truthout--2020-09-06--A Doctor Got Charged $10,984 for a COVID-19 Antibody Test — by His Own Employer

When Dr. Zachary Sussman went to Physicians Premier ER in Austin for a COVID-19 antibody test , he assumed he would get a freebie because he was a doctor for the chain .
Instead , the free-standing emergency room charged his insurance company an astonishing $ 10,984 for the visit — and got paid every penny , with no pushback .
The bill left him so dismayed he quit his job .
And now , after ProPublica ’ s questions , the parent company of his insurer said the case is being investigated and could lead to repayment or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the latest to show how providers have sometimes charged exorbitant prices for visits for simple and inexpensive COVID-19 tests .
ProPublica recently reported how a $ 175 COVID-19 test resulted in charges of $ 2,479 at a different free-standing ER in Texas .
In that situation , the health plan said the payment for the visit would be reduced and the facility said the family would not receive a bill .
In Sussman ’ s case , the insurer paid it all .
But those dollars come from people who pay insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices are a major reason why Americans pay so much for health care .
Sussman , a 44-year-old pathologist , was working under contract as a part-time medical director at four of Physicians Premier ’ s other locations .
He said he made $ 4,000 a month to oversee the antibody tests , which can detect signs of a previous COVID-19 infection .
It was a temporary position holding him over between hospital gigs in Austin and New Mexico , where he now lives and works .
In May , before visiting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted the test because he had recently had a headache , which can be a symptom of COVID-19 .
He decided to go to one of his own company ’ s locations because he was curious to see how the process played out from a patient ’ s point of view .
He knew the materials for each antibody test only amounted to about $ 8 , and it gets read on the spot — similar to an at-home pregnancy test .
He could even do the reading himself .
So he assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it on the house .
But the staff went ahead and took down his insurance details , while promising him he would not be responsible for any portion of the bill .
He had a short-term plan through Golden Rule Insurance Company , which is owned by UnitedHealthcare , the largest insurer in the country .
( The insurance was not provided through his work . )
During the brief visit , Sussman said he chatted with the emergency room doctor , whom he didn ’ t know .
He said there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hand on me , ” he said .
His vitals were checked and his blood was drawn .
He tested negative .
He said the whole encounter took about 30 minutes .
About a month later , Golden Rule sent Sussman his explanation of benefits for the physician portion of the bill .
The charges came to $ 2,100 .
Sussman was surprised by the expense but he said he was familiar with the Physicians Premier high-dollar business model , in which the convenience of a free-standing ER with no wait comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well say Gucci on the outside , ” he said of the facility .
Physicians Premier says on its website that it bills private insurance plans , but that it is out-of-network with them , meaning it does not have agreed-upon prices .
That often leads to higher charges , which then get negotiated down by the insurers , or result in medical bills getting passed on to patients .
Sussman felt more puzzled to see the insurance document say , “ Payable at : 100 % .
” So apparently Golden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better deal and had paid more than two grand for a quick , walk-in visit for a test .
He was happy not to get hit with a bill , but it also didn ’ t feel right .
He said he let the issue slide until a few weeks later when a second explanation of benefits arrived from Golden Rule , for the Physicians Premier facility charges .
This time , an entity listed as USA Emergency sought $ 8,884.16 .
Again , the insurer said , “ Payable at : 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its website that it licenses the Physicians Premier ER name for some of its locations .
Now Sussman said he felt spooked .
He knew Physicians Premier provided top-notch care and testing on the medical side of things .
But somehow his employer had charged his health plan $ 10,984.16 for a quick visit for a COVID-19 test .
And even more troubling to Sussman : Golden Rule paid the whole thing .
Sussman was so shaken he resigned .
“ I have decided I can no longer ethically provide Medical directorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in his July 13 resignation email .
“ If not outright fraudulent , these charges are at least exorbitant and seek to take advantage of payers in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic.
” Sussman agreed to waive his patient privacy so officials from the company could speak to ProPublica .
USA Emergency Centers declined interview requests and provided a statement , saying “ the allegations are false , ” though it did not say which ones .
The statement also said the company “ takes all complaints seriously and will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues pertaining to their emergency room care or bill .
…The allegations received pertain to a former contracted employee , and we can not provide details or further comment at this time.
” Physicians Premier advertises itself as a COVID-19 testing facility on its website , with “ results in an hour.
” According to the claims submitted by Physicians Premier to Golden Rule , obtained by Sussman , the physician fee and facility fees were coded as emergency room visits of moderate complexity .
That would mean his visit included an expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sussman said the staff only took down a cursory medical history that took a few minutes related to his possible exposure to COVID-19 .
And he said no one examined him .
The claims also included codes for a nasal swab coronavirus test .
But that test was not performed , Sussman said .
The physician ’ s orders documented in the facility ’ s medical record also do not mention the nasal swab test .
Those charges came to $ 4,989 .
The claims show two charges totaling $ 1,600 for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreadsheet available on its website on Friday , Physicians Premier lists a price of $ 75 for the antibody test .
For comparison , Medicare lists its payment at $ 42.13 for COVID-19 antibody tests .
That ’ s because Medicare , the government ’ s insurance plan for the disabled and people over 65 , sets prices .
Complicating matters , Texas is the nation ’ s epicenter for free-standing emergency rooms that are not connected to hospitals .
Vivian Ho , an economist at Rice University who studies the facilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ trying to mislead the consumer.
” They set up in locations where a high proportion of people have health insurance , but they don ’ t have contracted rates with the insurers , Ho said .
They are designed to look like lower-priced urgent care centers or walk-in clinics , Ho said , but charge much higher emergency room rates .
( The centers have defended their practices , saying that they clearly identify as emergency rooms and are equipped to handle serious emergencies , and that patients value the convenience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sussman texted an acquaintance who works as a doctor at Physicians Premier .
The acquaintance said the facility typically only collects a small percentage of what gets billed .
“ I just don ’ t want to be part of the game , ” Sussman texted to him .
Shelley Safian , a Florida health care coding expert who has written four books on medical coding , reviewed Sussman ’ s medical records and claims at ProPublica ’ s request .
The records do not document a case of a complex patient that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the patient visit , she said .
For example , the chief complaint is listed as : “ A generic problem ( COVID TESTING ) .
” Under “ final acuity , ” the medical record says , “ less urgent.
” Under the medical history it says , “ NO SYMPTOMS.
” Safian described the charges as “ obscene ” and said she was shocked the insurer paid them in full .
“ This is the exact opposite of an employee discount , ” she said .
“ Obviously nobody is minding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to profiteering during the pandemic when it passed the CARES Act .
