vox--2020-11-23--Biden is expected to announce Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary pick

In 2014 , Janet Yellen became the first woman to be named chair of the Federal Reserve .
Six years later , she is poised to become the first woman Treasury secretary of the United States .
The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported that President-elect Joe Biden intends to nominate Yellen , 74 , to head the Department of the Treasury .
Several other outlets confirmed the news shortly after ; Biden is expected to announce his intent to nominate Yellen and other Cabinet picks in the coming days .
Biden ’ s pick is not necessarily a surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the decision , Biden said his nominee would be someone who “ will be accepted by all elements of the Democratic Party … progressive to the moderate coalitions , ” leading to broad speculation that it would be Yellen , who most Democrats are expected to support and who many Republicans could have a hard time opposing .
Yellen , who is originally from Brooklyn , New York , served as chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018 before President Donald Trump decided to replace her with now-chair Jerome Powell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco , chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton , and was a longtime professor at the University of California Berkeley .
“ Yellen is eminently qualified , she oversaw a sprawling bureaucracy at the Fed .
It would be incredibly difficult for various factions [ Republicans , moderate Democrats , and progressive Democrats ] to find issue with her tenure , ” said Isaac Boltansky , director of policy research at Compass Point Research and Trading .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any side happy , per se , but she certainly wouldn ’ t make either side unhappy , and that might be as good as we can get.
” As Fed chair , Yellen oversaw the continued recovery from the Great Recession and left behind a solid legacy .
Unemployment steadily declined , the stock market climbed , and inflation stayed low under her tenure .
Part of the strong economy Trump inherited can be traced back to Yellen .
That ’ s not to say Yellen ’ s time at the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Politico in 2018 , some people say that she was “ too sanguine ” about the potential for using regulations to stave off the next financial crisis , that she went too easy on Wells Fargo in the wake of its fake accounts scandal , or that she didn ’ t do enough to help smaller banks .
“ And yet on the critical issue at hand in her 2014 nomination — could we bring more unemployed workers back into the labor force without blowing things up for everyone ?
— she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
Some people have also questioned the Fed ’ s decision to modestly raise interest rates under Yellen ’ s tenure , arguing that doing so prevented the economy from reaching its full potential and getting more people into the workforce .
Of course , hindsight is 20/20 .
And at the Treasury Department , Yellen won ’ t have anything to do with interest rate decisions .
“ Just as she shied away from fiscal policy when she ran monetary policy , I think she ’ d shy away from monetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Progressives have also raised questions about her previous comments regarding the deficit , which she described as unsustainable .
Other contenders on the shortlist for the Treasury spot included former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin ; current Fed governor Lael Brainard ; and Roger Ferguson , the CEO of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America ( TIAA ) , a financial services company , among others .
The Biden campaign declined to confirm the president-elect ’ s plans to nominate Yellen , and transition spokesperson Jen Psaki said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward to announcing some members of his economic teem early next week who will work with him to build the economy back better.
” Biden will set the economic agenda , and the virus is at the top of his list Heading the Treasury Department is an important job — the department oversees the IRS ; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency , which charters , regulates , and supervises national banks ; and the US Mint , among other bureaus — and the secretary plays a key role in advising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to Biden ’ s announcement , there was quite a bit of back-and-forth among more moderate and progressive Democrats regarding who the Treasury pick should be .
Progressives championed figures such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Raskin , and pushed Biden to eschew anyone with perceived industry or Wall Street ties .
Moderates , on the other hand , hoped for a figure viewed as less divisive than Warren , more along the lines of Ferguson or Brainard .
But it is important to remember that the person chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden administration ’ s priorities , not the other way around , and will likely be in lockstep with the White House ’ s positioning on key issues .
“ The Treasury secretary and Biden will , at least publicly , be on the same page and deliver the same message , ” wrote Ian Katz , director at Capital Alpha Partners , in a recent note to investors .
“ You will not see Biden , for example , criticizing sanctions against other countries that the Treasury Department is working on.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new secretary will work with Biden on his top priority : addressing the Covid-19 crisis .
“ They ’ re not going to be able to remake Treasury in their own image , Treasury will still be forced to triage , as every agency will , in fighting the virus , ” Boltansky said .
“ Whoever ’ s in that role , they ’ re going to be a virus-fighter first and a treasury secretary second.
” This could translate to the secretary trying to negotiate a new stimulus package with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mnuchin has done , to little success , under Trump .
It could also mean an effort to refocus the department on renewing CARES Act programs , like restarting Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) loans for small businesses .
Mnuchin recently decided to end lending programs put in place through the CARES Act , and asked the Fed to return funds earmarked for those programs .
Biden ’ s team has been critical of the move .
If those programs are restarted under the Biden administration — something that will become tougher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day — the new secretary could oversee those as well .
Biden has also emphasized the importance of reasserting America ’ s presence on the international stage , and Treasury has a role to play there .
One can expect more attention to the international arena from a Biden Treasury Department than from Trump ’ s , and an effort to reaffirm international relationships .
It ’ s possible , too , that the Treasury secretary ( or other members of the administration ) could wind up playing multiple roles through the Vacancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his choices through the Senate confirmation process .
Trump employed this strategy often , like when then-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney was acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .
If confirmed , Yellen will find herself in one of the most powerful governmental positions within the American economy yet again , though in a different role .
And she is expected to be particularly influential in the role .
“ Though all of the contenders [ for Biden ’ s Treasury pick ] would have Biden ’ s ear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry the most weight with the president and his advisers , ” Katz wrote .
“ Not many people in the White House would want to debate economics with Yellen .
”

