

Online: https://bit.ly/2kG07S7

___

CONNECTICUT

The Hartford Courant

Jun. 1

Recent reports from the state auditors elicit frustration, to say the least. They detail lax spending controls, waste, unnecessary bureaucracy and hazy ethics in multiple state agencies, at a time when the belt should be tightened to the last notch.

The latest report, concerning the University of Connecticut Health Center, is a doozy - and it demands a response. Republican leaders are right in their calls for public hearings and demands for answers.

The office of the state Auditors of Public Accounts does remarkable work in chasing down waste and malfeasance in state government. The audit of the UConn Health Center for fiscal years 2015-2016 is no exception.

Some of the findings:

. Compensatory time was routinely abused. State policy states that comp time earned during one calendar year must be used by the end of the next year, and it can’t be paid out at any time, not even when the employee leaves state service. Except at UConn Health, it was - to the tune of nearly $250,000 during those two years.

. A bureaucratic mess in the bursar’s office created confusion that led to more than $30 million in receipts being deposited late, in violation of state law.

. Even though vendors were paid promptly, UConn Health “did not take advantage of the discounts” offered for prompt payment, meaning $46,424 simply slipped away.

. People who retire from state service and collect pension and health benefits can be rehired, but for no more than two 120-day periods. The audit found eight retirees who were on the payroll for five to 19 years after they “retired,” with pay exceeding 75 percent of their pre-retirement salary. Two people even received “faculty incentive payments” totaling more than $30,000.

. Changes to contracts - including one worth more than $50 million - were approved without “the level of thoroughness and segregation of duties sufficient to achieve the highest possible savings and lowest risks.”

. Capital equipment is routinely lost or otherwise unaccounted for. For example, about $862,000 worth of “computer items,” most of which had been acquired within the last three years, “had not been located and inspected in more than two years.” That’s 1,116 computers, adrift. They may be in safe hands, doing the work they were purchased for, but without checking, there’s no way of knowing.

. There was a potentially serious conflict of interest. Andrew Agwunobi, now UConn Health’s CEO and executive vice president of health affairs, was first appointed to the position on an interim basis while he still worked for a consulting firm. UConn paid him a $562,500 consulting contract for the interim work — but while Mr. Agwunobi was in that position, he approved two salary hikes for UConn employees who approved his consulting contract. At best, it was an honest oversight. But as the audit states, the arrangement “created a risk that the UConn Health employees may have felt compelled to authorize those payments” to Mr. Agwunobi.

It’s jaw-dropping, and that’s just two years at the UConn Health Center, which also paid a dead professor for months.

House Republican Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, pointed other caucus leaders to a state law that requires committees to hold public hearings on auditors’ reports and said three were overdue. Even though the law allows committee chairs to decline to hold such hearings for any reason at all, Ms. Klarides’ call should be heeded.

This is unreasonable waste that Connecticut cannot afford.

Sadly, the state’s financial problems cannot be solved completely by the state auditors. Even $1 billion in annual efficiencies wouldn’t put us in the black. But it’s time for agency heads and their managers to get things ship-shape. We can’t afford to waste a dime.

Online: https://cour.at/2xzcSaf

___

RHODE ISLAND

The Providence Journal

May 31

Given the grim and mournful toll of drug overdoses, the inclination to punish is powerful.

When someone takes illicit drugs, then dies of their effects, it’s tempting to blame the person who provided the drugs. Increasingly, states are doing just that, fingering friends, brothers, even parents, and charging them in such deaths.

And now Rhode Island is on the brink of passing a law that will encourage prosecutors to charge people who contribute to drug deaths, whether or not they’ve shown intent to harm someone. The bills, which passed the Senate by a large margin Tuesday, call for life sentences for people who supply drugs that end up killing someone.

Sadly, this is not a productive approach to battling the epidemic of drug addiction and overdoses. In fact, it may well be precisely counterproductive, increasing the likelihood that someone dies because someone else was too afraid to call for help.

This legislative initiative is the heartbreaking legacy of the 2014 overdose death of Cranston’s Kristen Coutu, who was sold a dose of heroin heavily laced with fentanyl, rather than the straight heroin she thought she was buying. In the aftermath of that tragedy, it is understandable that advocates sought ways to prevent deaths like hers by holding someone accountable.

While we respect the intention behind the efforts to pass Kristen’s Law, it represents a step in the wrong direction.

There’s no reason to think drug deaths will decline because of the possibility of a prison sentence for the person who provided them. People who provide drugs often are not shadowy street figures, but longtime friends and family members who don’t expect the drugs to be fatal, or aren’t thinking clearly. And prosecuting them ignores the responsibility of addicts themselves - after all, they are ultimately the ones who chose to take illegal drugs. Their fatal choices brought us to this conversation.