The legislation , signed into law in March , says health insurers must pay for out-of-network testing at the cash price a facility posts on its website , or less .
But there may be other charges associated with the tests , and insurers generally have tried to avoid making patients pay any portion of costs related to COVID-19 testing or treatment .
The charges for Sussman ’ s COVID-19 test visit are “ ridiculous , ” said Niall Brennan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cost Institute , a nonprofit organization that studies health care prices .
Brennan wondered whether the CARES Act has made insurers feel legally obligated to cover COVID-19 costs .
He called it “ well intentioned ” public policy that allows for “ unscrupulous behavior ” by some providers .
“ Insurance companies and patients are reliant on the good will and honesty of providers , ” Brennan said .
“ But this whole pandemic , combined with the CARES Act provision , seems designed for unscrupulous medical providers to exploit.
” It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for services they did not provide .
But ProPublica has previously reported how little insurers , including UnitedHealthcare , do to prevent fraud in their commercial health plans , even though experts estimate it consumes about 10 % of all health care costs .
For-profit insurance companies don ’ t want to spend the time and money it takes to hold fraudulent medical providers accountable , former fraud investigators have told ProPublica .
Also , the insurance companies want to keep providers in their networks , so they easily cave .
In mid-July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Golden Rule ’ s website to report his concerns about the case .
Short-term health plans are typically less expensive because they offer less comprehensive coverage .
Sussman said he appreciated that his plan covered the charges , and felt compelled to tell the company what had happened .
That led to a phone conversation with a fraud investigator .
They went line by line through the charges and Sussman told him many of the services had not been provided .
“ His attitude was kind of passive , ” Sussman said of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no indignation .
He took in stride , like , ‘ Yep , that ’ s what happens.
’ ” The investigator said he would escalate the case and see if the facility had submitted any other suspect claims .
But Sussman never heard back .
Maria Gordon-Shydlo , a spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare , which owns Golden Rule , would not provide anyone to be interviewed .
She said in an emailed statement that the company ’ s first priority during the pandemic “ has been to ensure our members get the care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID testing and treatment .
Unfortunately , there are some providers who are trying to take advantage of this and are inappropriately or even fraudulently billing.
” “ Golden Rule has put processes in place to address excessive COVID-related billing , ” the statement said .
“ We are currently investigating this matter and , if appropriate , will seek to recoup any overpayment and potentially refer this case to law enforcement.
” Golden Rule ’ s 100 % payment of the charges may simply come down to “ incompetence , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who spent years running a company that advised employers who self-fund their insurance .
Insurance companies auto-adjudicate millions of claims on software that may be decades old , said Bricker , who produces videos to help consumers and employers understand health care .
If bills are under a certain threshold , like $ 15,000 , they may sail through and get paid without a second look , he said .
UnitedHealth Group reported net earnings of $ 6.6 billion in the second quarter of 2020 .
Bricker said the company may be paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t “ want to create any noise ” by saying no at a time its own earnings are so high , Bricker said .
Texas has a consumer protection law that ’ s designed to prevent businesses from exploiting the public during a disaster .
The attorney general ’ s office has received and processed 52 complaints about health care businesses and billing or price gouging related to the pandemic , a spokeswoman from the office said in an email .
The agency does not comment on the existence of any investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to overpriced COVID-19 tests .
Sussman said he got one voicemail from a billing person at Physicians Premier , saying she wanted to explain the charges , but he did not call back .
He said he spoke out about it to ProPublica because he opposes Medicare-for-all health care reform proposals .
Bad actors in the profession could cause doctors to lose their privilege to bill and be reimbursed independently , he said .
Most physicians are fair with their billing , or even conservative , he said .
“ If instances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more ammo for advocates of a single-payer system .
”

The case is the latest example of a provider charging an exorbitant price for a test that costs about $8 to produce.
When Dr. Zachary Sussman went to Physicians Premier ER in Austin for a COVID-19 antibody test, he assumed he would get a freebie because he was a doctor for the chain. Instead, the free-standing emergency room charged his insurance company an astonishing $10,984 for the visit — and got paid every penny, with no pushback.
The bill left him so dismayed he quit his job. And now, after ProPublica’s questions, the parent company of his insurer said the case is being investigated and could lead to repayment or a referral to law enforcement.
The case is the latest to show how providers have sometimes charged exorbitant prices for visits for simple and inexpensive COVID-19 tests. ProPublica recently reported how a $175 COVID-19 test resulted in charges of $2,479 at a different free-standing ER in Texas. In that situation, the health plan said the payment for the visit would be reduced and the facility said the family would not receive a bill. In Sussman’s case, the insurer paid it all. But those dollars come from people who pay insurance premiums, and health experts say high prices are a major reason why Americans pay so much for health care.
Sussman, a 44-year-old pathologist, was working under contract as a part-time medical director at four of Physicians Premier’s other locations. He said he made $4,000 a month to oversee the antibody tests, which can detect signs of a previous COVID-19 infection. It was a temporary position holding him over between hospital gigs in Austin and New Mexico, where he now lives and works.
In May, before visiting his family in Scottsdale, Arizona, Sussman wanted the test because he had recently had a headache, which can be a symptom of COVID-19. He decided to go to one of his own company’s locations because he was curious to see how the process played out from a patient’s point of view. He knew the materials for each antibody test only amounted to about $8, and it gets read on the spot — similar to an at-home pregnancy test.
He could even do the reading himself. So he assumed Physicians Premier would comp him and administer it on the house. But the staff went ahead and took down his insurance details, while promising him he would not be responsible for any portion of the bill. He had a short-term plan through Golden Rule Insurance Company, which is owned by UnitedHealthcare, the largest insurer in the country. (The insurance was not provided through his work.)
During the brief visit, Sussman said he chatted with the emergency room doctor, whom he didn’t know. He said there was no physical examination. “Never laid a hand on me,” he said. His vitals were checked and his blood was drawn. He tested negative. He said the whole encounter took about 30 minutes.
About a month later, Golden Rule sent Sussman his explanation of benefits for the physician portion of the bill. The charges came to $2,100. Sussman was surprised by the expense but he said he was familiar with the Physicians Premier high-dollar business model, in which the convenience of a free-standing ER with no wait comes at a cost.
“It may as well say Gucci on the outside,” he said of the facility. Physicians Premier says on its website that it bills private insurance plans, but that it is out-of-network with them, meaning it does not have agreed-upon prices. That often leads to higher charges, which then get negotiated down by the insurers, or result in medical bills getting passed on to patients.