In 2014, Janet Yellen became the first woman to be named chair of the Federal Reserve. Six years later, she is poised to become the first woman treasury secretary of the United States.
On Monday, President-elect Joe Biden announced that he intends to nominate Yellen, 74, to head the Treasury Department; he also announced his picks for a number of other key members of his economic team. The Yellen choice was widely reported last week.
Biden’s pick is not necessarily a surprising one. In the days leading up to the decision, Biden said his nominee would be someone who “will be accepted by all elements of the Democratic Party … progressive to the moderate coalitions,” leading to broad speculation that it would be Yellen, who most Democrats are expected to support and who many Republicans could have a hard time opposing.
In a tweet on Monday — her first — Yellen said the country faces “great challenges” at the moment. “To recover, we must restore the American dream — a society where each person can rise to their potential and dream even bigger for their children,” she wrote. “As Treasury Secretary, I will work every day towards rebuilding that dream for all.”
Yellen, who is originally from Brooklyn, New York, served as chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018 before President Donald Trump decided to replace her with current Chair Jerome Powell. She previously served as president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and was a longtime professor at the University of California Berkeley.
“Yellen is eminently qualified, she oversaw a sprawling bureaucracy at the Fed. It would be incredibly difficult for various factions [Republicans, moderate Democrats, and progressive Democrats] to find issue with her tenure,” said Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at Compass Point Research and Trading. “I don’t think she would make any side happy, per se, but she certainly wouldn’t make either side unhappy, and that might be as good as we can get.”
As Fed chair, Yellen oversaw the continued recovery from the Great Recession and left behind a solid legacy. Unemployment declined steadily, the stock market climbed, and inflation stayed low under her tenure. Part of the strong economy Trump inherited can be traced back to Yellen.
That’s not to say Yellen’s time at the Fed was perfect. As Sam Bell outlined in Politico in 2018, some people say that she was “too sanguine” about the potential for using regulations to stave off the next financial crisis, that she went too easy on Wells Fargo in the wake of its fake accounts scandal, or that she didn’t do enough to help smaller banks. “And yet on the critical issue at hand in her 2014 nomination — could we bring more unemployed workers back into the labor force without blowing things up for everyone? — she has been unquestionably vindicated,” Bell wrote.
Some people have also questioned the Fed’s decision to modestly raise interest rates under Yellen’s tenure, arguing that doing so prevented the economy from reaching its full potential and getting more people into the workforce. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. And at the Treasury Department, Yellen won’t have anything to do with interest rate decisions.
“Just as she shied away from fiscal policy when she ran monetary policy, I think she’d shy away from monetary policy as treasury secretary,” Boltansky said.
Progressives have also raised questions about her previous comments regarding the deficit, which she described as unsustainable.
Biden also revealed a number of other nominees for his economic team on Monday, including Center for American Progress president and CEO Neera Tanden for director of the Office of Management and Budget, labor economist and Princeton School of Public and International Affairs dean Cecilia Rouse for chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Obama Foundation president Wally Adeyemo for deputy Treasury secretary. Biden said he will appoint his longtime adviser Jared Bernstein and Heather Boushey, president and CEO of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, to serve on the Council of Economic Advisers.
Other contenders on the shortlist for the treasury spot included former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin; current Fed governor Lael Brainard; and Roger Ferguson, the CEO of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), a financial services company, among others.
Biden will set the economic agenda, and the virus is at the top of his list
Heading the Treasury Department is an important job — the department oversees the IRS; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which charters, regulates, and supervises national banks; and the US Mint, among other bureaus — and the secretary plays a key role in advising the president on economic issues.
Leading up to Biden’s announcement, there was quite a bit of back-and-forth among more moderate and progressive Democrats regarding who the treasury pick should be. Progressives championed figures such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Raskin, and pushed Biden to eschew anyone with perceived industry or Wall Street ties. Moderates, on the other hand, hoped for a figure viewed as less divisive than Warren, more along the lines of Ferguson or Brainard.
But it is important to remember that the person chosen to run the Treasury Department reflects the Biden administration’s priorities, not the other way around, and will likely be in lockstep with the White House’s positioning on key issues.
“The Treasury secretary and Biden will, at least publicly, be on the same page and deliver the same message,” wrote Ian Katz, director at Capital Alpha Partners, in a recent note to investors. “You will not see Biden, for example, criticizing sanctions against other countries that the Treasury Department is working on.”
At least initially, that will mean the new secretary will work with Biden on his top priority: addressing the Covid-19 crisis.
“They’re not going to be able to remake Treasury in their own image, Treasury will still be forced to triage, as every agency will, in fighting the virus,” Boltansky said. “Whoever’s in that role, they’re going to be a virus-fighter first and a treasury secretary second.”
This could translate to the secretary trying to negotiate a new stimulus package with Congress, as current Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has done, to little success, under Trump. It could also mean an effort to refocus the department on renewing CARES Act programs, like restarting Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans for small businesses.
Mnuchin recently decided to end lending programs put in place through the CARES Act, and asked the Fed to return funds earmarked for those programs. Biden’s team has been critical of the move. If those programs are restarted under the Biden administration — something that will become tougher if the funds are returned before Inauguration Day — the new secretary could oversee those as well.
Biden has also emphasized the importance of reasserting America’s presence on the international stage, and Treasury has a role to play there. One can expect more attention to the international arena from a Biden Treasury Department than from Trump’s, and an effort to reaffirm international relationships.
It’s possible, too, that the treasury secretary (or other members of the administration) could wind up playing multiple roles through the Vacancies Act, should Biden struggle to get his choices through the Senate confirmation process. Trump employed this strategy often, like when then-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney was acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
If confirmed, Yellen will find herself in one of the most powerful governmental positions within the American economy yet again, though in a different role. And she is expected to be particularly influential in the role.
“Though all of the contenders [for Biden’s Treasury pick] would have Biden’s ear, we think Yellen’s voice would carry the most weight with the president and his advisers,” Katz wrote. “Not many people in the White House would want to debate economics with Yellen.”


