npr--2020-05-13--Supreme Court Considers Pivotal Electoral College Case

Listen to the arguments live beginning at 10 a.m .
ET .
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case that could affect the outcome of the 2020 election , and all future presidential elections , in unforeseeable ways .
At the heart of the case is the Electoral College , which though it is enshrined in the Constitution , has for the most part been a mere formality for over the past two centuries .
Specifically , the question is whether Electoral College delegates are a rubber stamp for the will of American voters in each state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or if they have the power to decide for themselves who they want to vote for when the Electoral College meets .
While many Americans may think that they elect the president and vice president , in fact , it is the Electoral College , an arcane intermediary mechanism dreamed up by the Founders , which formally determines who wins the election .
The system has long been considered a formality , because usually the winner of the popular vote also wins the Electoral College vote .
But twice in the last two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote winner did not become president ; instead the winner of the Electoral College prevailed and became president .
Those two elections resulted in a lot of scrutiny of the Electoral College , with proposals floating around about ways to change or eliminate it .
The one thing the two major parties agree on is that they do n't want electors feeling free to ignore their pledge to support their party 's candidates .
That is exactly what the electors in this case did .
Most states have laws that bind electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most provide that an elector who votes for someone else can be removed and replaced , or fined .
But not all electors agree they are bound .
After Donald Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 , losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes , a handful of Democratic electors , seeing the handwriting on the wall , decided to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton in the hope they could lure some Republican delegates away from Trump and throw the election into the House of Representatives , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Baca from Colorado and Bret Chiafalo from Washington state were two of these `` faithless electors . ''
As Baca tells it , the aim was `` to reach across the aisle and say , ... 'What Republican is most palatable to you ? '
`` In the end , Chiafalo and two other Democratic delegates in Washington voted for Colin Powell , while Baca tried to vote for then-Ohio Gov .
John Kasich .
But the state laws binding electors intervened .
The Washington state delegates were fined $ 1,000 each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and replaced with a Clinton delegate on the spot .
What would the Founders say ?
The question before the Supreme Court on Wednesday is whether the states have the power to remove or fine such so-called faithless electors .
Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig , who has taken the electors case all the way to the high court , says these Electoral College delegates are `` not faithless , '' but instead they were simply doing what the Founding Fathers envisioned , exercising their independent judgment and their consciences .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ electors ] had discretion , '' Lessig says .
Assuming the Framers did think that initially , within just a few short years of putting pen to paper , political parties began to emerge .
And by 1796 , electors were regularly selected to reflect the popular will in each state , with the winning party getting all the votes .
In the ensuing two-plus centuries since the founding of the republic , there have been roughly 180 so-called faithless electors .
Roughly one-third of those votes were cast when a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electors voted for someone else .
But in no case did the faithless electors ever change the outcome of an election .
In Wednesday 's case , the states contend that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from removing or punishing delegates who do not vote for the candidate they are pledged to support .
Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center wrote a brief agreeing with the states .
He points to the language in the Constitution that says the states may appoint Electoral College delegates in `` the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith says that `` there is no language in the Constitution that says states ca n't bind [ electors ] , and so the question is whether , after two centuries when everybody has assumed that electors are mere placeholders , we 're going to come along now and hold that states ' power to choose the manner of appointment of electors does not include the power to make that pledge '' enforceable ?
`` That 's crazy ! ''
he adds .
The consequences of opening up the Electoral College to widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just months away and amid a pandemic , could be disastrous , he asserts .
Smith points to `` serious , serious consequences . ''
To name just a few , he notes , `` there is no law regulating these people to prevent them from being totally corrupt .
There 's no conflict of interest disclosure laws .
There 's no ban on them receiving gifts from foreign powers .
None of that is in place because nobody thinks of them as exercising independent power .
Their names do not even appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative Supreme Court majority , at least in other contexts , has taken the position that courts should , on constitutional questions , defer almost entirely to what the Framers of the Constitution intended , regardless of what has happened over the centuries since then .
Harvard 's Lessig agrees with Smith that the Electoral College has increasingly become a dysfunctional instrument of democracy .
But he says , `` The way to solve this problem is a constitutional amendment . ''
That , however , could be harder than it seems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House and Senate to approve , and three-quarters of the states .
Given that American democracy is perhaps more polarized than at any time since the Civil War , passing a constitutional amendment about the way we pick presidents could prove more divisive than productive — especially since Republicans , having twice over 16 years elected two presidents who failed to win the popular vote , see the Electoral College as giving them an edge .

Supreme Court Considers Pivotal Electoral College Case
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mark Sherman/AP Mark Sherman/AP
The livestream of the oral arguments has concluded.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case that could affect the outcome of the 2020 election, and all future presidential elections, in unforeseeable ways.
At the heart of the case is the Electoral College, which though it is enshrined in the Constitution, has for the most part been a mere formality for over the past two centuries.
Specifically, the question is whether Electoral College delegates are a rubber stamp for the will of American voters in each state, as most people have assumed, or if they have the power to decide for themselves who they want to vote for when the Electoral College meets.
Who picks a president?
While many Americans may think that they elect the president and vice president, in fact, it is the Electoral College, an arcane intermediary mechanism dreamed up by the Founders, which formally determines who wins the election.
The system has long been considered a formality, because usually the winner of the popular vote also wins the Electoral College vote.
But twice in the last two decades the unexpected took place: The popular vote winner did not become president; instead the winner of the Electoral College prevailed and became president.
Those two elections resulted in a lot of scrutiny of the Electoral College, with proposals floating around about ways to change or eliminate it. The one thing the two major parties agree on is that they don't want electors feeling free to ignore their pledge to support their party's candidates.
That is exactly what the electors in this case did.
Most states have laws that bind electors to live up to their pledge. Most provide that an elector who votes for someone else can be removed and replaced, or fined.
2016's "faithless electors"
But not all electors agree they are bound.
After Donald Trump won the Electoral College in 2016, losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, a handful of Democratic electors, seeing the handwriting on the wall, decided to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton in the hope they could lure some Republican delegates away from Trump and throw the election into the House of Representatives, where somebody other than Trump might win.
Michael Baca from Colorado and Bret Chiafalo from Washington state were two of these "faithless electors."
As Baca tells it, the aim was "to reach across the aisle and say, ... 'What Republican is most palatable to you?' "
In the end, Chiafalo and two other Democratic delegates in Washington voted for Colin Powell, while Baca tried to vote for then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich. But the state laws binding electors intervened.
The Washington state delegates were fined $1,000 each, and the Colorado elector was removed and replaced with a Clinton delegate on the spot.
What would the Founders say?
The question before the Supreme Court on Wednesday is whether the states have the power to remove or fine such so-called faithless electors.
Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, who has taken the electors case all the way to the high court, says these Electoral College delegates are "not faithless," but instead they were simply doing what the Founding Fathers envisioned, exercising their independent judgment and their consciences.
"It's clear that the Framers thought [electors] had discretion," Lessig says.
Assuming the Framers did think that initially, within just a few short years of putting pen to paper, political parties began to emerge. And by 1796, electors were regularly selected to reflect the popular will in each state, with the winning party getting all the votes.
In the ensuing two-plus centuries since the founding of the republic, there have been roughly 180 so-called faithless electors. Roughly one-third of those votes were cast when a third party's candidate died, and his electors voted for someone else. But in no case did the faithless electors ever change the outcome of an election.
In Wednesday's case, the states contend that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from removing or punishing delegates who do not vote for the candidate they are pledged to support.
"Serious, serious consequences"
Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center wrote a brief agreeing with the states. He points to the language in the Constitution that says the states may appoint Electoral College delegates in "the manner" the state legislature directs.
Smith says that "there is no language in the Constitution that says states can't bind [electors], and so the question is whether, after two centuries when everybody has assumed that electors are mere placeholders, we're going to come along now and hold that states' power to choose the manner of appointment of electors does not include the power to make that pledge" enforceable? "That's crazy!" he adds.
The consequences of opening up the Electoral College to widespread discretion, especially with the 2020 election just months away and amid a pandemic, could be disastrous, he asserts.
Smith points to "serious, serious consequences." To name just a few, he notes, "there is no law regulating these people to prevent them from being totally corrupt. There's no conflict of interest disclosure laws. There's no ban on them receiving gifts from foreign powers. None of that is in place because nobody thinks of them as exercising independent power. Their names do not even appear on the ballot."
But the conservative Supreme Court majority, at least in other contexts, has taken the position that courts should, on constitutional questions, defer almost entirely to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, regardless of what has happened over the centuries since then.
Harvard's Lessig agrees with Smith that the Electoral College has increasingly become a dysfunctional instrument of democracy. But he says, "The way to solve this problem is a constitutional amendment."
That, however, could be harder than it seems. A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve, and three-quarters of the states.
Given that American democracy is perhaps more polarized than at any time since the Civil War, passing a constitutional amendment about the way we pick presidents could prove more divisive than productive — especially since Republicans, having twice over 16 years elected two presidents who failed to win the popular vote, see the Electoral College as giving them an edge.