If these bills became law, Rhode Island jails will be filled with non-violent drug offenders, while doing nothing to break the cycle of addiction. Incarceration costs taxpayers almost $60,000 per year per inmate. A convicted dealer who spends 20 years behind bars would cost the state almost $1.2 million.

If Rhode Island starts imprisoning people for their roles in drug deaths, that course will strike directly against the state’s more successful and less expensive approaches. For example, by weaning addicts off drugs before releasing them from prison, Rhode Island has seen an immediate, significant decline in drug deaths among people recently released from jail.

We are glad of such initiatives, which has made the state a modest success story in the broad national war against opioids and other deadly drugs. We’d hate to see the state undo its progress by adopting a more punitive approach to illegal drug use.

While we share the anguish of those who mourn victims of the drug epidemic, we hold out hope for a system of justice that favors justice and judgment over retribution.

Online: https://bit.ly/2kEXBvw

___

VERMONT

The Times Argus

May 31

It’s unfortunate that efforts to come up with a long-term funding source for Lake Champlain’s cleanup have bogged down as a result of Gov. Phil Scott’s call for no new taxes or fees in the state budget.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandated Vermont clean up the lake, specifically by reducing phosphorus runoff that causes harmful algal blooms, or HABs.

The problem has gotten worse in recent years.

And lawmakers outlined a plan in 2015 that relies on several measures, including the management of manure from farms, buffer zones near waterways and ditches and the reduction of runoff from parking lots. In recent years, the extent, duration, and impacts of HABs have increased. HABs occurrence has been linked to phosphorus and other nutrient inputs and is exacerbated by heavy rain events and warming waters related to climate change.

The administration estimated the state will need up to $25 million annually over the next 20 years for lake cleanup. Federal funding and other sources will help to cover costs. Short-term funding is being used from the capital bill, which is allocated to pay for construction projects.

The administration estimates it will not have sufficient resources to meet its funding commitments after fiscal year 2021, said Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore.

“There’s still more work to do and ultimately to have a long-term funding strategy that we can hopefully get broad agreement is robust,” she said.

Fortunately, other action has been taken.

In March, the final Omnibus Appropriations Bill included millions of dollars for cleanup and research of the Lake Champlain Basin.

At the time, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy said: “Lake Champlain will always be our ’great lake.’ These investments will continue and expand the work being done to ensure that Lake Champlain’s resources and beauty are preserved for us and for our children and grandchildren. I am proud of the efforts that Vermonters are making for Lake Champlain’s health and vibrancy, and I will continue to support these efforts from the Senate Appropriations Committee.”

President Donald Trump has opposed a range of environmental priorities, including dedicated funding for Lake Champlain. The Trump administration’s budget would have eliminated all of the EPA’s Geographic Programs, abandoning a significant portion of federal support for ongoing regional cleanup projects in areas like Lake Champlain, the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, all of which partner with local programs to find solutions.

Across the lake, in late 2017, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, announced a $65 million four-point initiative to aggressively combat harmful algal blooms in upstate New York waters, including Lake Champlain.

Cuomo said 12 lakes that are vulnerable to HABs are “critical drinking water sources and vital tourism drivers were chosen as priority waterbodies.” Lake Champlain and Lake George are two of the 12 that will receive greater focus. Lessons learned will be applied to other impacted waterbodies moving forward.

The initiative was designed to bring together experts from Vermont and New York, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio.

For sure, Lake Champlain is a huge economic driver for Vermont, bringing in millions in economic revenue.

“Our economy absolutely depends on it,” Democratic Sen. Ginny Lyons told the Associated Press this week. “Our fisheries, our fishing economy, just for aesthetic purposes, for public health, you name it, for all of our tourism that we have in the state.”

Lyons and other lawmakers are right to be concerned, both about the political finger-pointing and potential lawsuits if the state does not make a bigger commitment. (Gov. Scott, a Republican, made the lake cleanup one of his campaign promises, and since he announced he is seeking re-election, it likely will be again.)

Lawmakers do not want the burden of state projects to reduce phosphorus to fall solely on farmers.

Bills had included funding mechanisms or studies of how to fund the cleanup, but those didn’t make it into the bill Scott signed into law last week.

A funding mechanism needs to be put in place so that Vermont can make healthy one of its most valuable natural resources, as well as protect it for the future. Doing so will be tricky (and political), but commitments need to be made, like what New York has done, to ensure we do not get fiscally and environmentally bogged down again.

Online: https://bit.ly/2J5ujAQ

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Portsmouth Herald

Jun. 1

Kudos to the New Hampshire Legislature for finally passing legislation that will give benefits to firefighters’ battling cancer and for Gov. Chris Sununu, who plans to sign the bill into law.

For more than 30 years, New Hampshire law stated that firefighters diagnosed with cancer are presumed to have gotten their disease through exposure to harsh chemicals from fires in the line of duty. The law was put on the books in 1987 and was backed up over the years by a growing amount of research that links firefighting to several types of cancer.