vox--2020-11-23--What Amazon’s big pharmacy news means for US health care

Amazon and American health care look , at first glance , like a mismatch .
Yet the 21st century ’ s most ruthlessly efficient retailer has been trying for several years now to gain a bigger foothold in the bloated , borderline nonsensical health system of the world ’ s richest nation .
Which is why whenever Amazon makes a new health care maneuver , like the company ’ s recent announcement that prescription drugs would be sold through its flagship website at a discount for Prime members , the same question inevitably gets asked : Is Amazon coming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no .
At least , not yet .
Amazon bought PillPack , an online pharmacy , two years ago with an eye toward making a move like this : integrating the pharmacy business into its monolithic online store .
PillPack gave Amazon the licenses to operate a pharmacy in almost every state , and the vision was always that you would eventually be able to fill a prescription for your blood pressure drug at the same time you were shopping for ... everything else you buy on Amazon .
On its face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step .
Amazon Pharmacy is now just one more pharmacy to choose from , alongside Walgreens , CVS , and the like .
Some people might get drugs more cheaply thanks to discounts being offered through Prime , but most will still use their health insurance plan and pay the same amount they would anywhere else .
This is bad news for some specialty businesses , namely GoodRx , but the major pharmacy chains aren ’ t going anywhere anytime soon .
But Amazon surely isn ’ t finished expanding its health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance for the company to get a better idea of what it takes to run a pharmacy business — to handle the logistical and administrative challenges — before it takes another step .
The rest of the sector has been put on notice .
“ They ’ re buying information .
They ’ re making an investment to gain some information to figure out whether it ’ s worth it to make a much bigger investment , ” Craig Garthwaite , who studies health care economics at the Kellogg School of Management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This might not work , but they would never figure out if they can be a major player without being a minor player first.
” Amazon Prime members , of which there are nearly 120 million in the United States , will enjoy two major benefits through Amazon Pharmacy .
They can get medications delivered for free within two days and they qualify for discounts , up to 80 percent off generics and up to 40 percent off brand-name drugs , that might allow them to buy drugs on their own for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using their insurance benefits .
The company has already built a slick interface that allows people to enter the last four digits of their Social Security number and pull up their insurance benefits .
When people go to check out with their prescription , the website will show insured customers two prices : one with their insurance benefits , one with the Prime discount .
For certain generic drugs especially , the Amazon price is going to be cheaper even for people with insurance .
For the uninsured , they will now get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Amazon is offering simplicity , which is something they ’ re really good at , ” Garthwaite said .
From a business strategy standpoint , this is a pincer movement that allows Amazon to gobble up more of the retail pharmacy business , where patients typically use their insurance , and more of the discount drug cottage industry that has grown to offer uninsured patients with rebates similar to , if usually smaller than , what insured patients enjoy .
PillPack also catered primarily to patients with chronic conditions , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon Pharmacy could expand the company ’ s reach to capture the one-off prescriptions people receive when they get the flu or have an injury .
The company already has a storage-and-shipping infrastructure on which to build this new venture .
There are some obvious pitfalls that Amazon will want to prepare for .
For example , some insured patients who opt not to use their benefits and instead take the company ’ s discount might be annoyed to find out that their purchase didn ’ t count toward their health insurance plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blame in that scenario , the insurer or Amazon ?
They ’ ll also want to expand their counseling services so people can get questions about their prescriptions answered , though that is the kind of service that PillPack is already experienced at providing .
So at bottom , the current version of Amazon Pharmacy looks like a natural extension of the 2018 PillPack purchase .
The bigger question then is what comes next .
“ For now , I think they are just going to be replacing existing market share , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine .
“ But they may decide at some point to be more disruptive once they have gotten settled into this new space.
” What the future for Amazon ’ s health care business might look like The Amazon news is most immediately a threat to GoodRx , which offers discounts on prescription drugs for uninsured and underinsured patients .
Amazon is now proposing the same service , with all the brand loyalty and retail convenience that comes with its name .
In a note to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a significant competitive threat ” to GoodRx .
The company ’ s stock price plummeted 20 percent after Amazon announced its news .
The major pharmacies , like CVS and Walgreens , have been anticipating a move like this for some time .
Both already offer discount cards and free delivery , essentially the same service that Amazon is now offering .
But they do face a risk if Amazon becomes particularly adept at the online pharmacy business .
Garthwaite identified two ways in which the company could build on the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share of prescription drug sales .
First , it would need to figure out cold storage .
Biologics that treat rheumatoid arthritis or cancer and need to be handled sensitively require special storage and transportation .
The other , related question is whether they could reduce delivery times from two days to same-day or even two hours .
Imagine going to a doctor , who writes a prescription for you and sends it to Amazon , and the medication is delivered to your door on the same day , all without your having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That actually sounds like a compelling product at that point , ” Garthwaite said .
And Amazon could use that superlative convenience paired with its newly established relationships with health insurance plans to start competing more directly with the major pharmacy chains .
It might vie to be labeled a “ preferred ” pharmacy by health plans , which reduces the out-of-pocket obligation for patients .
Over the long haul , Amazon might even become experienced enough with pharmacy benefits to start administering them itself , creating a new competitor for pharmacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent mergers of health plans and PBMs may limit the company ’ s ability to make those inroads .
Health insurers won ’ t be eager to cooperate with a new competitor for one of their other lines of business .
But that doesn ’ t mean Amazon won ’ t give it a try .
Can Amazon unlock lower drug prices ?
That looks less likely .
Existing companies like GoodRx already offer the same kind of discounts on drugs Amazon is now proposing .
The major PBMs already command huge market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Optum alone make up 75 percent of the entire market — that give them significant leverage in their negotiations with drug manufacturers .
Amazon can take some of their business , but they ’ re already operating at such a scale that the online retailer won ’ t have much of an advantage if it tries to bargain for lower prices .
At least not yet .
This should be treated as a trial period for Amazon .
Company CEO Jeff Bezos is known to be unafraid of failure .
A different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain traction , but that didn ’ t stop Bezos from making the investment to test out the concept .
It may be that Amazon will have the same problems scaling up its pharmacy business .
But the company also clearly sees an opportunity for growth .
The potential for future disruption is baked into this business proposition .
“ While this move may not really be the disruption to drug prices that people were hoping for , Dusetzina told me , “ it may give Amazon the experience they need in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future .
”