npr--2020-05-12--In Settlement, Facebook To Pay $52 Million To Content Moderators With PTSD

In Settlement , Facebook To Pay $ 52 Million To Content Moderators With PTSD Facebook will pay $ 52 million to thousands of current and former contract workers who viewed and removed graphic and disturbing posts on the social media platform for a living , and consequently suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder , according to a settlement agreement announced on Tuesday between the tech giant and lawyers for the moderators .
Under the terms of the deal , more than 10,000 content moderators who worked for Facebook from sites in four states will each be eligible for $ 1,000 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with psychological conditions related to their work as Facebook moderators can have medical treatment covered , as well as additional damages of up to $ 50,000 per person .
`` We are so pleased that Facebook worked with us to create an unprecedented program to help people performing work that was unimaginable even a few years ago , '' Steve Williams , a lawyer for the content moderators , said in a statement .
`` The harm that can be suffered from this work is real and severe . ''
Facebook admitted no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The company has agreed to provide mental health counseling to its moderators .
`` We are grateful to the people who do this important work to make Facebook a safe environment for everyone .
We 're committed to providing them additional support through this settlement and in the future , '' a Facebook spokesperson told NPR via email .
The payout follows a class-action lawsuit filed in September 2018 describing the circumstances of Facebook content moderators like Selena Scola , who was the lead plaintiff in the suit .
She worked as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year at Facebook 's offices in Menlo Park and Mountain View , Calif. , where she was employed by the Florida-based contractor Pro Unlimited , Inc. During that time , she had to sift through a barrage of posts published by some of Facebook 's billions of users .
The suit said the content included `` broadcasts of child sexual abuse , rape , torture , bestiality , beheadings , suicide , and murder . ''
Moderators like Scola were tasked with maintaining a `` sanitized platform '' on Facebook in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cultivate its public image , '' the suit alleged .
Relying on users to report objectionable content , Facebook depends on thousands of contract workers to look into whether sometimes horrific content violates Facebook 's terms of use .
Scola 's lawyers said in the suit that Scola was exposed on the job to thousands of graphically violent images and videos , and now her `` PTSD symptoms may be triggered when she touches a computer mouse '' or enters a cold building or hears loud noises .
It is an experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suit claimed .
Some of the content moderators were earning $ 28,800 a year , the technology news site The Verge found last year .
The settlement allows for moderators who worked for a Facebook contractor between 2015 and now in California , Arizona , Texas or Florida to be compensated .
Facebook has agreed to make one-on-one mental health counseling for moderators available throughout their employment .
As part of the settlement , managers for the Facebook contractors will now assess a candidate 's emotional resiliency before hiring someone for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines for how a moderator can stop seeing a specific kind of content , if requested .
Williams , the lawyer for the moderators , described the settlement as a first-of-its-kind payout , potentially paving the way for similar suits filed on behalf of moderators at other popular online sites on which violent material often spreads quickly .
`` This groundbreaking litigation fixed a major workplace problem involving developing technology and its impact on real workers who suffered in order to make Facebook safer for its users , '' Williams said .

In Settlement, Facebook To Pay $52 Million To Content Moderators With PTSD
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ben Margot/AP Ben Margot/AP
Facebook will pay $52 million to thousands of current and former contract workers who viewed and removed graphic and disturbing posts on the social media platform for a living, and consequently suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a settlement agreement announced on Tuesday between the tech giant and lawyers for the moderators.
Under the terms of the deal, more than 10,000 content moderators who worked for Facebook from sites in four states will each be eligible for $1,000 in cash. In addition, those diagnosed with psychological conditions related to their work as Facebook moderators can have medical treatment covered, as well as additional damages of up to $50,000 per person.
"We are so pleased that Facebook worked with us to create an unprecedented program to help people performing work that was unimaginable even a few years ago," Steve Williams, a lawyer for the content moderators, said in a statement. "The harm that can be suffered from this work is real and severe."
Facebook admitted no wrongdoing as a part of the settlement. The company has agreed to provide mental health counseling to its moderators.
"We are grateful to the people who do this important work to make Facebook a safe environment for everyone. We're committed to providing them additional support through this settlement and in the future," a Facebook spokesperson told NPR via email.
The payout follows a class-action lawsuit filed in September 2018 describing the circumstances of Facebook content moderators like Selena Scola, who was the lead plaintiff in the suit.
She worked as a public content contractor for about a year at Facebook's offices in Menlo Park and Mountain View, Calif., where she was employed by the Florida-based contractor Pro Unlimited Inc.
During that time, she had to sift through a barrage of posts published by some of Facebook's billions of users. The suit said the content included "broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide, and murder."
Moderators like Scola were tasked with maintaining a "sanitized platform" on Facebook in order to "maximize its already vast profits, and cultivate its public image," the suit alleged.
Relying on users to report objectionable content, Facebook depends on thousands of contract workers to look into whether sometimes horrific content violates Facebook's terms of use.
Scola's lawyers said in the suit that Scola was exposed on the job to thousands of graphically violent images and videos, and now her "PTSD symptoms may be triggered when she touches a computer mouse," enters a cold building or hears loud noises.
It is an experience shared among thousands of contract moderators, the suit claimed.
Some of the content moderators were earning $28,800 a year, the technology news site The Verge found last year.
The settlement allows for moderators who worked for a Facebook contractor between 2015 and now in California, Arizona, Texas or Florida to be compensated.
Facebook has agreed to make one-on-one mental health counseling for moderators available throughout their employment.
As part of the settlement, managers for the Facebook contractors will now assess a candidate's emotional resiliency before hiring someone for the job. There will also be new guidelines for how a moderator can stop seeing a specific kind of content, if requested.
Williams, the lawyer for the moderators, described the settlement as a first-of-its-kind payout, potentially paving the way for similar suits filed on behalf of moderators at other popular online sites on which violent material often spreads quickly.
"This groundbreaking litigation fixed a major workplace problem involving developing technology and its impact on real workers who suffered in order to make Facebook safer for its users," Williams said.


npr--2020-05-13--Answering Your Coronavirus Questions: Asymptomatic Carriers, Economy And Summer Plans

Listen LIVE NOW : The National Conversation With All Things Considered On this broadcast of The National Conversation , we @ @ @ @ @ carriers of the coronavirus , the economy and summer plans for children .

Answering Your Coronavirus Questions: Asymptomatic Carriers, Economy And Summer Plans On this broadcast of The National Conversation, we answer your questions about asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus, the economy and summer plans for children.


npr--2020-05-13--Wisconsin Supreme Court Overturns The State's Stay-At-Home Orders

Wisconsin 's Supreme Court has overturned the state 's `` Safer at Home '' orders and mandated that all future statewide restrictions to battle the coronavirus must be approved by the legislature 's rule-making committee before they could be implemented .
The court ruled to strike down the orders 4-3 on Wednesday , with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn dissenting .
The legal challenge was brought against Andrea Palm , the Wisconsin Department of Health Services secretary , and other health officials by Republican state lawmakers , who have been pushing to relax restrictions and take a more regional approach for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Wisconsin Public Radio reported .
According to the ruling , Palm broke state law when she issued an April 16 `` Safer at Home '' order that prohibited Wisconsin residents from leaving their homes unless it was essential .
That order was ruled to be `` unlawful , invalid , and unenforceable . ''
The restrictions were set to expire on May 26 , and followed the state 's original stay-at-home orders implemented in March .
Governor Tony Evers and his administration will be severely limited in their power to issue further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be approved by the conservative majority state legislature .
The Republican lawmakers who filed the legal challenge asked the court for a six-day stay , which would have allowed for negotiations on the stay-at-home orders , but the court struck that request down .
The Tavern League of Wisconsin , a bar and tavern trade association , told its members they could open immediately .
Satya Rhodes-Conway , the mayor of Madison , Wis. , tweeted that stay-at-home orders would continue to be enforced in Madison and Dane counties .
Conway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local stay-at-home orders after the Supreme Court ruling came down .