Sussman felt more puzzled to see the insurance document say, “Payable at: 100%.” So apparently Golden Rule hadn’t fought for a better deal and had paid more than two grand for a quick, walk-in visit for a test. He was happy not to get hit with a bill, but it also didn’t feel right.
He said he let the issue slide until a few weeks later when a second explanation of benefits arrived from Golden Rule, for the Physicians Premier facility charges. This time, an entity listed as USA Emergency sought $8,884.16. Again, the insurer said, “Payable at: 100%.”
USA Emergency Centers says on its website that it licenses the Physicians Premier ER name for some of its locations.
Now Sussman said he felt spooked. He knew Physicians Premier provided top-notch care and testing on the medical side of things. But somehow his employer had charged his health plan $10,984.16 for a quick visit for a COVID-19 test. And even more troubling to Sussman: Golden Rule paid the whole thing.
Sussman was so shaken he resigned. “I have decided I can no longer ethically provide Medical directorship services to the company,” he wrote in his July 13 resignation email. “If not outright fraudulent, these charges are at least exorbitant and seek to take advantage of payers in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic.”
Sussman agreed to waive his patient privacy so officials from the company could speak to ProPublica. USA Emergency Centers declined interview requests and provided a statement, saying “the allegations are false,” though it did not say which ones.
The statement also said the company “takes all complaints seriously and will continue to work directly with patients to resolve issues pertaining to their emergency room care or bill. …The allegations received pertain to a former contracted employee, and we cannot provide details or further comment at this time.”
Physicians Premier advertises itself as a COVID-19 testing facility on its website, with “results in an hour.” According to the claims submitted by Physicians Premier to Golden Rule, obtained by Sussman, the physician fee and facility fees were coded as emergency room visits of moderate complexity. That would mean his visit included an expanded, problem-focused history and examination. But Sussman said the staff only took down a cursory medical history that took a few minutes related to his possible exposure to COVID-19. And he said no one examined him.
The claims also included codes for a nasal swab coronavirus test. But that test was not performed, Sussman said. The physician’s orders documented in the facility’s medical record also do not mention the nasal swab test. Those charges came to $4,989.
The claims show two charges totaling $1,600 for the antibody test Sussman received. In a spreadsheet available on its website on Friday, Physicians Premier lists a price of $75 for the antibody test.
For comparison, Medicare lists its payment at $42.13 for COVID-19 antibody tests. That’s because Medicare, the government’s insurance plan for the disabled and people over 65, sets prices.
Complicating matters, Texas is the nation’s epicenter for free-standing emergency rooms that are not connected to hospitals. Vivian Ho, an economist at Rice University who studies the facilities, said their business model is based on “trying to mislead the consumer.” They set up in locations where a high proportion of people have health insurance, but they don’t have contracted rates with the insurers, Ho said. They are designed to look like lower-priced urgent care centers or walk-in clinics, Ho said, but charge much higher emergency room rates. (The centers have defended their practices, saying that they clearly identify as emergency rooms and are equipped to handle serious emergencies, and that patients value the convenience.)
The day after he resigned, Sussman texted an acquaintance who works as a doctor at Physicians Premier. The acquaintance said the facility typically only collects a small percentage of what gets billed. “I just don’t want to be part of the game,” Sussman texted to him.
Shelley Safian, a Florida health care coding expert who has written four books on medical coding, reviewed Sussman’s medical records and claims at ProPublica’s request. The records do not document a case of a complex patient that would justify the bills used to code the patient visit, she said. For example, the chief complaint is listed as: “A generic problem (COVID TESTING).” Under “final acuity,” the medical record says, “less urgent.” Under the medical history it says, “NO SYMPTOMS.”
Safian described the charges as “obscene” and said she was shocked the insurer paid them in full. “This is the exact opposite of an employee discount,” she said. “Obviously nobody is minding the store.”
Congress opened the door to profiteering during the pandemic when it passed the CARES Act. The legislation, signed into law in March, says health insurers must pay for out-of-network testing at the cash price a facility posts on its website, or less. But there may be other charges associated with the tests, and insurers generally have tried to avoid making patients pay any portion of costs related to COVID-19 testing or treatment.
The charges for Sussman’s COVID-19 test visit are “ridiculous,” said Niall Brennan, president and CEO of the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies health care prices. Brennan wondered whether the CARES Act has made insurers feel legally obligated to cover COVID-19 costs. He called it “well intentioned” public policy that allows for “unscrupulous behavior” by some providers. “Insurance companies and patients are reliant on the good will and honesty of providers,” Brennan said. “But this whole pandemic, combined with the CARES Act provision, seems designed for unscrupulous medical providers to exploit.”
It’s illegal for medical providers to charge for services they did not provide. But ProPublica has previously reported how little insurers, including UnitedHealthcare, do to prevent fraud in their commercial health plans, even though experts estimate it consumes about 10% of all health care costs. For-profit insurance companies don’t want to spend the time and money it takes to hold fraudulent medical providers accountable, former fraud investigators have told ProPublica. Also, the insurance companies want to keep providers in their networks, so they easily cave.
In mid-July, Sussman used the messenger system on Golden Rule’s website to report his concerns about the case. Short-term health plans are typically less expensive because they offer less comprehensive coverage. Sussman said he appreciated that his plan covered the charges, and felt compelled to tell the company what had happened.
That led to a phone conversation with a fraud investigator. They went line by line through the charges and Sussman told him many of the services had not been provided. “His attitude was kind of passive,” Sussman said of the fraud investigator. “There was no indignation. He took in stride, like, ‘Yep, that’s what happens.’” The investigator said he would escalate the case and see if the facility had submitted any other suspect claims. But Sussman never heard back.
Maria Gordon-Shydlo, a spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare, which owns Golden Rule, would not provide anyone to be interviewed. She said in an emailed statement that the company’s first priority during the pandemic “has been to ensure our members get the care they need and are not billed for COVID testing and treatment. Unfortunately, there are some providers who are trying to take advantage of this and are inappropriately or even fraudulently billing.”
“Golden Rule has put processes in place to address excessive COVID-related billing,” the statement said. “We are currently investigating this matter and, if appropriate, will seek to recoup any overpayment and potentially refer this case to law enforcement.”
Golden Rule’s 100% payment of the charges may simply come down to “incompetence,” said Dr. Eric Bricker, a Texas internist who spent years running a company that advised employers who self-fund their insurance. Insurance companies auto-adjudicate millions of claims on software that may be decades old, said Bricker, who produces videos to help consumers and employers understand health care. If bills are under a certain threshold, like $15,000, they may sail through and get paid without a second look, he said.