Amazon and American health care look, at first glance, like a mismatch. Yet the 21st century’s most ruthlessly efficient retailer has been trying for several years now to gain a bigger foothold in the bloated, borderline nonsensical health system of the world’s richest nation.
Which is why whenever Amazon makes a new health care maneuver, like the company’s recent announcement that prescription drugs would be sold through its flagship website at a discount for Prime members, the same question inevitably gets asked: Is Amazon coming to disrupt health care?
The short answer is no. At least, not yet.
Amazon bought PillPack, an online pharmacy, two years ago with an eye toward making a move like this: integrating the pharmacy business into its monolithic online store. PillPack gave Amazon the licenses to operate a pharmacy in almost every state, and the vision was always that you would eventually be able to fill a prescription for your blood pressure drug at the same time you were shopping for ... everything else you buy on Amazon.
On its face, the recent news is an incremental step. Amazon Pharmacy is now just one more pharmacy to choose from, alongside Walgreens, CVS, and the like. Some people might get drugs more cheaply thanks to discounts being offered through Prime, but most will still use their health insurance plan and pay the same amount they would anywhere else. This is bad news for some specialty businesses, namely GoodRx, but the major pharmacy chains aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
But Amazon surely isn’t finished expanding its health care portfolio. The latest pharmacy play is a chance for the company to get a better idea of what it takes to run a pharmacy business — to handle the logistical and administrative challenges — before it takes another step. The rest of the sector has been put on notice.
“They’re buying information. They’re making an investment to gain some information to figure out whether it’s worth it to make a much bigger investment,” Craig Garthwaite, who studies health care economics at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, told me. “This might not work, but they would never figure out if they can be a major player without being a minor player first.”
What Amazon Pharmacy can offer patients
Amazon Prime members, of which there are nearly 120 million in the United States, will enjoy two major benefits through Amazon Pharmacy. They can get medications delivered for free within two days and they qualify for discounts, up to 80 percent off generics and up to 40 percent off brand-name drugs, that might allow them to buy drugs on their own for a cheaper price than they could get using their insurance benefits.
(As for people who don’t have Prime or can’t afford it, it would seem they are cut out of these deals, another example of the fundamental inequities in America’s health care system that Amazon is not going to fix.)
The company has already built a slick interface that allows people to enter the last four digits of their Social Security number and pull up their insurance benefits. When people go to check out with their prescription, the website will show insured customers two prices: one with their insurance benefits, one with the Prime discount. For certain generic drugs especially, the Amazon price is going to be cheaper even for people with insurance. For the uninsured, they will now get easy access to discounts on their prescriptions.
“Amazon is offering simplicity, which is something they’re really good at,” Garthwaite said.
From a business strategy standpoint, this is a pincer movement that allows Amazon to gobble up more of the retail pharmacy business, where patients typically use their insurance, and more of the discount drug cottage industry that has grown to offer uninsured patients with rebates similar to, if usually smaller than, what insured patients enjoy. PillPack also catered primarily to patients with chronic conditions, who need the same medications every month. Amazon Pharmacy could expand the company’s reach to capture the one-off prescriptions people receive when they get the flu or have an injury.
The company already has a storage-and-shipping infrastructure on which to build this new venture. There are some obvious pitfalls that Amazon will want to prepare for. For example, some insured patients who opt not to use their benefits and instead take the company’s discount might be annoyed to find out that their purchase didn’t count toward their health insurance plan’s deductible. Who gets the blame in that scenario, the insurer or Amazon? They’ll also want to expand their counseling services so people can get questions about their prescriptions answered, though that is the kind of service that PillPack is already experienced at providing.
So at bottom, the current version of Amazon Pharmacy looks like a natural extension of the 2018 PillPack purchase. The bigger question then is what comes next.
“For now, I think they are just going to be replacing existing market share,” says Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. “But they may decide at some point to be more disruptive once they have gotten settled into this new space.”
What the future for Amazon’s health care business might look like
The Amazon news is most immediately a threat to GoodRx, which offers discounts on prescription drugs for uninsured and underinsured patients. Amazon is now proposing the same service, with all the brand loyalty and retail convenience that comes with its name. In a note to investors, UBS Research analysts called Amazon “a significant competitive threat” to GoodRx. The company’s stock price plummeted 20 percent after Amazon announced its news.
The major pharmacies, like CVS and Walgreens, have been anticipating a move like this for some time. Both already offer discount cards and free delivery, essentially the same service that Amazon is now offering. But they do face a risk if Amazon becomes particularly adept at the online pharmacy business.
Garthwaite identified two ways in which the company could build on the current service and potentially absorb an even bigger share of prescription drug sales. First, it would need to figure out cold storage. Biologics that treat rheumatoid arthritis or cancer and need to be handled sensitively require special storage and transportation.
The other, related question is whether they could reduce delivery times from two days to same-day or even two hours. Imagine going to a doctor, who writes a prescription for you and sends it to Amazon, and the medication is delivered to your door on the same day, all without your having to step inside a brick-and-mortar pharmacy.
“That actually sounds like a compelling product at that point,” Garthwaite said.
And Amazon could use that superlative convenience paired with its newly established relationships with health insurance plans to start competing more directly with the major pharmacy chains. It might vie to be labeled a “preferred” pharmacy by health plans, which reduces the out-of-pocket obligation for patients.
Over the long haul, Amazon might even become experienced enough with pharmacy benefits to start administering them itself, creating a new competitor for pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs). The recent mergers of health plans and PBMs may limit the company’s ability to make those inroads. Health insurers won’t be eager to cooperate with a new competitor for one of their other lines of business. But that doesn’t mean Amazon won’t give it a try.
Can Amazon unlock lower drug prices? That looks less likely. Existing companies like GoodRx already offer the same kind of discounts on drugs Amazon is now proposing. The major PBMs already command huge market shares — Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum alone make up 75 percent of the entire market — that give them significant leverage in their negotiations with drug manufacturers. Amazon can take some of their business, but they’re already operating at such a scale that the online retailer won’t have much of an advantage if it tries to bargain for lower prices.
At least not yet. This should be treated as a trial period for Amazon. Company CEO Jeff Bezos is known to be unafraid of failure. A different venture into employee medical clinics struggled to gain traction, but that didn’t stop Bezos from making the investment to test out the concept.
It may be that Amazon will have the same problems scaling up its pharmacy business. But the company also clearly sees an opportunity for growth. The potential for future disruption is baked into this business proposition.
“While this move may not really be the disruption to drug prices that people were hoping for, Dusetzina told me, “it may give Amazon the experience they need in this space to make a bigger move in the future.”


vox--2020-11-23--Biden announces veteran diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield as UN ambassador pick

President-elect Joe Biden is nominating diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield as US ambassador to the United Nations , as his administration begins its project to restore American global leadership .
Thomas-Greenfield had a decades-long career in the US foreign service , serving as the US ambassador to Liberia and later as the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the second term of Barack Obama ’ s administration .
At the start of the Trump administration , President Donald Trump ’ s new leadership at the State Department tried to push her out , part of a larger purge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September 2017 .
She led the Africa Practice at Albright Stonebridge Group , a firm headed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright .
“ We have no time to lose when it comes to our national security and foreign policy , ” President-elect Joe Biden said in a statement announcing key members of his foreign policy and national security team on Monday .
“ I need a team ready on Day One to help me reclaim America ’ s seat at the head of the table , rally the world to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and advance our security , prosperity , and values .
This is the crux of that team.
” Thomas-Greenfield must still face Senate confirmation , but tapping a veteran like her to represent the United States at the UN signals that the incoming Biden administration is relying on veteran leadership to help repair some of America ’ s strained diplomatic ties .
Thomas-Greenfield had also recently co-authored an op-ed in Foreign Affairs on how to restore the State Department , including rehabilitating the foreign service ranks , which were depleted under Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomat William J. Burns , called the lack of diversity within America ’ s diplomatic corps “ a national security crisis.
” The nomination of Thomas-Greenfield , a Black woman , looks to be a step toward that goal , and of the Biden-Harris administration ’ s commitment to a Cabinet that looks like America .
Trump turned the UN-US relationship even rockier .
Biden looks to bring back some stability .
Some US presidents have had better relationships with the United Nations than others .
But Trump ’ s was particularly strained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accords , and later , the UN ’ s premier health agency , the World Health Organization .
Oh , and all those “ America First ” speeches at the UN General Assembly didn ’ t help .
Still , Trump ’ s first UN ambassador , former South Carolina Gov .
Nikki Haley , managed to strike a balance between Trump ’ s “ America First ” worldview and a more traditional Republican foreign policy , and found places to work constructively at the United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haley was replaced by Kelly Craft , the former US ambassador to Canada and a big GOP donor , who had scant foreign policy experience .
The UN ambassadorship , which was a Cabinet position during Haley ’ s tenure , hasn ’ t remained so during Craft ’ s time at the UN .
Biden is again elevating the UN ambassadorship to a Cabinet rank , the transition confirmed in their announcement about Thomas-Greenfield ’ s nomination .
It ’ s a sign of a recommitment to multilateral institutions .
Thomas-Greenfield ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric on the importance of recommitting to US alliances and partners .
Thomas-Greenfield has deep diplomatic experience , someone who ’ ll come into the job understanding the give and take required in a bureaucratic body like the United Nations , and what the US needs to do to start rebuilding trust within multilateral institutions .
And the challenges the next US ambassador to the UN will face are enormous .
The United Nations just marked its 75th anniversary this year , meeting remotely because of the Covid-19 pandemic .
The UN has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment of a global pandemic and economic crises , both of which have stalled ( and even in some cases reversed ) progress on poverty and hunger and inequality .
A climate catastrophe still looms , as do conflicts in places like Yemen , Syria , and now Ethiopia .
Beyond that , China has taken advantage of the vacuum in US leadership at the United Nations during Trump ’ s tenure , something an incoming Biden administration will now have to navigate as it begins its global rehabilitation project .
A Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to become a reliable partner on issues like climate change and global health .
That brings some stability back to the United Nations — though normalcy is probably still a long way off .