Wisconsin Supreme Court Overturns The State's Stay-At-Home Orders
Enlarge this image toggle caption Morry Gash/AP Morry Gash/AP
Wisconsin's Supreme Court has overturned the state's "Safer at Home" orders and mandated that all future statewide restrictions to battle the coronavirus must be approved by the legislature's rule-making committee before they could be implemented.
The court ruled to strike down the orders 4-3 on Wednesday, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn dissenting.
The legal challenge was brought against Andrea Palm, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services secretary, and other health officials by Republican state lawmakers, who have been pushing to relax restrictions and take a more regional approach for stay-at-home orders over the last weeks, as Wisconsin Public Radio reported.
According to the ruling, Palm broke state law when she issued an April 16 "Safer at Home" order that prohibited Wisconsin residents from leaving their homes unless it was essential.
That order was ruled to be "unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable."
The restrictions were set to expire on May 26, and followed the state's original stay-at-home orders implemented in March.
Governor Tony Evers and his administration will be severely limited in their power to issue further mandates, since any future orders will need to be approved by the conservative majority state legislature.
The Republican lawmakers who filed the legal challenge asked the court for a six-day stay, which would have allowed for negotiations on the stay-at-home orders, but the court struck that request down.
Reactions to the ruling Wednesday night varied.
The Tavern League of Wisconsin, a bar and tavern trade association, told its members they could open immediately.
Satya Rhodes-Conway, the mayor of Madison, Wis., tweeted that stay-at-home orders would continue to be enforced across Dane County, where Madison is located.
Conway and public health officials there immediately issued local stay-at-home orders after the Supreme Court ruling came down.


npr--2020-05-13--Court Appoints Retired Judge To Oppose Justice Department In Michael Flynn Case

The presiding judge in Michael Flynn 's criminal case has appointed a retired judge to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department 's move to dismiss its prosecution of the former national security adviser .
Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked John Gleeson , a retired judge in the Eastern District of New York , to act as a friend of the court and look into whether Flynn should face a contempt hearing for perjury .
The order does not address the government 's attempt to drop the case or suggest when the judge might make that decision .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order soliciting `` friend of the court '' briefs and said he would provide a schedule at a later time .
The move signals the judge could have some reservations about the DOJ 's effort to dismiss the case .
The Justice Department announced last week that it would move to drop the case against Flynn .
Attorney General William Barr has drawn criticism for intervening in cases involving friends of President Trump .
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians , but now says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government .

Court Appoints Retired Judge To Oppose Justice Department In Michael Flynn Case
Enlarge this image toggle caption Andrew Harnik/AP Andrew Harnik/AP
The presiding judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case has appointed a retired judge to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department's move to dismiss its prosecution of the former national security adviser.
Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked John Gleeson, a retired judge in the Eastern District of New York, to act as a friend of the court and look into whether Flynn should face a contempt hearing for perjury.
The order does not address the government's attempt to drop the case or suggest when the judge might make that decision. It comes a day after Sullivan issued an order soliciting "friend of the court" briefs and said he would provide a schedule at a later time.
The move signals the judge could have some reservations about the DOJ's effort to dismiss the case.
The Justice Department announced last week that it would move to drop the case against Flynn. Attorney General William Barr has drawn criticism for intervening in cases involving friends of President Trump.
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians, but now says that he's innocent and was entrapped by the government.
The Justice Department declined to comment.


npr--2020-05-13--Trump Accuses Dr. Fauci Of Wanting To 'Play All Sides' On Reopening

Trump Accuses Dr. Fauci Of Wanting To 'Play All Sides ' On Reopening President Trump on Wednesday criticized an administration official 's caution over reopening the country too soon , especially sending children back to school .
Trump , who has bullishly recommended the country reopen to minimize the economic fallout from the virus , said he was taken aback by the cautious stance infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed this week in Senate testimony .
`` Look , he wants to play all sides of the equation , '' Trump said about Fauci 's concerns over reopening too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised by Fauci 's warning not to be too cavalier about the risks to children and his assessment that a vaccine is unlikely to be ready before Fall classes begin .
`` I was surprised by his answer actually , because , you know , it 's just to me — it 's not an acceptable answer , especially when it comes to schools , '' Trump told reporters , adding that `` the only thing that would be acceptable '' is giving older teachers and professors a reprieve for a few weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young children , I mean , and students , it 's really — just take a look at the statistics .
It 's pretty amazing , '' Trump said .
While young people who do n't have other health or immune system issues are at a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 , youth fatalities from the disease have been recorded , as have additional complications .
This is not the first time Trump and Fauci have publicly disagreed on the nation 's coronavirus response .
Last month in an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the administration acted sooner to implement federal social distancing rules , fewer people might have died from the disease .
Trump later retweeted a message from a supporter that read in part : `` Time to # FireFauci , '' sparking speculation of a shake-up within the coronavirus task force .
Fauci later said he had made a poor choice of words , and Trump said he had no intention of removing the doctor from the pandemic response team .
A rash of positive tests within the president 's orbit have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with several coronavirus task force officials opting to self isolate and the West Wing implementing a new rule that staffers wear masks in the building when away from their desks .
During Wednesday 's remarks , Trump also spoke about his vice president , who chairs the coronavirus task force .
`` I have n't seen Mike Pence , and I miss him , but he was in the room with somebody that tested positive , '' Trump said .
Pence 's spokeswoman , Katie Miller , who is married to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive for coronavirus , shortly after a military valet for the president also tested positive for the virus .

Trump Accuses Dr. Fauci Of Wanting To 'Play All Sides' On Reopening
Enlarge this image toggle caption Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images
President Trump on Wednesday criticized an administration official's caution over reopening the country too soon, especially sending children back to school.
Trump, who has bullishly recommended the country reopen to minimize the economic fallout from the virus, said he was taken aback by the cautious stance infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed this week in Senate testimony.
"Look, he wants to play all sides of the equation," Trump said about Fauci's concerns over reopening too quickly. Trump said he was especially surprised by Fauci's warning not to be too cavalier about the risks to children and his assessment that a vaccine is unlikely to be ready before Fall classes begin.
"I was surprised by his answer actually, because, you know, it's just to me — it's not an acceptable answer, especially when it comes to schools," Trump told reporters, adding that "the only thing that would be acceptable" is giving older teachers and professors a reprieve for a few weeks before returning. "But with the young children, I mean, and students, it's really — just take a look at the statistics. It's pretty amazing," Trump said.
While young people who don't have other health or immune system issues are at a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19, youth fatalities from the disease have been recorded, as have additional complications.
This is not the first time Trump and Fauci have publicly disagreed on the nation's coronavirus response.
Last month in an interview with CNN, Fauci seemed to imply that had the administration acted sooner to implement federal social distancing rules, fewer people might have died from the disease.
Trump later retweeted a message from a supporter that read in part: "Time to #FireFauci," sparking speculation of a shake-up within the coronavirus task force.
Fauci later said he had made a poor choice of words, and Trump said he had no intention of removing the doctor from the pandemic response team.
A rash of positive tests within the president's orbit have also sent the White House into mitigation mode, with several coronavirus task force officials opting to self isolate and the West Wing implementing a new rule that staffers wear masks in the building when away from their desks.
During Wednesday's remarks, Trump also spoke about his vice president, who chairs the coronavirus task force.
"I haven't seen Mike Pence, and I miss him, but he was in the room with somebody that tested positive," Trump said.
Pence's spokeswoman, Katie Miller, who is married to Trump adviser Stephen Miller, last week tested positive for coronavirus, shortly after a military valet for the president also tested positive for the virus.


npr--2020-05-13--'Sleeping While Black'; Louisville Police Kill Unarmed Black Woman

Attorneys for the family of Breonna Taylor call her shooting death by Louisville police an `` execution . ''
Taylor was asleep in her apartment in March when police burst into her home to serve a search warrant .
The case is gaining national attention , and this week civil rights and personal injury attorney Ben Crump announced he had been hired by Taylor 's family .
Crump has represented the families of other black shooting victims , including Trayvon Martin and , currently , Ahmaud Arbery , whose alleged shooters in Georgia were arrested last week after video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor , Martin and Arbery were unarmed when they were shot and killed .
Crump called Arbery 's murder a lynching .
On Wednesday , he called Taylor 's death an execution .
`` You ca n't walk while black .
With Ahmaud , you ca n't jog while black .
Driving while black , '' Crump said during a news conference .
`` But Breonna Taylor was sleeping while black in the sanctity of her own home . ''
He is representing Taylor 's mother , Tamika Palmer , in a lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was filed last month in Louisville .
Local attorneys Craig Aguiar and Lonita Baker are also representing Palmer .
`` Breonna Taylor was shot at least eight times by the officers ' gunfire and died as a result .
Breonna had posed no threat to the officers and did nothing to deserve to die at their hands , '' reads the complaint , which was filed by Aguiar and Baker .
They are asking for a jury trial as well as compensatory and punitive damages .
Jessie Halladay , a spokeswoman for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an internal investigation into the case is ongoing and declined to comment further .
Taylor , a certified emergency medical technician , and her boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , were asleep when police arrived at her home around 1 a.m. on March 13 to serve a search warrant , according to Walker 's attorney , Rob Eggert , in court documents .
When they entered , Walker fired a shot that hit an officer in the leg .
The officer had surgery soon after and recovered .
Three police officers shot back and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Eggert said in a court document that he believed the officers fired at least 22 bullets .
They were placed on administrative reassignment while under investigation .
No one has been charged in Taylor 's death .
There is no footage of the incident .
Police say the officers in this unit do n't wear body cameras .
Whether the officers identified themselves before forcing entry is a matter of dispute , with LMPD saying they did and Eggert saying they did not .
Walker was charged with attempted murder of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree .
Although Lt. Ted Eidem , who is with LMPD 's Public Integrity Unit , said after the incident that police were there to execute a search warrant for a narcotics investigation , Walker was not charged with a drug offense .
No drugs were found at the apartment , according to Walker 's father in an affidavit .
In late March , Walker was released to home incarceration , a move that drew criticism from LMPD Chief Steve Conrad and the police union .
Taylor 's mother and her attorneys still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
They said officers obtained a `` no knock '' warrant , which does n't fit with the police claim that the officers identified themselves before entering .
And they said police had already arrested the primary target of the narcotics investigation by the time this group got to Taylor 's home .
Attorney Sam Aguiar said the police department 's story does n't add up .
`` Give me a break .
It seems to me like they 're just trying to cover their tracks from day one , and every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict with former things , it really just looks like they are so desperate to cover this up , and it 's why getting the truth in this case is so important , '' he said during the Wednesday news conference .
Taylor 's story spread across social media and news in recent days after being shared by activist Shaun King , a Kentucky native .
Since then , politicians on the local and national stages have weighed in .
On Wednesday , Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said that after the police 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report will be handed over to the Commonwealth 's Attorney Office , which could pursue charges .
Fischer said it is possible he may call for an independent investigation into the shooting .
`` In these type of situations , you know , people always want quick answers , '' Fischer said .
`` And usually when there 's really complicated , tragic situations like this , there 's usually just not easy answers . ''
He said his office is in contact with officials including Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that said external legal authorities , including the state 's attorney general , should review the outcome of the police investigation .
Separately , Rep. John Yarmuth , D-Ky. , described Taylor 's killing as `` deeply troubling . ''
And Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , has called on the Department of Justice to investigate Taylor 's death .