UnitedHealth Group reported net earnings of $6.6 billion in the second quarter of 2020. Bricker said the company may be paying bills without questioning them because it doesn’t “want to create any noise” by saying no at a time its own earnings are so high, Bricker said.
Texas has a consumer protection law that’s designed to prevent businesses from exploiting the public during a disaster. The attorney general’s office has received and processed 52 complaints about health care businesses and billing or price gouging related to the pandemic, a spokeswoman from the office said in an email. The agency does not comment on the existence of any investigations, but has not filed any cases related to overpriced COVID-19 tests.
Sussman said he got one voicemail from a billing person at Physicians Premier, saying she wanted to explain the charges, but he did not call back. He said he spoke out about it to ProPublica because he opposes Medicare-for-all health care reform proposals. Bad actors in the profession could cause doctors to lose their privilege to bill and be reimbursed independently, he said. Most physicians are fair with their billing, or even conservative, he said. “If instances like these go unchecked it will provide more ammo for advocates of a single-payer system.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-06--California’s Giant Smoke Plumes and Record Heatwaves Signal Climate Emergency

Smoke plumes rising tens of thousands of feet into the air over California could be seen from outer-space overnight and into Sunday as massive wildfires that touched off this weekend amid a statewide heatwave triggered dramatic rescue efforts for hundreds of people trapped in a U.S. national forest and fresh warnings of a “ climate emergency ” unfolding in real time .
The fast-moving “ Creek Fire ” in the Sierra National Forest — which has burned at least 36,000 acres and reported as 0 % contained as of Sunday — triggered a military-assisted rescue effort of more than 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the park .
The fire was so ferocious , according to the National Weather Service ( NWS ) Oakland Center Weather Service Unit on Saturday , that the tops of smoke plumes soared to 50,000 feet or more .
Meanwhile , with temperature records “ shattered ” in areas across the state on Saturday , a number of other wildfires erupted elsewhere .
After Tom Dang , a science and operations offices out of the NWS ’ s Tuscon office , shared the following satellite imagery of the multiple fires , meteorologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can not be overstated how terrifying this satellite image is.
” For climate experts like Holthaus , extreme wildfires like the Creek Fire , matched with the record-setting heat in California , can not be — and should not be — decoupled from the underlying planetary crisis caused by fossil fuel emissions and other human activity .
A Sunday morning alert from the NWS warned : “ A dangerous heat wave is underway across much of the Western U.S. this holiday weekend and critical fire weather conditions are forecast through next Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NWS said that as “ excessive heat ” continues in California and across the western region of the U.S. , there is potential for new daily temperature records being set — and those soaring temperatures , experts warn , arrive amid already dire fire conditions .
According to the Los Angeles Times : The forecast prompted Gov .
Gavin Newsom to issue an emergency proclamation aimed at shoring up California ’ s energy capacity and staving off the kind of power outages and rolling blackouts that left tens of thousands of residents in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave .
The California Independent System Operator , which runs the power grid for most of the state , has issued a statewide flex alert—calling for residents to voluntarily cut back their electricity consumption from 3 to 9 p.m. Saturday through Monday .
“ This is what climate change looks like , ” lamented Dana Brown , a research professor of history and professor emerita at the University of California , Santa Cruz .
in the Guardian on Thursday in a column documenting the recent and widespread destruction caused by this year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by CapRadio this week about the climate connection and what to do about the intensifying wildfire seasons in California and elsewhere , UC Berkeley forest ecologist and climate change scientist Patrick Gonzalez — who says that “ outdated policies ” combined with human-caused global heating accounts for a 900 % increase in areas burned by wildfires since the mid-1980s — said ending the fossil fuel economy should be the chief priority for anyone wanting to address the root cause of the issue .
“ Fundamentally , the main solution to a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ] taking action on climate change , ” Gonzalez said of the fires .
“ To be carbon-free is the ultimate end goal , and the sooner we reach that , the better it will be for nature and for people .
”

Extreme wildfires and the record-setting heat are inextricably linked to fossil fuel emissions and other human activity.
Smoke plumes rising tens of thousands of feet into the air over California could be seen from outer-space overnight and into Sunday as massive wildfires that touched off this weekend amid a statewide heatwave triggered dramatic rescue efforts for hundreds of people trapped in a U.S. national forest and fresh warnings of a “climate emergency” unfolding in real time.
The fast-moving “Creek Fire” in the Sierra National Forest — which has burned at least 36,000 acres and reported as 0% contained as of Sunday — triggered a military-assisted rescue effort of more than 200 people camped at a popular swimming reservoir in the park. The fire was so ferocious, according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Oakland Center Weather Service Unit on Saturday, that the tops of smoke plumes soared to 50,000 feet or more.
Meanwhile, with temperature records “shattered” in areas across the state on Saturday, a number of other wildfires erupted elsewhere. After Tom Dang, a science and operations offices out of the NWS’s Tuscon office, shared the following satellite imagery of the multiple fires, meteorologist and journalist Eric Holtaus said: “it cannot be overstated how terrifying this satellite image is.”
Ugh. The dreaded combination of very hot temperatures and seasonality (approaching the driest time of year) is leading to extreme fire conditions across northern and central CA. #cawx pic.twitter.com/5SSTVFhNew — Tom Dang (@DangWx) September 6, 2020
For climate experts like Holthaus, extreme wildfires like the Creek Fire, matched with the record-setting heat in California, cannot be — and should not be — decoupled from the underlying planetary crisis caused by fossil fuel emissions and other human activity.
The biggest new fire burning in California right now is so powerful it sent smoke 10 miles straight up into the stratosphere and created its own thunderstorms. 224 people were airlifted by the National Guard. We are in a climate emergency. https://t.co/jWlt6YhBks — Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) September 6, 2020
A Sunday morning alert from the NWS warned: “A dangerous heat wave is underway across much of the Western U.S. this holiday weekend and critical fire weather conditions are forecast through next Tuesday for portions of the West.” The NWS said that as “excessive heat” continues in California and across the western region of the U.S., there is potential for new daily temperature records being set — and those soaring temperatures, experts warn, arrive amid already dire fire conditions.
The heat in California is intense–records aren't just being broken, they're being crushed pic.twitter.com/zSCGG0FQrJ — Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) September 5, 2020
The climate crisis has led to:
❌ The strongest hurricane to hit Louisiana in 164 yrs
❌ California wildfires raging across 1 million+ acres
❌ Hurricanes pummeling the Midwest
❌ A storm leaving NY w/o electricity for a week And that was just this month. https://t.co/DTNWnzSFmA — Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) September 5, 2020
According to the Los Angeles Times:
The forecast prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to issue an emergency proclamation aimed at shoring up California’s energy capacity and staving off the kind of power outages and rolling blackouts that left tens of thousands of residents in the dark during the last big heat wave. The California Independent System Operator, which runs the power grid for most of the state, has issued a statewide flex alert—calling for residents to voluntarily cut back their electricity consumption from 3 to 9 p.m. Saturday through Monday.