President-elect Joe Biden is nominating diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield as US ambassador to the United Nations, as his administration begins its project to restore American global leadership.
Thomas-Greenfield had a decades-long career in the US foreign service, serving as the US ambassador to Liberia and later as the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the second term of Barack Obama’s administration. At the start of the Trump administration, President Donald Trump’s new leadership at the State Department tried to push her out, part of a larger purge of career foreign service officials. Thomas-Greenfield retired in September 2017. She led the Africa Practice at Albright Stonebridge Group, a firm headed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright.
“We have no time to lose when it comes to our national security and foreign policy,” President-elect Joe Biden said in a statement announcing key members of his foreign policy and national security team on Monday. “I need a team ready on Day One to help me reclaim America’s seat at the head of the table, rally the world to meet the biggest challenges we face, and advance our security, prosperity, and values. This is the crux of that team.”
Thomas-Greenfield must still face Senate confirmation, but tapping a veteran like her to represent the United States at the UN signals that the incoming Biden administration is relying on veteran leadership to help repair some of America’s strained diplomatic ties. Thomas-Greenfield had also recently co-authored an op-ed in Foreign Affairs on how to restore the State Department, including rehabilitating the foreign service ranks, which were depleted under Trump.
In that op-ed, Thomas-Greenfield and fellow diplomat William J. Burns, called the lack of diversity within America’s diplomatic corps “a national security crisis.” The nomination of Thomas-Greenfield, a Black woman, looks to be a step toward that goal, and of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to a Cabinet that looks like America.
Trump turned the UN-US relationship even rockier. Biden looks to bring back some stability.
Some US presidents have had better relationships with the United Nations than others. But Trump’s was particularly strained, especially as he pulled out of multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accords, and later, the UN’s premier health agency, the World Health Organization. Oh, and all those “America First” speeches at the UN General Assembly didn’t help.
Still, Trump’s first UN ambassador, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, managed to strike a balance between Trump’s “America First” worldview and a more traditional Republican foreign policy, and found places to work constructively at the United Nations, including on UN reform. But Haley was replaced by Kelly Craft, the former US ambassador to Canada and a big GOP donor, who had scant foreign policy experience. The UN ambassadorship, which was a Cabinet position during Haley’s tenure, hasn’t remained so during Craft’s time at the UN.
Biden is again elevating the UN ambassadorship to a Cabinet rank, the transition confirmed in their announcement about Thomas-Greenfield’s nomination. It’s a sign of a recommitment to multilateral institutions.
Thomas-Greenfield’s nomination also reflects Biden’s rhetoric on the importance of recommitting to US alliances and partners. Thomas-Greenfield has deep diplomatic experience, someone who’ll come into the job understanding the give and take required in a bureaucratic body like the United Nations, and what the US needs to do to start rebuilding trust within multilateral institutions.
And the challenges the next US ambassador to the UN will face are enormous. The United Nations just marked its 75th anniversary this year, meeting remotely because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The UN has struggled at times to meet this unprecedented moment of a global pandemic and economic crises, both of which have stalled (and even in some cases reversed) progress on poverty and hunger and inequality. A climate catastrophe still looms, as do conflicts in places like Yemen, Syria, and now Ethiopia.
Beyond that, China has taken advantage of the vacuum in US leadership at the United Nations during Trump’s tenure, something an incoming Biden administration will now have to navigate as it begins its global rehabilitation project.
A Biden administration means that the US is more likely to become a reliable partner on issues like climate change and global health. That brings some stability back to the United Nations — though normalcy is probably still a long way off.


vox--2020-11-23--Why a negative Covid-19 test before Thanksgiving isn’t an all-clear

More frequent Covid-19 testing is one key to help end the pandemic .
But as individuals , we can ’ t rely on testing alone to protect ourselves and others .
Take this recent example : Public health officials in New Zealand reported on a cluster of cases that likely spread aboard a long-haul flight .
Yet the suspected index cases — the people who likely spread the virus to others — tested negative for the virus a couple of days before boarding their plane in Switzerland and thought they weren ’ t infected .
This goes to show : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of being able to safely interact with others without masks or other precautions .
“ Testing negative is not like a passport for people to go out and do whatever they want to do , ” as Muge Cevik , a virologist and physician at the University of St. Andrews , told me earlier this fall .
As people make ( unwise ) plans to travel this Thanksgiving week , they should understand that testing negative does not mean it ’ s safe to be in close contact with other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s safe to take masks off .
Scientists don ’ t yet know exactly when a person who is infected with the coronavirus will start testing positive for the virus .
There are situations when a person could test negative , be infected , and also be contagious .
It ’ s also possible — since the virus multiplies itself exponentially in the body very quickly — that someone could test negative in the morning ( and not be contagious ) , but by the afternoon test positive ( and be very contagious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
But the bottom line is that Covid-19 diagnostic tests ( both the slower , more common , viral genetic test — called RT-PCR — and the more rapid viral protein test , called an antigen test ) are most accurate when used on people experiencing symptoms .
“ One of the huge gaps now in the data is : What is the probability of testing positive before you get symptoms ?
” Benny Borremans , a disease ecologist at UCLA , said in October .
Right now , scientists just don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing is less accurate before symptoms begin There are several reasons scientists are unsure about when people will start testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 .
To understand why , and to make this less confusing , it ’ s helpful to think through all the things that have to happen for a Covid-19 test to come back positive .
First , the virus needs time to establish itself in a person ’ s body .
This is called the incubation period , and it can take upward of two weeks .
On average , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days .
During the incubation period , a person might not test positive because there ’ s not enough virus in their body to detect in a test .
“ The virus particles , day by day , will multiply , ” Cevik says .
“ The virus needs to reach a threshold for the PCR [ i.e .
viral genetic ] tests to pick it up.
” PCR is the more common Covid-19 diagnostic test because it requires a lower threshold of the virus to test positive ; rapid antigen tests would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ register a positive test .
Testing positive should coincide with being contagious .
But it doesn ’ t always .
Generally , a person can start being infectious for the virus around two days before they start to show symptoms , in what ’ s known as the presymptomatic phase .
And , generally — but not always — scientists would expect that if a person is contagious , they ’ d test positive .
After all , if they ’ re spewing enough virus out to get another person sick , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a diagnostic test to pick up .
But when exactly a person makes the jump from testing negative and being non-infectious to testing positive and being infectious is hard to predict .
“ If everything works as it should , the test should be positive if you are infectious at the very moment of the test , as there must be virus present then , ” Justin Lessler , an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University , says .
“ However , you could easily test negative then become infectious a day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Unless you ’ re testing every hour , it ’ s impossible to get a fine-grained view on when the infectious period truly begins .
( Also possible , but probably rarer : A person tests positive before they start to be contagious . )
Even if a person is contagious , they may not test positive .
It could come down to where the sample for testing was taken from .
In general , “ we consider the gold standard to be the nasopharyngeal swab , ” Bobbi Pritt , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinic , says .
“ That ’ s the deep nasal swab that goes all the way back into the back of your nose .
Whereas other specimens — like a throat swab or just the very outer edge of your nose , like right inside your nostril — that ’ s not going to contain as much virus.
” Early on in the infection , a person who is incubating the virus is expected to test negative .
Over the summer , Johns Hopkins researchers — including Lessler — published a paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test in the first few days after being exposed to the virus .
On the first day , they found the chance of a false negative near 100 percent .
No test is going to find the virus so early .
Through the first four days , that rate drops to 67 percent on day four , on average , but with a very large range of error .
On the day people first reported symptoms , there ’ s still a significant false negative rate , at 38 percent .
What does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What we ’ re saying is don ’ t test anyone in less than four days after exposure , ” Cevik says .
It ’ s not going to tell you much about the person ’ s status .
Or if a person is tested in that time , they ought to be retested a few days later .
“ In general , five to eight days after exposure is the best time to test , ” Cevik says .
“ Or day three after symptom onset.
” That ’ s when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveal a true positive .
Because nothing about Covid-19 can be simple , here ’ s another thing to consider : The antigen tests that produce quick results have a shorter window in which you ’ d expect a person would test positive .
They are also slightly less accurate , but this limitation can be overcome if they are used repeatedly .
If used correctly , these tests will flag a positive in the window when a person is most likely to be contagious .
And with repeated use , scientists hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from growing out of control .
A negative test without symptoms might not mean much .
Keep your mask on .
Here ’ s the bottom line : “ We don ’ t know when one will test positive pre-symptom onset for PCR or antigen tests , ” epidemiologist A. Marm Kilpatrick writes in an email .
He points to a few papers that try to quantify the probability of testing positive while asymptomatic , but they are hard to draw conclusions and recommendations from .
That ’ s because the incubation period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure for a person to become infectious — can vary greatly from person to person .
( It can happen in four or five days , or up to two weeks . )
“ If someone has a long incubation period , our [ work ] suggests their infectiousness rises later and thus there would be a longer period where they ’ d test negative.
” If you have symptoms , you ’ re likely to test positive the day you start feeling ill , but not guaranteed .
The first few days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a very high probability of testing positive .
We could learn more in the months ahead about testing asymptomatic and presymptomatic people , with studies following people after they have been exposed to the virus , and testing them repeatedly over a few weeks to determine the likelihood of testing positive before symptoms begin .
“ We have a lot of data from symptom onset onwards , but we don ’ t have data in terms of presymptoms , ” Cevik says .
This is why testing is no replacement for other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to the virus , mask-wearing , and social distancing .
Please , please remember this .