'Sleeping While Black': Louisville Police Kill Unarmed Black Woman
Enlarge this image toggle caption Kyeland Jackson/WFPL Kyeland Jackson/WFPL
Attorneys for the family of Breonna Taylor call her shooting death by Louisville police an "execution." Taylor was asleep in her apartment in March when police burst into her home to serve a search warrant. The case is gaining national attention, and this week civil rights and personal injury attorney Ben Crump announced he had been hired by Taylor's family.
Crump has represented the families of other black shooting victims, including Trayvon Martin and, currently, Ahmaud Arbery, whose alleged shooters in Georgia were arrested last week after video of the February incident became public. Like Taylor, Martin and Arbery were unarmed when they were shot and killed. Crump called Arbery's murder a lynching.
On Wednesday, he called Taylor's death an execution.
"You can't walk while black. With Ahmaud, you can't jog while black. Driving while black," Crump said during a news conference. "But Breonna Taylor was sleeping while black in the sanctity of her own home."
He is representing Taylor's mother, Tamika Palmer, in a lawsuit against three Louisville Metro Police Department officers that was filed last month in Louisville. Local attorneys Sam Aguiar and Lonita Baker are also representing Palmer.
"Breonna Taylor was shot at least eight times by the officers' gunfire and died as a result. Breonna had posed no threat to the officers and did nothing to deserve to die at their hands," reads the complaint, which was filed by Aguiar and Baker.
They are asking for a jury trial as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
Jessie Halladay, a spokeswoman for LMPD, said in an email that an internal investigation into the case is ongoing and declined to comment further.
Taylor, a certified emergency medical technician, and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, were asleep when police arrived at her home around 1 a.m. on March 13 to serve a search warrant, according to Walker's attorney, Rob Eggert, in court documents. When they entered, Walker, believing them to be intruders, according to his attorney, fired a shot that hit an officer in the leg. The officer had surgery soon after and recovered.
Three police officers shot back and struck Taylor eight times, killing her. Eggert said in a court document that he believed the officers fired at least 22 bullets.
They were placed on administrative reassignment while under investigation. No one has been charged in Taylor's death. There is no footage of the incident. Police say the officers in this unit don't wear body cameras.
Whether the officers identified themselves before forcing entry is a matter of dispute, with LMPD saying they did and Eggert saying they did not.
Walker was charged with attempted murder of a police officer and assault in the first degree. Although Lt. Ted Eidem, who is with LMPD's Public Integrity Unit, said after the incident that police were there to execute a search warrant for a narcotics investigation, Walker was not charged with a drug offense. No drugs were found at the apartment, according to Walker's father in an affidavit.
In late March, Walker was released to home incarceration, a move that drew criticism from LMPD Chief Steve Conrad and the police union.
Taylor's mother and her attorneys still have questions about the facts of the case.
They said officers obtained a "no knock" warrant, which doesn't fit with the police claim that the officers identified themselves before entering. And they said police had already arrested the primary target of the narcotics investigation by the time this group got to Taylor's home.
Attorney Sam Aguiar said the police department's story doesn't add up.
"Give me a break. It seems to me like they're just trying to cover their tracks from day one, and every single time they keep saying things that conflict with former things, it really just looks like they are so desperate to cover this up, and it's why getting the truth in this case is so important," he said during the Wednesday news conference.
Taylor's story spread across social media and news in recent days after being shared by activist Shaun King, a Kentucky native. Since then, politicians on the local and national stages have weighed in.
On Wednesday, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said that after the police's Public Integrity Unit completes its investigation, the report will be handed over to the Commonwealth's Attorney Office, which could pursue charges. Fischer said it is possible he may call for an independent investigation into the shooting.
"In these type of situations, you know, people always want quick answers," Fischer said. "And usually when there's really complicated, tragic situations like this, there's usually just not easy answers."
He said his office is in contact with officials including Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who also on Wednesday issued a statement that said external legal authorities, including the state's attorney general, should review the outcome of the police investigation.
Separately, Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., described Taylor's killing as "deeply troubling." And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has called on the Department of Justice to investigate Taylor's death.


npr--2020-05-13--Coronavirus Reset: How To Get Health Insurance Now

Coronavirus Reset : How To Get Health Insurance Now If there 's a time that people particularly need access to good health care and health insurance , it 's during a global pandemic .
But in the U.S. 33.5 million people so far have had to file for unemployment benefits — and most people in the nation get their health insurance through their jobs .
An analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation published Wednesday estimates that 27 million people have recently lost their health coverage .
The bit of good news is that the report also found that the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can remain covered by switching to a spouse 's plan , or are eligible to get subsidized health insurance elsewhere — either via Medicaid or via a plan on the Obamacare insurance exchanges .
`` To me that the takeaway from this report is that the Affordable Care Act is serving as the safety net it was intended to be , '' says Sabrina Corlette , co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University .
`` Of course , the ultimate irony is it 's performing this function at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Supreme Court that it should be struck down . ''
The question now is how many people who have lost their coverage will actually enroll in a new plan .
Health insurance is complicated , and signing up can be hard .
`` There are a lot of stressors on people right now , '' says Larry Levitt , executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation and an author of the report .
`` You may be unemployed , you might be sick , you might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit to how many life things you can deal with at once . ''
Still , the clock is ticking .
If you 've lost coverage because of a job loss , that 's what 's called a `` qualifying life event . ''
You can go to Healthcare.Gov or your state 's insurance exchange right now to enroll in a new plan .
But that needs to happen within 60 days of losing coverage — and especially for people who lost their employer-based insurance in early March , there 's no time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a few of the options available to you if you 're one of the millions who 've recently lost your job and your health insurance : I got laid off and had insurance through my job You might be able to keep the same health plan under federal rules known as COBRA — if you worked for an employer with 20 employees or more .
Levitt says one advantage of COBRA is `` it provides the most continuity of coverage , because you stay in exactly the same plan you were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doctors and hospitals , same deductible — everything is identical . ''
But this continuation of your current health coverage can be quite expensive because , at least under normal circumstances , you would have to pay the full monthly premium , without your employer chipping in to make it more affordable .
Your insurer is required to notify you if you have the COBRA option , and you have 60 days to elect to take it .
( For those who lost coverage in March , the clock is ticking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place to look is the insurance exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act .
Losing health insurance that you got through your job is considered a `` qualifying event '' to enroll in a plan on all the health insurance exchanges .
That means you can go to Healthcare.gov or your state-run exchange and shop for a new plan .
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a handy subsidy calculator so you can see what you might pay in premiums for these plans — remember that your unemployment benefits count as income on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have 60 days to choose this option after losing coverage ( unless you live in a state that 's created a special enrollment period ) , so be sure and enroll in that time window .
If your income has been wiped out with the lost job , you should also check to see whether you qualify for Medicaid , the national health insurance program for low-income people that 's jointly funded by federal and state governments .
Medicaid enrollment takes place year-round and is based on monthly income , not annual income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are eligible .
You 're more likely to qualify if you live in one of the 37 states and D.C. that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act .
Your options to get covered if you 're one of roughly 28 million Americans who were uninsured even before the COVID-19 crisis depend on where you live .
Medicaid may work for you , but the rules for eligibility ( including the income cut-off ) vary by state .
States that have not expanded Medicaid — which is how Obamacare broadened coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more restrictive rules about who qualifies .
According to the Kaiser foundation , nearly 6 million adults already qualified for Medicaid before COVID-19 but were not enrolled .
If you do n't qualify for Medicaid , next look to the state insurance exchanges that were set up under the ACA .
The Trump administration has decided not to open a special enrollment period for Healthcare.gov , the federal insurance exchange .
But some states run their own insurance marketplaces and have created a special enrollment period during the coronavirus crisis .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California and New York — that means you do n't need to have a `` qualifying event '' like job-based coverage loss or the birth of a child to newly enroll right now in an Obamacare plan .
It 's worth checking to see whether you can enroll and get an affordable plan — according to KFF , more than 4 million people who were uninsured before the coronavirus crisis would have qualified for a subsidized ACA health plan that would cost them nothing in monthly insurance premiums .
One thing to note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of its emergency funding bills that may help hospitals and health systems pay for COVID-19 care for the uninsured .
`` While people who are uninsured might still receive bills from providers , [ these federal funds ] will help reduce the burden on patients because the hospitals will be compensated at least partially for their costs , '' says Corlette of Georgetown University .
White House officials have pointed to this funding as a reason why a federal special enrollment period may not be necessary .
Uninsured patients ' bills related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hospitals , the White House suggests .
Many details about how that federal funding will be dispersed are still up in the air , and it 's limited to care and testing related to the coronavirus .
`` While COVID-19 is a very present risk right now in a lot of people 's minds , people have health care needs that go beyond the coronavirus . ''
notes Levitt .
If you end up with cancer , for instance , or a burst appendix and you 're uninsured , that could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy experts always recommend getting covered if you can .
My kids have lost their coverage , too There will be many people — more than 5 million — who wo n't have access to insurance they can afford , even with the options mentioned above .
If you ca n't get a health plan for the adults in your family , your children might still be able to get coverage — the rules are different for them , as well as for pregnant women .
InsureKidsNow.gov is a good place to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible .
What about short-term or `` skinny '' plans ?
Short-term health insurance plans were originally designed to be used for just several months — to tide people over between the end of schooling and the start of a new job , for instance .
Since then , the Trump administration has promoted these plans , and their more affordable monthly premiums , as good long-term alternatives .
But the plans often have more limitations in what they cover than ACA plans do .
They 're allowed to restrict enrollment to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do n't have to cover all `` essential benefits '' included in all Obamacare plans .
`` They might exclude prescription drugs ; they might cap how much they 'll pay in a hospital , '' says Levitt .
`` So if you look at one of these short-term plans , you really want to read the fine print carefully . ''
Once I 'm insured , what 's covered in the time of coronavirus ?
Congress has required that the cost of coronavirus testing be covered by insurers ( though testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What 's less clear is how much your treatment will cost you if you get seriously ill and need to be hospitalized for COVID-19 .
Hospital and emergency care are considered essential benefits and must be covered , but patients may still have to meet the annual deductible of their policy and pay things like copays and coinsurance on top of that .
Some large commercial insurers have pledged to waive these patient costs for COVID-19 treatment , and several nonprofit community health plans have as well .
The limited availability of diagnostic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you qualify for these benefits , Levitt points out .
Unfortunately , surprise bills are still a concern — those are bills that come directly from out-of-network hospitals or doctors who provide your care .
Nearly 1 in 5 inpatient admissions for pneumonia results in a surprise bill , according to a KFF analysis .
It 's possible members of Congress will try to address this in future coronavirus legislation , but until they do , this will remain a way that people could be exposed to high medical bills .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment , the same advice applies as always ( this will be familiar to those who follow NPR 's Bill of the Month series ) : Call your hospital or doctor and/or insurance company , and try to negotiate a lower bill .
If they wo n't budge , check with the doctor or hospital to see if they can help you with a payment plan , or forgive the debt , as a part of a charity care program .
The original version of this updated story published on April 3 , @ @