“This is what climate change looks like,” lamented Dana Brown, a research professor of history and professor emerita at the University of California, Santa Cruz. in the Guardian on Thursday in a column documenting the recent and widespread destruction caused by this year’s fire season in California.
Interviewed by CapRadio this week about the climate connection and what to do about the intensifying wildfire seasons in California and elsewhere, UC Berkeley forest ecologist and climate change scientist Patrick Gonzalez — who says that “outdated policies” combined with human-caused global heating accounts for a 900% increase in areas burned by wildfires since the mid-1980s — said ending the fossil fuel economy should be the chief priority for anyone wanting to address the root cause of the issue.
“Fundamentally, the main solution to a lot of the fire problems that we have [is] taking action on climate change,” Gonzalez said of the fires. “To be carbon-free is the ultimate end goal, and the sooner we reach that, the better it will be for nature and for people.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-06--GOP-Aligned Groups Use Discredited Ideas to Promote Fear of Mail-in Voting

Two groups in the well-funded influence network of Leonard Leo , the Trump confidant and right-wing operative credited with moving our nation ’ s federal courts to the Right , held a webinar for the State Policy Network ( SPN ) on voter fraud messaging in August .
SPN , a web of 162 right-wing “ think tanks ” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states , Washington , D.C. , Canada , and the United Kingdom , promoted the webinar available to members only on its website on August 17 .
Jason Snead , executive director of the Honest Elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and CEO of a public relations firm called “ the polling company ” schooled SPN members on how they “ can engage on this issue in a productive and constructive way , ” according to the blog post .
Honest Elections Project is a dark money voter suppression group formed in February that is a project of Leo ’ s 85 Fund ( a rebrand of Judicial Education Project ) , and Snead is a former senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation , where he was tasked with developing the Heritage Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center who reviewed the database concluded that it “ grossly exaggerated ” the extent of voter fraud and provided instances amounting to only “ a molecular fraction of the votes cast nationwide.
” The polling company , founded by Trump ’ s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway , was acquired by Leo ’ s CRC Advisors , then Creative Response Concepts , in 2017 .
Leo told Axios in January that he was stepping down from running the right-wing Federalist Society to lead CRC Advisors with communications executive Greg Mueller , starting with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign focusing on judges in the 2020 cycle.
” The webinar presented polling results and messaging points to SPN members aimed at playing up fears of voter fraud to oppose the pandemic-related push for widespread voting by mail .
Interestingly , the poll found that , “ Partisan messaging didn ’ t resonate with people ( “ mail-in voting is bad because it gives Democrats/Republicans a political advantage ” ) .
” But the poll ’ s other results reflect the success of the Trump administration and GOP-aligned groups to stir up public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 90 percent of those surveyed believe voter ID should be applied to absentee balloting ; 67 percent believe in election fraud ; and 67 percent believe that “ mailing everyone a ballot while legalizing vote harvesting ” will increase the likelihood of fraud .
This is despite the fact that research shows that , “ election fraud has been rare in this country for decades , ” as Richard L. Hasen , a professor of law and political science at the University of California at Irvine School of Law wrote in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elections Project is pushing is that , “ a rushed or mandated vote-by-mail system will leave voters with grave doubts , whether real or perceived , about the legitimacy of the election ” and that “ voters do not have to choose between their safety and the integrity of their elections.
” SPN members heard from other prominent right-wing talking heads on voter suppression at their annual meeting that meets virtually this week , including Public Interest Legal Foundation ’ s J. Christian Adams and The Heritage Foundation ’ s Hans von Spakovsky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Safeguarding Election 2020 : What to Expect and How to Respond.
” Adams and von Spakovsky both participated in a webinar on “ election integrity ” hosted by the right-wing Bradley Foundation ’ s president and CEO Richard Graber on August 18 , alongside Rick Esenberg , Bradley ’ s “ MVP ” of the Wisconsin right-wing infrastructure Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty .
A link to that webinar is published at the bottom of the SPN blog post .
SPN ’ s sister organization , the American Legislative Exchange Council ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators and corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors to adopt model legislation on a broad range of public policy issues , is also providing a venue for Honest Elections and von Spakovsky to reach state legislators .
An invitation obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that on June 9 , ALEC hosted an “ exclusive call with Former FEC Official & Honest Elections ” on “ mail-in voting ” for its members .
Heritage ’ s von Spakovsky is a former member of the Federal Elections Commission and has spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ These special interest groups are not really interested in protecting the integrity of our elections .
Their efforts are simply a cynical political strategy to spread fear and confusion in order to suppress voting rights and help President Trump ’ s re-election chances , ” Sylvia Albert , director of voting and elections at Common Cause told CMD .
“ They ignore the truth that vote by mail is a tried and tested secure process and instead force Americans to choose between their health and right to vote during a pandemic @ @

Right-wing groups aren’t concerned with election integrity. They want to scare people from using mail-in ballots.
Two groups in the well-funded influence network of Leonard Leo, the Trump confidant and right-wing operative credited with moving our nation’s federal courts to the Right, held a webinar for the State Policy Network (SPN) on voter fraud messaging in August.
SPN, a web of 162 right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom, promoted the webinar available to members only on its website on August 17.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, and Brett Loyd, president and CEO of a public relations firm called “the polling company” schooled SPN members on how they “can engage on this issue in a productive and constructive way,” according to the blog post.
Honest Elections Project is a dark money voter suppression group formed in February that is a project of Leo’s 85 Fund (a rebrand of Judicial Education Project), and Snead is a former senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, where he was tasked with developing the Heritage Election Fraud Database.
Researchers at the Brennan Center who reviewed the database concluded that it “grossly exaggerated” the extent of voter fraud and provided instances amounting to only “a molecular fraction of the votes cast nationwide.”
The polling company, founded by Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway, was acquired by Leo’s CRC Advisors, then Creative Response Concepts, in 2017. Leo told Axios in January that he was stepping down from running the right-wing Federalist Society to lead CRC Advisors with communications executive Greg Mueller, starting with a “minimum $10 million issue advocacy campaign focusing on judges in the 2020 cycle.”
The webinar presented polling results and messaging points to SPN members aimed at playing up fears of voter fraud to oppose the pandemic-related push for widespread voting by mail.