More frequent Covid-19 testing is one key to help end the pandemic. But as individuals, we can’t rely on testing alone to protect ourselves and others.
Take this recent example: Public health officials in New Zealand reported on a cluster of cases that likely spread aboard a long-haul flight. Yet the suspected index cases — the people who likely spread the virus to others — tested negative for the virus a couple of days before boarding their plane in Switzerland and thought they weren’t infected.
This goes to show: A negative test is not an all-clear in terms of being able to safely interact with others without masks or other precautions. “Testing negative is not like a passport for people to go out and do whatever they want to do,” as Muge Cevik, a virologist and physician at the University of St. Andrews, told me earlier this fall.
As people make (unwise) plans to travel this Thanksgiving week, they should understand that testing negative does not mean it’s safe to be in close contact with other people. It does not mean it’s safe to take masks off.
Scientists don’t yet know exactly when a person who is infected with the coronavirus will start testing positive for the virus. There are situations when a person could test negative, be infected, and also be contagious. It’s also possible — since the virus multiplies itself exponentially in the body very quickly — that someone could test negative in the morning (and not be contagious), but by the afternoon test positive (and be very contagious).
Confusing? Yes, it is. But the bottom line is that Covid-19 diagnostic tests (both the slower, more common, viral genetic test — called RT-PCR — and the more rapid viral protein test, called an antigen test) are most accurate when used on people experiencing symptoms.
“One of the huge gaps now in the data is: What is the probability of testing positive before you get symptoms?” Benny Borremans, a disease ecologist at UCLA, said in October. Right now, scientists just don’t know for sure.
Why testing is less accurate before symptoms begin
There are several reasons scientists are unsure about when people will start testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. To understand why, and to make this less confusing, it’s helpful to think through all the things that have to happen for a Covid-19 test to come back positive.
First, the virus needs time to establish itself in a person’s body. This is called the incubation period, and it can take upward of two weeks. On average, this happens in about five or six days. During the incubation period, a person might not test positive because there’s not enough virus in their body to detect in a test.
“The virus particles, day by day, will multiply,” Cevik says. “The virus needs to reach a threshold for the PCR [i.e. viral genetic] tests to pick it up.” PCR is the more common Covid-19 diagnostic test because it requires a lower threshold of the virus to test positive; rapid antigen tests would require a higher level of virus to register a positive test.
Testing positive should coincide with being contagious. But it doesn’t always.
Generally, a person can start being infectious for the virus around two days before they start to show symptoms, in what’s known as the presymptomatic phase.
And, generally — but not always — scientists would expect that if a person is contagious, they’d test positive. After all, if they’re spewing enough virus out to get another person sick, they’re probably spewing enough virus out for a diagnostic test to pick up.
But when exactly a person makes the jump from testing negative and being non-infectious to testing positive and being infectious is hard to predict.
“If everything works as it should, the test should be positive if you are infectious at the very moment of the test, as there must be virus present then,” Justin Lessler, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, says. “However, you could easily test negative then become infectious a day, or even hours, after the test.” Unless you’re testing every hour, it’s impossible to get a fine-grained view on when the infectious period truly begins. (Also possible, but probably rarer: A person tests positive before they start to be contagious.)
Even if a person is contagious, they may not test positive. It could come down to where the sample for testing was taken from.
In general, “we consider the gold standard to be the nasopharyngeal swab,” Bobbi Pritt, the director of clinical microbiology at the Mayo Clinic, says. “That’s the deep nasal swab that goes all the way back into the back of your nose. Whereas other specimens — like a throat swab or just the very outer edge of your nose, like right inside your nostril — that’s not going to contain as much virus.”
Early on in the infection, a person who is incubating the virus is expected to test negative. Over the summer, Johns Hopkins researchers — including Lessler — published a paper estimating the likelihood of a false negative test in the first few days after being exposed to the virus. On the first day, they found the chance of a false negative near 100 percent. No test is going to find the virus so early. Through the first four days, that rate drops to 67 percent on day four, on average, but with a very large range of error. On the day people first reported symptoms, there’s still a significant false negative rate, at 38 percent.
What does this all add up to? “What we’re saying is don’t test anyone in less than four days after exposure,” Cevik says. It’s not going to tell you much about the person’s status. Or if a person is tested in that time, they ought to be retested a few days later.
“In general, five to eight days after exposure is the best time to test,” Cevik says. “Or day three after symptom onset.” That’s when the genetic RT-PCR tests are most likely to reveal a true positive.
Because nothing about Covid-19 can be simple, here’s another thing to consider: The antigen tests that produce quick results have a shorter window in which you’d expect a person would test positive.
They are also slightly less accurate, but this limitation can be overcome if they are used repeatedly. If used correctly, these tests will flag a positive in the window when a person is most likely to be contagious. And with repeated use, scientists hope these quick tests could help stop outbreaks from growing out of control.
A negative test without symptoms might not mean much. Keep your mask on.
Here’s the bottom line: “We don’t know when one will test positive pre-symptom onset for PCR or antigen tests,” epidemiologist A. Marm Kilpatrick writes in an email. He points to a few papers that try to quantify the probability of testing positive while asymptomatic, but they are hard to draw conclusions and recommendations from.
That’s because the incubation period — the time it takes from initial exposure for a person to become infectious — can vary greatly from person to person. (It can happen in four or five days, or up to two weeks.) “If someone has a long incubation period, our [work] suggests their infectiousness rises later and thus there would be a longer period where they’d test negative.”
If you have symptoms, you’re likely to test positive the day you start feeling ill, but not guaranteed. The first few days after starting to feel sick, you have a very high probability of testing positive.
We could learn more in the months ahead about testing asymptomatic and presymptomatic people, with studies following people after they have been exposed to the virus, and testing them repeatedly over a few weeks to determine the likelihood of testing positive before symptoms begin. “We have a lot of data from symptom onset onwards, but we don’t have data in terms of presymptoms,” Cevik says.
This is why testing is no replacement for other Covid-19 mitigation measures, like quarantining people exposed to the virus, mask-wearing, and social distancing. Please, please remember this.