Coronavirus Reset: How To Get Health Insurance Now
Enlarge this image toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Spencer Platt/Getty Images
If there's a time that people particularly need access to good health care and health insurance, it's during a global pandemic.
But in the U.S. 33.5 million people so far have had to file for unemployment benefits — and most people in the nation get their health insurance through their jobs. An analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation published Wednesday estimates that 27 million people have recently lost their health coverage.
The bit of good news is that the report also found that the vast majority of those who lost their insurance can remain covered by switching to a spouse's plan, or are eligible to get subsidized health insurance elsewhere — either via Medicaid or via a plan on the Obamacare insurance exchanges.
"To me that the takeaway from this report is that the Affordable Care Act is serving as the safety net it was intended to be," says Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. "Of course, the ultimate irony is it's performing this function at a time when the Trump administration is arguing before the Supreme Court that it should be struck down."
The question now is how many people who have lost their coverage will actually enroll in a new plan. Health insurance is complicated, and signing up can be hard. "There are a lot of stressors on people right now," says Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation and an author of the report. "You may be unemployed, you might be sick, you might be quarantining — and there's just a limit to how many life things you can deal with at once."
Still, the clock is ticking. If you've lost coverage because of a job loss, that's what's called a "qualifying life event." You can go to Healthcare.Gov or your state's insurance exchange right now to enroll in a new plan.
But that needs to happen within 60 days of losing coverage — and especially for people who lost their employer-based insurance in early March, there's no time to lose. Here is a guide to a few of the options available to you if you're one of the millions who've recently lost your job and your health insurance:
I got laid off and had insurance through my job
You might be able to keep the same health plan under federal rules known as COBRA — if you worked for an employer with 20 employees or more. Levitt says one advantage of COBRA is "it provides the most continuity of coverage, because you stay in exactly the same plan you were in when you were employed — same network of doctors and hospitals, same deductible — everything is identical." But this continuation of your current health coverage can be quite expensive because, at least under normal circumstances, you would have to pay the full monthly premium, without your employer chipping in to make it more affordable. Your insurer is required to notify you if you have the COBRA option, and you have 60 days to elect to take it. (For those who lost coverage in March, the clock is ticking to elect this option).
The next place to look is the insurance exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act. Losing health insurance that you got through your job is considered a "qualifying event" to enroll in a plan on all the health insurance exchanges. That means you can go to Healthcare.gov or your state-run exchange and shop for a new plan. The Kaiser Family Foundation has a handy subsidy calculator so you can see what you might pay in premiums for these plans — remember that your unemployment benefits count as income on the exchanges. Again, you only have 60 days to choose this option after losing coverage (unless you live in a state that's created a special enrollment period), so be sure and enroll in that time window.
If your income has been wiped out with the lost job, you should also check to see whether you qualify for Medicaid, the national health insurance program for low-income people that's jointly funded by federal and state governments. Medicaid enrollment takes place year-round and is based on monthly income, not annual income, and it's essentially free for people who are eligible. You're more likely to qualify if you live in one of the 37 states and D.C. that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
I was already uninsured
Your options to get covered if you're one of roughly 28 million Americans who were uninsured even before the COVID-19 crisis depend on where you live. Medicaid may work for you, but the rules for eligibility (including the income cut-off) vary by state. States that have not expanded Medicaid — which is how Obamacare broadened coverage to 12 million previously uninsured people — have more restrictive rules about who qualifies. According to the Kaiser foundation, nearly 6 million adults already qualified for Medicaid before COVID-19 but were not enrolled.
If you don't qualify for Medicaid, next look to the state insurance exchanges that were set up under the ACA. The Trump administration has decided not to open a special enrollment period for Healthcare.gov, the federal insurance exchange. But some states run their own insurance marketplaces and have created a special enrollment period during the coronavirus crisis. In these states — including hard-hit places like California and New York — that means you don't need to have a "qualifying event" like job-based coverage loss or the birth of a child to newly enroll right now in an Obamacare plan.
It's worth checking to see whether you can enroll and get an affordable plan — according to KFF, more than 4 million people who were uninsured before the coronavirus crisis would have qualified for a subsidized ACA health plan that would cost them nothing in monthly insurance premiums.
One thing to note is that Congress has put funding in some of its emergency funding bills that may help hospitals and health systems pay for COVID-19 care for the uninsured. "While people who are uninsured might still receive bills from providers, [these federal funds] will help reduce the burden on patients because the hospitals will be compensated at least partially for their costs," says Corlette of Georgetown University.
White House officials have pointed to this funding as a reason why a federal special enrollment period may not be necessary. Uninsured patients' bills related to COVID-19 might be forgiven by doctors and hospitals, the White House suggests. Many details about how that federal funding will be dispersed are still up in the air, and it's limited to care and testing related to the coronavirus.
"While COVID-19 is a very present risk right now in a lot of people's minds, people have health care needs that go beyond the coronavirus." notes Levitt. If you end up with cancer, for instance, or a burst appendix and you're uninsured, that could be financially ruinous, which is why health policy experts always recommend getting covered if you can.
My kids have lost their coverage, too
There will be many people — more than 5 million — who won't have access to insurance they can afford, even with the options mentioned above. If you can't get a health plan for the adults in your family, your children might still be able to get coverage — the rules are different for them, as well as for pregnant women. InsureKidsNow.gov is a good place to start to determine if your children may be eligible.
What about short-term or "skinny" plans?
Short-term health insurance plans were originally designed to be used for just several months — to tide people over between the end of schooling and the start of a new job, for instance. Since then, the Trump administration has promoted these plans, and their more affordable monthly premiums, as good long-term alternatives.
But the plans often have more limitations in what they cover than ACA plans do. They're allowed to restrict enrollment to those without preexisting conditions, for example, and don't have to cover all "essential benefits" included in all Obamacare plans. "They might exclude prescription drugs; they might cap how much they'll pay in a hospital," says Levitt. "So if you look at one of these short-term plans, you really want to read the fine print carefully."
Once I'm insured, what's covered in the time of coronavirus?
Congress has required that the cost of coronavirus testing be covered by insurers (though testing is still not always available). What's less clear is how much your treatment will cost you if you get seriously ill and need to be hospitalized for COVID-19.
Hospital and emergency care are considered essential benefits and must be covered, but patients may still have to meet the annual deductible of their policy and pay things like copays and coinsurance on top of that. Some large commercial insurers have pledged to waive these patient costs for COVID-19 treatment, and several nonprofit community health plans have as well. The limited availability of diagnostic testing may make it tricky to prove you qualify for these benefits, Levitt points out.
Unfortunately, surprise bills are still a concern — those are bills that come directly from out-of-network hospitals or doctors who provide your care. Nearly 1 in 5 inpatient admissions for pneumonia results in a surprise bill, according to a KFF analysis. It's possible members of Congress will try to address this in future coronavirus legislation, but until they do, this will remain a way that people could be exposed to high medical bills.
If you do get a surprise bill from COVID-19 treatment, the same advice applies as always (this will be familiar to those who follow NPR's Bill of the Month series): Call your hospital or doctor and/or insurance company, and try to negotiate a lower bill. If they won't budge, check with the doctor or hospital to see if they can help you with a payment plan, or forgive the debt, as a part of a charity care program.
The original version of this updated story published on April 3, 2020.