Interestingly, the poll found that, “Partisan messaging didn’t resonate with people (“mail-in voting is bad because it gives Democrats/Republicans a political advantage”).” But the poll’s other results reflect the success of the Trump administration and GOP-aligned groups to stir up public fear over voter fraud. For example, 90 percent of those surveyed believe voter ID should be applied to absentee balloting; 67 percent believe in election fraud; and 67 percent believe that “mailing everyone a ballot while legalizing vote harvesting” will increase the likelihood of fraud.
This is despite the fact that research shows that, “election fraud has been rare in this country for decades,” as Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California at Irvine School of Law wrote in The Washington Post.
The message the Honest Elections Project is pushing is that, “a rushed or mandated vote-by-mail system will leave voters with grave doubts, whether real or perceived, about the legitimacy of the election” and that “voters do not have to choose between their safety and the integrity of their elections.”
SPN members heard from other prominent right-wing talking heads on voter suppression at their annual meeting that meets virtually this week, including Public Interest Legal Foundation’s J. Christian Adams and The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, in a panel titled, “Safeguarding Election 2020: What to Expect and How to Respond.”
Adams and von Spakovsky both participated in a webinar on “election integrity” hosted by the right-wing Bradley Foundation’s president and CEO Richard Graber on August 18, alongside Rick Esenberg, Bradley’s “MVP” of the Wisconsin right-wing infrastructure Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. A link to that webinar is published at the bottom of the SPN blog post.
SPN’s sister organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a pay-to-play operation where legislators and corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors to adopt model legislation on a broad range of public policy issues, is also providing a venue for Honest Elections and von Spakovsky to reach state legislators.
An invitation obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that on June 9, ALEC hosted an “exclusive call with Former FEC Official & Honest Elections” on “mail-in voting” for its members. Heritage’s von Spakovsky is a former member of the Federal Elections Commission and has spoken at other ALEC meetings in the past.
“These special interest groups are not really interested in protecting the integrity of our elections. Their efforts are simply a cynical political strategy to spread fear and confusion in order to suppress voting rights and help President Trump’s re-election chances,” Sylvia Albert, director of voting and elections at Common Cause told CMD. “They ignore the truth that vote by mail is a tried and tested secure process and instead force Americans to choose between their health and right to vote during a pandemic.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-06--FDA-Required Tests on Puppies Slow Progress to COVID Treatment

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) is slowing the search for treatments and cures for COVID-19 and other illnesses by forcing pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct unscientific and outdated drug safety tests on puppies .
The FDA asserts these tests are necessary because they help screen out toxic drugs before they reach people , but the evidence shows they ’ re inaccurate and inefficient .
The FDA has the power to fix this , but hasn ’ t , and I ’ ve joined a new # CutFDARedTape effort to change that .
I am a pathologist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can say with certainty that dosing puppies with drugs designed for humans will not make people safer .
In fact , it poses serious risks to human health .
As advocacy group White Coat Waste Project recently revealed , these drug tests on puppies are being carried out to comply with 80-year-old FDA regulations that are not based on modern medical science .
Right now , to get a drug approved for sale in the U.S. , the FDA requires companies to undertake extensive animal testing .
Among these tests are deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for up to a year , each young dog is forced to swallow or breathe doses of experimental drugs .
At the end of the tests , the puppies are killed and cut apart for examination .
There are many problems with this model , including the cruelty , the time ( the process can take up to a year to complete ) and the expense ; some of the dog tests cost hundreds of thousands of dollars .
Perhaps the greatest problem with the FDA ’ s required dog testing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Francis Collins , the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health , wrote last year that 90 percent of drugs entering human trials fail to gain FDA approval , many because they show dangerous side effects not predicted by the animal trials .
This number may seem shocking , but it shouldn ’ t be .
Animal testing ’ s fundamental flaw is that puppies aren ’ t little humans .
There are core biological differences between humans and dogs ( and other laboratory animals ) that help explain the failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one obvious , everyday example : We humans are fortunate enough to be able to eat chocolate safely , while small amounts of chocolate are toxic for dogs .
If it ’ s clear how the thousands of dogs experimented on and killed to comply with this FDA red tape are harmed , what may be less obvious at first glance is how people are harmed , too — primarily by keeping safe and effective drugs from patients who need them , allowing dangerous drugs to reach the market and significantly increasing medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outdated and counterproductive rules in favor of high-tech methods that are more accurate , humane and cost-efficient aren ’ t allowed to pursue this better path but instead are punished by the FDA .
One recent example is Vanda Pharmaceuticals , a Washington , D.C.-based global biopharmaceutical company developing the drug tradipitant , primarily to treat gastroparesis — a common stomach disorder — but which also shows potential as a treatment for COVID-19-related pneumonia .
In 2018 , right in the middle of human trials — and despite a mountain of evidence from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drug is safe for use in humans — the FDA demanded that Vanda conduct long-term testing on puppies , who would then be killed .
When Vanda pushed back on the unscientific , expensive , slow and unnecessary dog-testing demands , the FDA blocked the human studies of tradipitant and the drug was put on hold indefinitely as the company appealed the testing request .
Tradipitant has now emerged as a potential COVID-19 treatment and may have already been available to sick patients if not for the FDA ’ s bureaucracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that brings them safe and effective cures and treatments as efficiently as possible , but the FDA ’ s dog-testing mandate is hampering medical progress , not helping it .
Luckily , there are still reasons for optimism .
The FDA has recently reevaluated its dog-testing mandate for food additives and veterinary drugs and found viable alternatives .
Polls show two-thirds of Americans support eliminating the FDA ’ s dog-testing requirement for drugs , too .
Forward-thinking lawmakers are also taking notice and taking action .
Rep. Brendan Boyle ( D-Pennsylvania ) recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 17 of his House Democrat and Republican colleagues seeking to reform these archaic rules .
“ Science has come a long way and there are now better ways to assess the safety of drugs than conducting deadly experiments on dogs , ” he recently said in a statement .
The bottom line is that abolishing the FDA ’ s blanket dog-testing mandate will not just spare thousands of puppies from abuse in the lab , but it would also help us improve human lives .
Especially now , while we all struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 , this is the relief we need .
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is slowing the search for treatments and cures for COVID-19 and other illnesses by forcing pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct unscientific and outdated drug safety tests on puppies. The FDA asserts these tests are necessary because they help screen out toxic drugs before they reach people, but the evidence shows they’re inaccurate and inefficient. The FDA has the power to fix this, but hasn’t, and I’ve joined a new #CutFDARedTape effort to change that.