vox--2020-11-23--Vox has a merch store! Shop now.

Vox has a merch store! Shop now.

We ’ re so excited to announce the launch of the Vox merch store .
You can find the storefront here .
From the much-requested Weeds mug to a Missing Chapter sticker and a Vox crewneck , we invite you to take a step further into the Vox family and proudly proclaim your status as a Vox fan to everyone you see — even if you ’ re limited to Zoom interactions .
The items you see in our store today are just the beginning .
We ’ ll be adding more items next year , and we ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d like to see .
Click here to submit your ideas and provide feedback .
We ’ ve partnered with DFTBA ( “ Don ’ t forget to be awesome ” ) because their company reflects similar values to our own .
DFTBA works with suppliers to manufacture and ship merchandise .
They source ethically , and the majority of our textile merchandise comes from Bella + Canvas because of their shipping , water savings , and energy savings practices .
This is a new venture for Vox , but something we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our audience for a while now .
Let us know how we ’ re doing with the form above , and please see below for a brief FAQ .
If I buy now , will my merch be here in time for the 2020 holidays ?
Unfortunately , this is unlikely due to the pandemic ’ s impact on manufacturing and shipping .
These processes have slowed down to protect warehouse workers and adhere to social distancing guidelines .
It is another piece of our “ new normal , ” and we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value the health and safety of their workers and community .
Stickers may be processed faster than apparel .
To ensure their arrival , you would need to purchase them in separate orders from other merchandise with longer production timelines , as all items in an order are shipped at one time , rather than incrementally .
Yes .
DFTBA ships internationally via USPS .
There are a few service disruptions , which you can see here .
I need a return , refund , or replacement .
Who do I contact ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at DFTBA for this .
You can find that support page here .
How will I know about new merch launches ?
You can sign up for new merchandise updates with DFTBA .
The subscription form is found at the bottom of their website .

We are happy to report that Vox has relaunched our merch store. You can find the storefront here. Our “classic capsule” has something for every Vox fan in your life — from crewneck sweaters to baby onesies to a fits-all baseball cap.
We’ve partnered with Fourthwall on fulfillment and shipping to maintain our standards on ethically sourcing materials. Fourthwall works exclusively with manufacturing and fulfillment partners with robust ethical sourcing and fair labor practices.
Let us know if you have new ideas, or how we’re doing, with this form, and please see below for a brief FAQ.
If I buy now, will my merch be here in time for the 2022 holidays?
Yes. Each item is made to order, and it can take about 7 to 10 days to receive in the US, or two weeks to receive internationally. There’s still time!
Can I receive my order internationally?
Yes. From Fourthwall: “International orders may be subject to import taxes, duties, and other customs charges. The charges vary by country, and at this time we are unable to calculate them in advance. For more information regarding your country’s customs policies, please contact your local customs office. If such a fee indeed gets imposed on your package, you are responsible for its payment.”
I need a return, refund, or replacement. Who do I contact?
Please contact Fourthwall through this email address, or by calling 1-833-484-9255. You can read about their return policy here.


vox--2020-11-23--The real love interest in Netflix’s Operation Christmas Drop is the US military