npr--2020-05-13--7-Year No-Interest Loans: What It Takes To Sell Cars In A Pandemic

7-Year No-Interest Loans : What It Takes To Sell Cars In A Pandemic Unemployment is mounting .
The economy keeps falling deeper into a recession — or worse .
The coronavirus continues to spread .
But car sales , surprisingly , are climbing .
Auto sales tanked in March — to 80 % below their expected levels .
And they remain well below normal .
But while much of the economy continues its free fall , car sales have been on the rise for six straight weeks , according to data from J.D .
Power .
The steady improvement is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentives for customers who can afford to buy .
Dealers are promoting 0 % loans for as long as seven years .
That 's remarkable , says Jessica Caldwell , the head of industry analysis at Edmunds .
`` To be honest , I 've never really seen incentives like these , '' she says .
And consumers are paying attention .
In April , no-interest loans accounted for a remarkable 26 % of new car sales , she says .
`` Auto companies are really faced with the challenge of pulling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the small market that is actually willing to buy cars — because we know that it 's not a large one right now , '' she says .
That market is smaller , of course , because the ongoing economic crisis has many would-be buyers either unable to afford a new car , or understandably reluctant to make a big-ticket purchase given the economic risks they face .
Nina Erlich-Williams , of Corvallis , Ore. , has been thinking of buying a new car for a while .
Her family 's 2007 Honda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` a bit of a money pit , '' she says .
She 'd like to get a plug-in hybrid , for environmental reasons , and has been saving up for a down payment .
But with the coronavirus crisis , she and her husband feel that it 's wiser to hang on to that cash for now .
They run a small PR firm that works with nonprofits , and are expecting a lot of lost business in the months ahead .
`` I think right now we 're just sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see what happens with the economy , '' Erlich-Williams says .
On the other hand , those huge promotions are clearly pulling some buyers in , despite the economic uncertainty .
Avery Hoppa , of Hanover , N.H. , got an email from her local Volkswagen dealership advertising 0 % APR for 72 months and no payments for 6 months .
Hoppa 's family 's income has not been reduced by the pandemic ; she 's a nurse and her husband a professor .
They 'd been thinking about buying a bigger vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off when they had to fix their leaky roof .
Besides , their VW Golf SportWagen drove just fine .
Then came that email , and in less than two hours , they 'd decided they could n't say no to that deal .
`` My husband and I were like , 'This is it !
This is the moment we were waiting for , ' `` she says .
After negotiating by phone and email , followed by a socially distanced trip to the dealership , Hoppa 's family now owns a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cart around carpooling kids and visiting grandparents .
For now ?
`` Well , it 's doing a lot of sitting in our driveway , '' Hoppa says .
Like a lot of us , that SUV is n't going anywhere .
And eye-popping incentives on new cars might be sticking around for a while , too , if the economy continues to be stuck in suspended animation .

7-Year No-Interest Loans: What It Takes To Sell Cars In A Pandemic
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mark J. Terrill/AP Mark J. Terrill/AP
Unemployment is mounting. The economy keeps falling deeper into a recession — or worse. The coronavirus continues to spread. But car sales surprisingly are climbing.
Auto sales tanked in March — to 80% below their expected levels. And they remain well below normal. But while much of the economy continues its free fall, car sales have been on the rise for six straight weeks, according to data from J.D. Power, a marketing data and analytics company.
The steady improvement is fueled, in part, by big incentives for customers who can afford to buy. Dealers are promoting 0% loans for as long as seven years.
That's remarkable, says Jessica Caldwell, the head of industry analysis at Edmunds, an automotive information company.
"To be honest, I've never really seen incentives like these," she says.
And consumers are paying attention. In April, no-interest loans accounted for a remarkable 26% of new car sales, she says.
"Auto companies are really faced with the challenge of pulling out all the stops to try to capture the small market that is actually willing to buy cars — because we know that it's not a large one right now," she says.
That market is smaller, of course, because the ongoing economic crisis has many would-be buyers either unable to afford a new car or understandably reluctant to make a big-ticket purchase given the economic risks they face.
Nina Erlich-Williams of Corvallis, Ore., has been thinking of buying a new car for a while. Her family's 2007 Honda Pilot is both a gas guzzler and "a bit of a money pit," she says.
She'd like to get a plug-in hybrid, for environmental reasons, and has been saving up for a down payment. But with the coronavirus crisis, she and her husband feel that it's wiser to hang on to that cash for now. They run a small public relations firm that works with nonprofits, and are expecting a lot of lost business in the months ahead.
"I think right now we're just sort of in suspended animation as we wait to see what happens with the economy," Erlich-Williams says.
Buying A Car During The Coronavirus Shutdown Buying A Car During The Coronavirus Shutdown Listen · 4:46 4:46
On the other hand, those huge promotions are clearly pulling some buyers in despite the economic uncertainty.
Avery Hoppa of Hanover, N.H., got an email from her local Volkswagen dealership advertising 0% annual percentage rate for 72 months and no payments for six months.
Her family's income has not been reduced by the pandemic; Hoppa's a nurse, and her husband's a professor. They'd been thinking about buying a bigger vehicle for a while but put it off when they had to fix their leaky roof. Besides, their VW Golf SportWagen drove just fine.
Then came that dealership email, and in less than two hours, they'd decided they couldn't say no to that deal.
"My husband and I were like, 'This is it! This is the moment we were waiting for,' " she says. After negotiating by phone and email, followed by a social distancing trip to the dealership, Hoppa's family now owns a three-row Tiguan.
Someday, it'll cart around carpooling kids and visiting grandparents. For now? "Well, it's doing a lot of sitting in our driveway," Hoppa says.
Like a lot of us, that SUV isn't going anywhere.
And eye-popping incentives on new cars might be sticking around for a while, too, if the economy continues to be stuck in suspended animation.


npr--2020-05-13--Republican Projected To Win Democratic House Seat In California Special Election

Republican Mike Garcia has been projected the winner of a special election for a California U.S. House seat , according to the Associated Press , giving the GOP a victory in a district that slipped away from them in the 2018 Democratic wave election .
Democratic candidate Christy Smith had conceded earlier on Wednesday , as large numbers of votes submitted by mail continue to be tallied , but Smith conceded with Garcia leading by more than 17,000 votes , or 12 percentage points .
`` While it 's critical that we ensure every vote is counted and recorded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Garcia is the likely victor in the May 12 special election , '' Smith said in a statement posted online .
`` As such , I 'd like to congratulate him . ''
Garcia 's win in Tuesday 's special election garners him the seat representing California 's 25th Congressional District , which he will hold through the end of the year .
In November , Garcia and Smith will once again face off for a full two-year term .
The seat was left vacant by former Democratic Rep. Katie Hill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal scandal .
Garcia 's win in the Southern California district comes after the first competitive congressional race during the coronavirus pandemic .
The virus has paralyzed the global economy , stunted Americans ' work and social lives , and disrupted many of the traditional methods of political campaigning .
California has been under a formal stay-at-home order since March 19 , issued by Democratic Gov .
Gavin Newsom .
As a result , the special election in the 25th District became a primarily mail-in ballot race .
Many Republicans , including President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the voting option as particularly susceptible to voter fraud .
And they 've said mail-in voting is somehow unfavorable to their party .
But Garcia 's apparent triumph in a district won by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 might make more Republican leaders open to mail-in voting , as the deadly coronavirus drives fears over how to safely conduct voting in November .
Newsom last week signed an executive order requiring a ballot be sent to every registered voter in the state this November .
Garcia beat out Democrat Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status quo and with an emphasis on his time in the military as a Navy fighter pilot .