I am a pathologist, with expertise in diagnosing human disease, and can say with certainty that dosing puppies with drugs designed for humans will not make people safer. In fact, it poses serious risks to human health.
As advocacy group White Coat Waste Project recently revealed, these drug tests on puppies are being carried out to comply with 80-year-old FDA regulations that are not based on modern medical science.
Right now, to get a drug approved for sale in the U.S., the FDA requires companies to undertake extensive animal testing. Among these tests are deadly experiments on beagle puppies. Every day, for up to a year, each young dog is forced to swallow or breathe doses of experimental drugs. At the end of the tests, the puppies are killed and cut apart for examination.
There are many problems with this model, including the cruelty, the time (the process can take up to a year to complete) and the expense; some of the dog tests cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Perhaps the greatest problem with the FDA’s required dog testing is that it just doesn’t work. Francis Collins, the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, wrote last year that 90 percent of drugs entering human trials fail to gain FDA approval, many because they show dangerous side effects not predicted by the animal trials.
This number may seem shocking, but it shouldn’t be. Animal testing’s fundamental flaw is that puppies aren’t little humans. There are core biological differences between humans and dogs (and other laboratory animals) that help explain the failure of animal testing. Just to take one obvious, everyday example: We humans are fortunate enough to be able to eat chocolate safely, while small amounts of chocolate are toxic for dogs.
90 percent of drugs entering human trials fail to gain FDA approval, many because they show dangerous side effects not predicted by the animal trials.
If it’s clear how the thousands of dogs experimented on and killed to comply with this FDA red tape are harmed, what may be less obvious at first glance is how people are harmed, too — primarily by keeping safe and effective drugs from patients who need them, allowing dangerous drugs to reach the market and significantly increasing medical costs.
Meanwhile, companies challenging these outdated and counterproductive rules in favor of high-tech methods that are more accurate, humane and cost-efficient aren’t allowed to pursue this better path but instead are punished by the FDA.
One recent example is Vanda Pharmaceuticals, a Washington, D.C.-based global biopharmaceutical company developing the drug tradipitant, primarily to treat gastroparesis — a common stomach disorder — but which also shows potential as a treatment for COVID-19-related pneumonia.
In 2018, right in the middle of human trials — and despite a mountain of evidence from testing in animals and humans that showed the drug is safe for use in humans — the FDA demanded that Vanda conduct long-term testing on puppies, who would then be killed. When Vanda pushed back on the unscientific, expensive, slow and unnecessary dog-testing demands, the FDA blocked the human studies of tradipitant and the drug was put on hold indefinitely as the company appealed the testing request. Tradipitant has now emerged as a potential COVID-19 treatment and may have already been available to sick patients if not for the FDA’s bureaucracy.
The FDA’s dog-testing mandate is hampering medical progress, not helping it.
Our patients deserve the best biomedical research that brings them safe and effective cures and treatments as efficiently as possible, but the FDA’s dog-testing mandate is hampering medical progress, not helping it.
Luckily, there are still reasons for optimism. The FDA has recently reevaluated its dog-testing mandate for food additives and veterinary drugs and found viable alternatives. Polls show two-thirds of Americans support eliminating the FDA’s dog-testing requirement for drugs, too.
Forward-thinking lawmakers are also taking notice and taking action. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pennsylvania) recently spearheaded a letter to the FDA signed by 17 of his House Democrat and Republican colleagues seeking to reform these archaic rules. “Science has come a long way and there are now better ways to assess the safety of drugs than conducting deadly experiments on dogs,” he recently said in a statement.
The bottom line is that abolishing the FDA’s blanket dog-testing mandate will not just spare thousands of puppies from abuse in the lab, but it would also help us improve human lives. Especially now, while we all struggle with the health and economic effects of COVID-19, this is the relief we need.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-06--Trump Admin’s Small Business Bailout Has Been Plagued by Waste, Fraud and Abuse

In several cases that have received heavy press attention , small business owners who said they needed money from the government to stay afloat during the economic downturn have been busted for falsifying information after being caught using the money to purchase luxury items including multiple Lamborghinis .
A Florida man purchased a new Lamborghini Huracán EVO , worth $ 314,000 , using taxpayer funding that was supposed to be used to keep his employees paid , while a man in Texas opted to use his bailout funds on Lamborghini ’ s Urus model , an SUV , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those obscene instances of grifting are just a sliver of the waste , fraud , and abuse that investigators say has plagued the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) since it was passed by Congress in March by the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act .
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus , a committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) to conduct oversight of the Trump administration ’ s pandemic response , reviewed data on the millions of PPP loans that were given out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that appear to be suspect , as well as evidence that the administration has not put in place basic measures to prevent people from abusing the system .
“ The Trump administration failed to design and implement a program that would help actual small businesses and their workers , ” said Kyle Herrig , president of Accountable.US .
“ Instead , they cut corners and kept the American people in the dark .
In the end , the wealthy and well-connected were showered with our tax dollars and fraudsters took advantage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered businesses with fewer than 500 employees , including self-employed individuals , access to forgivable loans worth the average amount of monthly total payroll times 2.5 .
The loans are eligible to be forgiven once recipients confirm that the money was used for payroll cost and other business costs like utilities payments .
The program was funded with $ 669 billion appropriated by Congress .
Among the issues discovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus , according to a recent report from its Democratic members , is more than $ 1 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses that received multiple PPP loans .
Guidance from the Small Business Association ( SBA ) “ individual business entities can not apply for more than one loan , ” yet the committee found more than ten thousand cases in which the borrower received multiple loans .
The PPP money was only supposed to be available for companies that had been in operation prior to February 15 , 2020 , but the committee found 121 recipients whose businesses were formed after that date .
Loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractors that should not have been eligible under SBA guidance because they had previously been barred from doing businesses with the government due to fraud , contract violations , or performance issues .
These loans include 613 to companies that have been disbarred from working for the government and 353 that went to companies that have been flagged by the government for performance and integrity issues , according to the committee ’ s analysis .
The committee ’ s analysis led researchers to suspect that the SBA did not use publicly available databases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if companies that applied for PPP loans were eligible for the money .
The System for Award Management ( SAM ) database contains details on every entity that has done business with the federal government going back to the 1990s .
The committee found hundreds of loans that went to companies that reported key information on their loan applications that does not match information on their SAM registration .
The committee highlighted one example in their findings that suggests a case of corporate identity fraud that could have been avoided if the SBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one concerning example , seven businesses in widely varied industries all provided the same seemingly nonexistent address in Ohio on their PPP loan applications , ” the committee explains .
“ A Google Maps search approximates this address as the back of a fast-casual restaurant .