Yet, the Legislature never approved a funding source for the workers’ compensation benefits. And as a result, firefighters diagnosed with cancer, like the late Hampton firefighter Kyle Jameson, not only had to deal with the emotional toll of the diagnosis but also the financial impact of being out of work as they battle the disease.

Senate Bill 541 changes that by specifically allowing benefits to firefighters’ battling cancer to be funded through workers’ compensation.

Bill McQuillen, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire and a Portsmouth fire captain, said the bill would satisfy the call from firefighters for coverage funding as firefighters are considered to be at a higher risk of cancer than the general public.

“What we’ve been waiting for is anything to move the ball forward here and get us coverage,” McQuillen said. “That’s what we’ve been trying to do for the last 28 years and this year we’re successful.”

The bill, originally filed by Sen. Dan Innis, R-New Castle, almost hit a roadblock in the Senate earlier this year when the language was amended to remove the funding source and to just study the issue. Initially, the bill called for a surcharge on insurance policies to fund the benefits but that was taken out due to opposition from insurance lobbyists.

Thankfully, lawmakers did not give up and decided to address the funding issue in the House.

Sununu said in a statement last week he is “looking forward to signing” the bill into law.

“New Hampshire is deeply appreciative of our state’s firefighters who put their safety at risk,” he said. “SB 541 has been an important priority for my administration, and we must provide these courageous Granite Staters and their families the protections they need and the peace of mind they deserve.”

Funding the firefighter cancer benefits via workers compensation not only makes sense but is the right thing to do.

Thirty-seven states have similar laws on the books because the research shows there is a correlation between cancer risk and fire service. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, firefighters have a 9 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population.

The cancers mostly responsible for this higher risk were respiratory (lung, mesothelioma), GI (oral cavity, esophageal, large intestine) and kidney.

If you delve deeper into the data, the statistics are even more telling. Firefighters have a 62 percent higher risk of getting esophageal cancer and are twice as likely to get mesothelioma.

According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, cancer caused 61 percent of career firefighter deaths from 2002 to 2017.

SB 541 could mean more costs for municipalities since workers’ compensation rates would be adjusted. However, we would think municipalities would want to make the investment to ensure their workers are being taken care of in their time of need. It might also give municipalities further incentive to purchase better equipment, increase safety training and protocols and make other improvements to lower the risk.

Online: https://bit.ly/2sq7xgI

___

MAINE

Portland Press Herald

Jun. 1

All the sugar that is ever going to be in maple syrup - real maple syrup - is there when the sap runs off the tree on a warm spring day. So why would it ever need a label saying it contains “added sugars”?

The short answer is that nutrition labels are a one-size-fits-all approach that misses some of the intricacies of how food is produced and consumed.

The proposal, years in the making, comes from the Food and Drug Administration with the best intentions. Americans eat far too much sugar, and it is killing us - obesity and diabetes are just two of the chronic illnesses that result from the country’s sugar addiction.

The “added sugar” label is meant to indicate an amount higher than the recommended daily serving, but when applied to maple syrup - and honey, which is also included in the proposal - it becomes absurd.

First off, no sugar is added to maple syrup. But there is no doubt that most consumers will read the label that way, and requiring the confusing language only shortens the distance in the public’s mind between the real stuff - which includes only boiled-down maple sap - and the high-fructose corn syrup that masquerades as such. There are real differences between the two, and labels should reflect that.

More broadly, it’s not the spoonful of maple syrup that’s the problem with the American diet - it’s the extra-large stack of pancakes, with whipped cream, that it goes on. It’s the double-decker cheeseburger. It’s the small soda that’s really large, and the large soda that’s really a bucket. It’s all these things, and at nearly every meal and along with a sedentary lifestyle, that are driving poor health.

The labels are supposed to provide good information that consumers can use at a glance. For maple syrup and honey, the “added sugar” is just confusing and should be changed - and not by only adding a “clarifying” sentence, as has been suggested. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, has introduced language into a House bill that would stop the labeling requirement.

That’s not an indictment of labels - by providing quick and easy access to nutritional information, they empower consumers.

But making better labels is only one small step. People know they should be eating more healthy food, but that knowledge is fighting against the price and convenience of unhealthy options. It is fighting against the part of the brain that wants food with sugar, salt and fat, especially if it is used to having it in large doses.

To help people live healthier lives, food policy has to reflect that battle. Now, the federal government subsidizes all the wrong foods, which plays a role in making processed food high in sugar, salt and fat cheap and attractive, while whole foods like fresh fruits and vegetables remain expensive, and often hard to get.

That’s a much more pressing problem than a little bit of maple syrup.

Online: https://bit.ly/2kGyIzn

___