Republican Projected To Win Democratic House Seat In California Special Election
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Blood/AP Michael Blood/AP
Updated at 7:20 p.m. ET
Republican Mike Garcia has been projected the winner of a special election for a California U.S. House seat, according to the Associated Press, giving the GOP a victory in a district that slipped away from them in the 2018 Democratic wave election.
Democratic candidate Christy Smith had conceded earlier on Wednesday, as large numbers of votes submitted by mail continue to be tallied, but Smith conceded with Garcia leading by more than 17,000 votes, or 12 percentage points.
"While it's critical that we ensure every vote is counted and recorded, we believe that the current tally shows Mike Garcia is the likely victor in the May 12 special election," Smith said in a statement posted online. "As such, I'd like to congratulate him."
Garcia's win in Tuesday's special election garners him the seat representing California's 25th Congressional District, which he will hold through the end of the year. In November, Garcia and Smith will once again face off for a full two-year term.
Loading...
The seat was left vacant by former Democratic Rep. Katie Hill, who resigned last year because of a personal scandal.
Garcia's win in the Southern California district comes after the first competitive congressional race during the coronavirus pandemic. The virus has paralyzed the global economy, stunted Americans' work and social lives, and disrupted many of the traditional methods of political campaigning.
California has been under a formal stay-at-home order since March 19, issued by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.
As a result, the special election in the 25th District became a primarily mail-in ballot race.
Many Republicans, including President Trump, have criticized, without evidence, the voting option as particularly susceptible to voter fraud. And they've said mail-in voting is somehow unfavorable to their party.
But Garcia's apparent triumph in a district won by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 might make more Republican leaders open to mail-in voting, as the deadly coronavirus drives fears over how to safely conduct voting in November.
Newsom last week signed an executive order requiring a ballot be sent to every registered voter in the state this November.
Garcia beat out Democrat Smith with promises to shake up the Washington status quo and with an emphasis on his time in the military as a Navy fighter pilot.


npr--2020-05-13--Broadway's Nick Cordero Emerges From Coma During Battle With COVID-19

Broadway 's Nick Cordero Emerges From Coma During Battle With COVID-19 Happy stories have been hard to come by during the coronavirus pandemic — particularly on Broadway , which shuttered stages two months ago and wo n't reopen until Labor Day at the earliest .
This week , however , brought a rare , bright exception to the parade of grim tidings .
Broadway actor Nick Cordero has awakened from a weekslong coma that was part of his desperate fight with COVID-19 , according to his wife , Amanda Kloots .
She announced the news Tuesday on Instagram , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nick , dada , is awake ! ''
Kloots said beaming with excitement .
`` Finally confirmed after two days of , 'Is he doing this ? '
You get so excited , the nurses are like , 'We think this is happening . '
The doctor confirmed today that , 'Yep , I think Nick is awake . '
And I was like , 'Oh my God . '
`` Cordero 's story is not without its darkness , however .
The Tony-nominated performer — perhaps best known for his roles in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — fell ill with the respiratory disease in March and spent time on a respirator at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles , where he had been acting in a production of Rock of Ages .
Cordero , 41 , was placed in a medically induced coma on April 1 , his wife said , and later had his right leg amputated after the development of a dangerous blood clot .
What 's more , Kloots explained last month on Instagram , `` we did learn that due to COVID , Nick 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost like he 's been a smoker for 50 years , they said . ''
Still , the latest twist in Cordero 's story offers reason for hope .
`` It 's just been this heaviness that 's kind of held over us for this time , '' Kloots told ABC 's Good Morning America .
`` ...
The doctor said , ' I think we can officially say he is awake ' — and , I mean , that was just the best news you could hear . ''

Broadway's Nick Cordero Emerges From Coma During Battle With COVID-19
Enlarge this image toggle caption Vivien Killilea/Getty Images for Rock of Ages Vivien Killilea/Getty Images for Rock of Ages
Happy stories have been hard to come by during the coronavirus pandemic — particularly on Broadway, which shuttered stages two months ago and won't reopen until Labor Day at the earliest. This week, however, brought a rare, bright exception to the parade of grim tidings.
Broadway actor Nick Cordero has awakened from a weekslong coma that was part of his desperate fight with COVID-19, according to his wife, Amanda Kloots. She announced the news Tuesday on Instagram, with their baby in her arms.
"Nick, dada, is awake!" Kloots said beaming with excitement. "Finally confirmed after two days of, 'Is he doing this?' You get so excited, the nurses are like, 'We think this is happening.' The doctor confirmed today that, 'Yep, I think Nick is awake.' And I was like, 'Oh my God.' "
Cordero's story is not without its darkness, however.
The Tony-nominated performer — perhaps best known for his roles in Bullets Over Broadway and A Bronx Tale — fell ill with the respiratory disease in March and spent time on a respirator at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where he had been acting in a production of Rock of Ages. Cordero, 41, was placed in a medically induced coma on April 1, his wife said, and later had his right leg amputated after the development of a dangerous blood clot.
What's more, Kloots explained last month on Instagram, "we did learn that due to COVID, Nick's lungs are severely damaged — to look almost like he's been a smoker for 50 years, they said."
Still, the latest twist in Cordero's story offers reason for hope.
"It's just been this heaviness that's kind of held over us for this time," Kloots told ABC's Good Morning America. "... The doctor said, 'I think we can officially say he is awake' — and, I mean, that was just the best news you could hear."


npr--2020-05-13--Black Leaders In Virginia To Gov. Northam: It's Too Soon To Reopen

Black Leaders In Virginia To Gov .
Northam : It 's Too Soon To Reopen Prompted by concerns about racial health disparities , African-American state lawmakers in Virginia are opposing plans by Gov .
Ralph Northam to begin a phased reopening of Virginia 's economy this week .
In a letter to Northam , leaders of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus outline `` grave concerns '' about plans to begin reopening some businesses across much of the commonwealth on Friday .
The letter notes that `` a significant percentage of our essential workers are Black Virginians and Virginians of Color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been disproportionately harmed by the pandemic .
Northam has said he believes most of Virginia is ready to move into the first phase of a multi-step plan to resume business activities .
During the initial phase , nonessential retail will be allowed to reopen at 50 % capacity , and restaurants can offer limited outdoor seating , among other changes set to take effect .
At the request of local leaders , Northam is delaying the reopening for several towns , cities , and counties in Northern Virginia until at least May 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the region .
In a statement to NPR , a spokeswoman said Northam is `` deeply appreciative of the Legislative Black Caucus and values their close partnership with him and his administration as we respond to this crisis .
He continues to be guided by public health , data , and the CDC guidelines .
He is absolutely committed to moving forward in a safe , gradual manner that protects all Virginians , particularly low-income individuals , essential workers , and communities of color . ''
Last year , after a scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school yearbook prompted calls for his resignation from members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and other Democratic leaders , Northam told the Washington Post he intended to make racial justice the focus of the rest of his time in office .

Black Leaders In Virginia To Gov. Northam: It's Too Soon To Reopen
Enlarge this image toggle caption Steve Helber/AP Steve Helber/AP
Prompted by concerns about racial health disparities, African-American state lawmakers in Virginia are opposing plans by Gov. Ralph Northam to begin a phased reopening of Virginia's economy this week.
In a letter to Northam, leaders of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus outline "grave concerns" about plans to begin reopening some businesses across much of the commonwealth on Friday. The letter notes that "a significant percentage of our essential workers are Black Virginians and Virginians of Color" and that people of color have been disproportionately harmed by the pandemic.
Northam has said he believes most of Virginia is ready to move into the first phase of a multi-step plan to resume business activities. During the initial phase, nonessential retail will be allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, and restaurants can offer limited outdoor seating, among other changes set to take effect.
At the request of local leaders, Northam is delaying the reopening for several towns, cities, and counties in Northern Virginia until at least May 29, because of a higher infection rate in the region.
In a statement to NPR, a spokeswoman said Northam is "deeply appreciative of the Legislative Black Caucus and values their close partnership with him and his administration as we respond to this crisis. He continues to be guided by public health, data, and the CDC guidelines. He is absolutely committed to moving forward in a safe, gradual manner that protects all Virginians, particularly low-income individuals, essential workers, and communities of color."
Last year, after a scandal involving a blackface photo in his medical school yearbook prompted calls for his resignation from members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and other Democratic leaders, Northam told the Washington Post he intended to make racial justice the focus of the rest of his time in office.


npr--2020-05-13--The U.S. Is Giving Vast Sums Of Money To Fight COVID-19 Abroad. But There's A Catch