According to SAM , each of these varied businesses has an address registered in a different distant location—most of them out of state.
” The next phase in PPP will be the loan forgiveness process .
PPP borrowers can fill out SBA ’ s 5-page form 3508 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details applicable to the program .
Lenders will review the forgiveness applications and submit them to SBA , which can take action against businesses and shareholders for repayment if it determines an applicant is not eligible for forgiveness .
In its report , the committee urges the administration to “ implement fraud detection protocols to review loan forgiveness applications , including the use of existing federal and commercial databases.
” Shortly after passing the CARES Act on March 27 , some Democratic House members including Katie Porter of California warned that hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations without strong oversight measures in place .
The bipartisan Congressional Oversight Commission , which can hold hearings but does not have subpoena power , has not had a chairperson since its formation in April , with only four of its five member seats filled .
Pelosi announced the creation of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus on April 2 , which does have subpoena power and is chaired by Majority Whip James Clyburn ( D-S.C. ) , but its preliminary analysis released on Sept. 1 comes after hundreds of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color , have permanently shuttered .
A survey from the organizations Color of Change and UnidosUS found that only 12 % of Black and Hispanic business owners received the funding they had requested .
In July , the SBA released information on PPP recipients to the public and it was discovered that multiple businesses affiliated with members of Congress had received funds , including several who had voted against the TRUTH Act , a bill to require these details to be made public .
As documented by the Center for Responsibility and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of Congress who benefitted from PPP loans and voted against PPP transparency include Reps. Rick Allen ( R-Ga. ) , Vicky Hartzler ( R-Mo . )
, Kevin Hern ( R-Okla. ) , Mike Kelly ( R-Pa. ) , Markwayne Mullin ( R-Okla. ) , and Roger Williams ( Texas ) .
Sludge additionally found that Rep. Justin Amash ( I-Mich. ) , who publicly opposed the CARES Act and the PPP program in particular , is part owner in a company that received PPP funding .
Amash also voted against the @ @ @

This article was produced by Sludge , an independent, ad-free investigative news site covering money in politics. Click here to support Sludge.
In several cases that have received heavy press attention, small business owners who said they needed money from the government to stay afloat during the economic downturn have been busted for falsifying information after being caught using the money to purchase luxury items including multiple Lamborghinis. A Florida man purchased a new Lamborghini Huracán EVO, worth $314,000, using taxpayer funding that was supposed to be used to keep his employees paid, while a man in Texas opted to use his bailout funds on Lamborghini’s Urus model, an SUV, as well as a new Ford F-350.
But those obscene instances of grifting are just a sliver of the waste, fraud, and abuse that investigators say has plagued the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) since it was passed by Congress in March by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, a committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to conduct oversight of the Trump administration’s pandemic response, reviewed data on the millions of PPP loans that were given out and found tens of thousands of loans that appear to be suspect, as well as evidence that the administration has not put in place basic measures to prevent people from abusing the system.
“The Trump administration failed to design and implement a program that would help actual small businesses and their workers,” said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US. “Instead, they cut corners and kept the American people in the dark. In the end, the wealthy and well-connected were showered with our tax dollars and fraudsters took advantage of the troubling lack of transparency.”
The PPP offered businesses with fewer than 500 employees, including self-employed individuals, access to forgivable loans worth the average amount of monthly total payroll times 2.5. The loans are eligible to be forgiven once recipients confirm that the money was used for payroll cost and other business costs like utilities payments. The program was funded with $669 billion appropriated by Congress.
Among the issues discovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, according to a recent report from its Democratic members, is more than $1 billion that appears to have been given to businesses that received multiple PPP loans. Guidance from the Small Business Association (SBA) “individual business entities cannot apply for more than one loan,” yet the committee found more than ten thousand cases in which the borrower received multiple loans.
The PPP money was only supposed to be available for companies that had been in operation prior to February 15, 2020, but the committee found 121 recipients whose businesses were formed after that date.
Loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were found to have been distributed to former government contractors that should not have been eligible under SBA guidance because they had previously been barred from doing businesses with the government due to fraud, contract violations, or performance issues. These loans include 613 to companies that have been disbarred from working for the government and 353 that went to companies that have been flagged by the government for performance and integrity issues, according to the committee’s analysis.
The committee’s analysis led researchers to suspect that the SBA did not use publicly available databases to discover possible fraud or to check if companies that applied for PPP loans were eligible for the money. The System for Award Management (SAM) database contains details on every entity that has done business with the federal government going back to the 1990s. The committee found hundreds of loans that went to companies that reported key information on their loan applications that does not match information on their SAM registration.
The committee highlighted one example in their findings that suggests a case of corporate identity fraud that could have been avoided if the SBA referred to SAM data.
“In one concerning example, seven businesses in widely varied industries all provided the same seemingly nonexistent address in Ohio on their PPP loan applications,” the committee explains. “A Google Maps search approximates this address as the back of a fast-casual restaurant. According to SAM, each of these varied businesses has an address registered in a different distant location—most of them out of state.”
The next phase in PPP will be the loan forgiveness process. PPP borrowers can fill out SBA’s 5-page form 3508, which requires them to certify financial details applicable to the program. Lenders will review the forgiveness applications and submit them to SBA, which can take action against businesses and shareholders for repayment if it determines an applicant is not eligible for forgiveness.
In its report, the committee urges the administration to “implement fraud detection protocols to review loan forgiveness applications, including the use of existing federal and commercial databases.”
Shortly after passing the CARES Act on March 27, some Democratic House members including Katie Porter of California warned that hundreds of billions were likely to go to wealthy corporations without strong oversight measures in place. The bipartisan Congressional Oversight Commission, which can hold hearings but does not have subpoena power, has not had a chairperson since its formation in April, with only four of its five member seats filled. Pelosi announced the creation of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus on April 2, which does have subpoena power and is chaired by Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), but its preliminary analysis released on Sept. 1 comes after hundreds of thousands of small businesses, many owned by people of color, have permanently shuttered. A survey from the organizations Color of Change and UnidosUS found that only 12% of Black and Hispanic business owners received the funding they had requested.
In July, the SBA released information on PPP recipients to the public and it was discovered that multiple businesses affiliated with members of Congress had received funds, including several who had voted against the TRUTH Act, a bill to require these details to be made public. As documented by the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), members of Congress who benefitted from PPP loans and voted against PPP transparency include Reps. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), and Roger Williams (Texas). Sludge additionally found that Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who publicly opposed the CARES Act and the PPP program in particular, is part owner in a company that received PPP funding. Amash also voted against the TRUTH Act.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.