The U.S. Is Giving Vast Sums Of Money To Fight COVID-19 Abroad .
But There 's A Catch When it comes to fighting COVID-19 abroad , the U.S. has been the most generous nation in the world , committing $ 900 million to global health , humanitarian and economic programs in 120 countries , according to the State Department .
The money goes to international and local aid groups and health facilities in country .
Aid recipients ca n't use U.S. funds to buy personal protective equipment for health workers — masks and gloves , for example — without prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Development .
The restriction , first reported by The New Humanitarian on April 29 , has drawn criticism from global aid groups that rely on U.S. funds to do life-saving work in the developing world and in countries struggling with the pandemic .
`` It just sets up an additional obstacle for implementing partners who also need to be mindful and protect their staff during an already challenging time , '' says Amanda Glassman , executive director of the Center for Global Development , a think tank .
USAID answered questions about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then a follow-up phone interview .
USAID requested that the comments be attributed to `` a USAID spokesperson . ''
The measure was put in place to ensure there would be enough PPE for the U.S. , the spokesperson told NPR .
In the email response , the spokesperson noted : `` We continue to remain sensitive to the needs of humanitarian beneficiaries around the world while balancing the urgency of the domestic requirements here in the United States . ''
It 's part of a series of government efforts to save PPE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press briefing on April 7 , Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the U.S. would no longer be shipping PPE outside the country .
That represented a shift in policy .
In February , for example , the U.S. sent 17.8 tons of donated medical supplies , including masks and gowns , to China .
`` Right now , given the great need for PPE in our own country , our focus will be on keeping critical medical items in the United States until demand is met here , '' said Pompeo in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers remain in need of PPE .
In mid-April , the American Medical Association sent a letter urging the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address `` rampant '' PPE shortages in the U.S. `` Physicians and other health-care workers in every state have expressed serious concerns regarding the availability of appropriate safety equipment , '' the letter stated .
In the May 8 phone interview with NPR , the USAID spokesperson said the agency recently began telling aid recipients that they could not use their funds to purchase PPE .
This restriction was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact person or included in their grant agreement .
If aid recipients would like to use their COVID-19 funds to purchase PPE , they must submit a request to USAID , according to the USAID spokesperson .
Lisa Hilmi , executive director of Core Group , a global consortium of 9,000 community health organizations , says she has been in regular communications with aid groups around the world .
The groups she works told her that they began learning of this new guideline the week of April 20 .
According to Hilmi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liaisons that they can not use existing aid funds to buy PPE .
In bids for new USAID funding , they must specify that they would like to use the funds to purchase PPE — and get approval from the agency to do so .
After being informed of the need to ask for permission to purchase PPE , says Hilmi , `` hundreds of groups filled out this request .
But so far , none have heard back from USAID . ''
Last week , Hilmi says she asked a USAID contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they were not aware of what the timeline and process was [ to approve the requests ] . ''
Hilmi says she is `` frustrated '' by the delay in response from the agency to requests for PPE purchase .
`` During a pandemic , we expect things to be more nimble , '' she says .
`` People 's lives are at stake . ''
NPR asked USAID to comment on the reports of delays in responses regarding the purchase of PPE .
USAID did not provide an answer , telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time for publication .
Asked whether it is understandable that with shortages in the U.S. of PPE , the U.S. might put priority on establishing its own supply , Glassman of the Center for Global Development replied , `` As the wealthiest country on the planet , surely we can do both with a bit of effort . ''
Aid organizations contacted by NPR that receive U.S. funding have also expressed frustration with the restriction .
`` It is unacceptable that USAID restricts Partners In Health and NGOs [ nongovernmental organizations ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their funds .
We are one global community and must fight this disease as one global community .
We are not safe until we are all safe , '' said Cate Oswald , chief policy and partnership officer for the global health group Partners In Health .
In a statement from Save the Children to NPR , Bernice Romero , senior director of humanitarian policy and advocacy , wrote : `` Save the Children is aware of the new guidance and is extremely concerned ... We are urging the U.S. government to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protective equipment we need in order to reach vulnerable children and families and protect our staff during this crisis . ''
Meanwhile , USAID , in public statements , has emphasized the importance of other kinds of pandemic strategies .
In response to a question at a press briefing on May 1 , USAID acting administrator John Barsa noted that the COVID response extends beyond medical supplies such as PPE and ventilators .
`` There 's many things in our toolkit to fight the pandemic .
So it is more than just equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the U.S. aid can be used for other efforts , such as raising awareness about COVID-19 , boosting access to water and sanitation and improving disease surveillance .
But at least one piece of critical COVID-19 equipment is now being sent by the U.S. On May 8 , Barsa tweeted that the agency sent ventilators to South Africa .
`` This equipment will be used in South African intensive care units & will in no way impact the availability of these critical supplies for the American people , '' he wrote .

The U.S. Is Giving Vast Sums Of Money To Fight COVID-19 Abroad. But There's A Catch
Enlarge this image toggle caption Xinzheng/Getty Images Xinzheng/Getty Images
When it comes to fighting COVID-19 abroad, the U.S. has been the most generous nation in the world, committing $900 million to global health, humanitarian and economic programs in 120 countries, according to the State Department. The money goes to international and local aid groups and health facilities in country.
But there's a catch.
Aid recipients can't use U.S. funds to buy personal protective equipment for health workers — masks and gloves, for example — without prior approval from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The restriction, first reported by The New Humanitarian on April 29, has drawn criticism from global aid groups that rely on U.S. funds to do life-saving work in the developing world and in countries struggling with the pandemic.
"It just sets up an additional obstacle for implementing partners who also need to be mindful and protect their staff during an already challenging time," says Amanda Glassman, executive director of the Center for Global Development, a think tank.
USAID answered questions about the restriction in an email to NPR and then a follow-up phone interview. USAID requested that the comments be attributed to "a USAID spokesperson."
The measure was put in place to ensure there would be enough PPE for the U.S., the spokesperson told NPR. In the email response, the spokesperson noted: "We continue to remain sensitive to the needs of humanitarian beneficiaries around the world while balancing the urgency of the domestic requirements here in the United States."
It's part of a series of government efforts to save PPE stocks for the U.S. In a press briefing on April 7, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the U.S. would no longer be shipping PPE outside the country. That represented a shift in policy. In February, for example, the U.S. sent 17.8 tons of donated medical supplies, including masks and gowns, to China.
"Right now, given the great need for PPE in our own country, our focus will be on keeping critical medical items in the United States until demand is met here," said Pompeo in the briefing.
Indeed, U.S. health workers remain in need of PPE. In mid-April, the American Medical Association sent a letter urging the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address "rampant" PPE shortages in the U.S. "Physicians and other health-care workers in every state have expressed serious concerns regarding the availability of appropriate safety equipment," the letter stated.
In the May 8 phone interview with NPR, the USAID spokesperson said the agency recently began telling aid recipients that they could not use their funds to purchase PPE. This restriction was communicated to the groups via their USAID contact person or included in their grant agreement.
If aid recipients would like to use their COVID-19 funds to purchase PPE, they must submit a request to USAID, according to the USAID spokesperson.
Lisa Hilmi, executive director of Core Group, a global consortium of 9,000 community health organizations, says she has been in regular communications with aid groups around the world. The groups she works told her that they began learning of this new guideline the week of April 20.
According to Hilmi, the groups were informed by their USAID liaisons that they cannot use existing aid funds to buy PPE. In bids for new USAID funding, they must specify that they would like to use the funds to purchase PPE — and get approval from the agency to do so.
After being informed of the need to ask for permission to purchase PPE, says Hilmi, "hundreds of groups filled out this request. But so far, none have heard back from USAID."
Last week, Hilmi says she asked a USAID contact for an update — but "they said they were not aware of what the timeline and process was [to approve the requests]."
Hilmi says she is "frustrated" by the delay in response from the agency to requests for PPE purchase.
"During a pandemic, we expect things to be more nimble," she says. "People's lives are at stake."
NPR asked USAID to comment on the reports of delays in responses regarding the purchase of PPE. USAID did not provide an answer, telling NPR they could not give a reply in time for publication.
Asked whether it is understandable that with shortages in the U.S. of PPE, the U.S. might put priority on establishing its own supply, Glassman of the Center for Global Development replied, "As the wealthiest country on the planet, surely we can do both with a bit of effort."
Aid organizations contacted by NPR that receive U.S. funding have also expressed frustration with the restriction. "It is unacceptable that USAID restricts Partners In Health and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] like us from purchasing these items with their funds. We are one global community and must fight this disease as one global community. We are not safe until we are all safe," said Cate Oswald, chief policy and partnership officer for the global health group Partners In Health.
In a statement from Save the Children to NPR, Bernice Romero, senior director of humanitarian policy and advocacy, wrote: "Save the Children is aware of the new guidance and is extremely concerned ... We are urging the U.S. government to make provisions to allow us to procure the protective equipment we need in order to reach vulnerable children and families and protect our staff during this crisis."
Meanwhile, USAID, in public statements, has emphasized the importance of other kinds of pandemic strategies.
In response to a question at a press briefing on May 1, USAID acting administrator John Barsa noted that the COVID response extends beyond medical supplies such as PPE and ventilators. "There's many things in our toolkit to fight the pandemic. So it is more than just equipment," he said.
He noted that the U.S. aid can be used for other efforts, such as raising awareness about COVID-19, boosting access to water and sanitation and improving disease surveillance.
But at least one piece of critical COVID-19 equipment is now being sent by the U.S.
On May 8, Barsa tweeted that the agency sent ventilators to South Africa. "This equipment will be used in South African intensive care units & will in no way impact the availability of these critical supplies for the American people," he wrote.