The days leading up to Thanksgiving usually mean an onslaught of Christmas movies to binge-watch while sitting on the couch and sipping peppermint hot chocolate .
So when Operation Christmas Drop , a movie set on a military base on Guam , dropped on Netflix , I received a text message from my enraged sister : “ This was still released ?
!
What ?
” in all caps .
See , my sister and I were born and raised on the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands , a United States territory just north of Guam , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are not Indigenous Pacific Islanders , we were pretty disappointed when the movie started filming last year and are even more infuriated now with the result : It essentially ridicules and erases the culture of the Indigenous land and people that helped raise us .
Starring The Vampire Diaries ’ Kat Graham and Hunger Games villain Alexander Ludwig , Operation Christmas Drop is a rom-com that follows a congressional assistant , played by Graham , who is deployed to investigate the US Air Force base on Guam .
Her mission is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the base by accusing Operation Christmas Drop — a program where the military airdrops supplies and canned goods to the Micronesian Islands around the holidays — of misusing taxpayer funds .
But her plan is stymied when she falls in love with Ludwig , an Air Force captain in charge of showing her around the island , who ultimately convinces her the base should remain open .
Operation Christmas Drop is a real Defense Department tradition that dates back to 1952 .
( Having spent most of my life on Saipan , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever seen any of those goods actually dropped from the air . )
But Netflix ’ s portrayal of the mission as a “ life-changing ” humanitarian event is infantilizing — Indigenous Pacific Islanders have survived for centuries pre-colonialism , coexisting with land and water .
Before colonizers took their land away , they sourced their own food from plants , hunting in the island ’ s jungles , and fishing in the vast Pacific Ocean that is now tainted with military and industrial activities .
It ’ s not the only thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show the vast development of buildings and bustling civilization on Guam .
( The closest was showing islanders shop at a street market in Chamorro Village , a tourist spot . )
Instead , the movie showcased Native islanders living in ancient huts that are , in reality , historically preserved tourist attractions .
But most of all , Operation Christmas Drop ’ s romanticization of the military ’ s presence in Guam , along with a heavy dose of the “ white savior ” narrative , feels out of place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demilitarize the Marianas continues to grow .
The truth is many local island residents have been critical of the growing US military presence in the Marianas .
In 2005 , the US signed an agreement with Japan to relocate thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam , due to public health and environmental concerns voiced by Okinawans .
If they didn ’ t want the US military , why should local residents in Guam ?
Today , the Pentagon holds roughly 30 percent of Guam ’ s land , a share that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corps Base , the first new base in nearly 70 years , just opened last month and would join Guam ’ s Andersen Air Force Base , naval bases , and new live-fire shooting ranges , most of which are located in uninhabited islands in the Marianas .
The buildup of the new military base faced widespread protests from local residents .
The criticisms got even worse when military excavations in the new Marine base revealed dozens of sites containing human remains and cultural artifacts .
Indigenous residents were livid .
It seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heels of the ongoing military expansion on the island .
For Netflix to produce and release a film set against this backdrop that instead celebrates the growing militarization of the Pacific islands in the name of Christmas cheer couldn ’ t be more tone-deaf .
Many Pacific Islanders are not having it with this movie During the film ’ s shooting in summer 2019 , many local islanders on Guam and the Northern Marianas were already upset with the idea of romanticizing the military for a holiday movie .
When Operation Christmas Drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Marianas archipelago and several parts of the Pacific were even more appalled by the film ’ s portrayal of Guam ’ s Indigenous Chamorro people ( also known as Chamorus ) and their culture .
Some took their frustration to Twitter , calling the movie “ propaganda ” for the US military .
In one particularly baffling scene , Graham ’ s and Ludwig ’ s characters visited what the movie portrayed to be a small island village that lacks resources such as electricity .
Graham ’ s character feels pity for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used hairbrush , some other accessories , and ultimately her entire bag .
“ You need it more than I do , ” she said .
“ This movie negatively represents Chamorros , ” one native Chamorro resident on Guam said in a viral TikTok video .
“ It makes it seem like the military are our heroes , when in reality they ’ re thieves .
They take away sacred land so they can build a shooting range and they lie to us about it .
They don ’ t care about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people here on Guam.
” Carlos Manalo , a longtime friend of mine who is also Chamorro , told me how disappointed he was with the film .
The one time our culture is finally represented in the mainstream media , he said , it ’ s shown as “ some kind of pity party needed for the main character to become less superficial.
” The plot succeeded with the archetypal “ white savior ” trope seen in most Hollywood films .
“ It was equal parts silly to me but ultimately just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living in ancient huts in the film , because it inaccurately shows how developed we are since the ’ 50s , ” he told me .
“ If locals want to watch a holiday movie with your culture inaccurately seen , then ... best wait another 50 years.
” One of our mutual friends , Maria Atalig , also Chamorro , also voiced her frustration .
She was especially angry after someone she knew , a white person stationed on the Guam Air Force base , talked up the movie .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praise , too : BuzzFeed published a listicle of tweets celebrating the movie .
“ The caucacity , ” she said .
“ Do they not realize the history of the islands they ’ re shooting this on ?
” she added .
“ They ’ re really out here making it seem like Guam , one of the most developed islands there , is still stuck in the past with no electricity.
” Guam residents are US citizens with limited rights Probably the saddest part is that a number of mainland Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mindless holiday cheer , will come away with Operation Christmas Drop as their primary impression of the Pacific Islands .
In the movie , a Congress member , played by actress Virginia Madsen , poses the question , “ How does this [ Operation Christmas Drop ] benefit Americans ?
” It ’ s a thoughtless line of dialogue .
Anyone born in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands is a US citizen .
But despite US citizenship , residents of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands can not vote for president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack full constitutional rights .
They can elect a member of Congress , but that delegate can not vote on the floor , only make suggestions .
Guam residents enlist and die serving the military at the highest rate per capita .
Yet when it comes to helping Guam veterans who have been historically exposed to toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange and radioactive materials , Veterans Affairs provides little to no help to these residents .
This isn ’ t new for the military , which has often treated its territories in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seizing Indigenous lands and ignoring calls for justice .
Then there ’ s the environmental aspect .
Guam , the Northern Mariana Islands , and other islands in the Pacific are on the front lines of the climate crisis .
The military planes running on fossil fuels only pollute the air local islanders breathe .
The fact that the US military is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet is not lost on local activists .
Samantha Barnett , an outspoken activist in the movement to demilitarize Guam , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erases Chamorro culture and history but also promotes the military contamination of our islands .
“ The film presents us as helpless and dependent on the US military , but in reality the military has stolen our land and continues to poison our environment without our consent , ” said Barnett , who has represented Guam as a delegate to the United Nations , fighting for the return of Indigenous lands , demilitarization , and climate justice .
She added , “ No amount of canned foods and reused items dropped from planes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupying our island , dispossessing Chamorus from our land , and poisoning our water for their war games.
” Part of what stings about this movie is that pro-military propaganda is alive and well in these US territories .
Military presence was unfortunately natural to me growing up in Saipan .
In high school , I joined the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program .
( It was a prerequisite choice of JROTC or Physical Education II , which involved dreadful campus runs every day . )
There were more military recruiters than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It wasn ’ t until college when I moved to the mainland in Portland , Oregon , that I became more aware of how all-encompassing their presence was .
Watching this movie and thinking about the historical legacies of violence and injustice the US military brought to my home islands was infuriating .
So the next time you decide to watch a holiday movie , please reconsider putting Operation Christmas Drop on the list — or at the very least , learn the history of US colonialism and militarization in the Pacific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Indigenous culture .

The days leading up to Thanksgiving usually mean an onslaught of Christmas movies to binge-watch while sitting on the couch and sipping peppermint hot chocolate. So when Operation Christmas Drop, a movie set on a military base on Guam, dropped on Netflix, I received a text message from my enraged sister: “This was still released?! What?” in all caps.
See, my sister and I were born and raised on the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a United States territory just north of Guam, where the movie was filmed. Although we are not Indigenous Pacific Islanders, we were pretty disappointed when the movie started filming last year and are even more infuriated now with the result: It essentially ridicules and erases the culture of the Indigenous land and people that helped raise us.
Starring The Vampire Diaries’ Kat Graham and Hunger Games villain Alexander Ludwig, Operation Christmas Drop is a rom-com that follows a congressional assistant, played by Graham, who is deployed to investigate the US Air Force base on Guam. Her mission is to find a reason to recommend shutting down the base by accusing Operation Christmas Drop — a program where the military airdrops supplies and canned goods to the Micronesian Islands around the holidays — of misusing taxpayer funds. But her plan is stymied when she falls in love with Ludwig, an Air Force captain in charge of showing her around the island, who ultimately convinces her the base should remain open.
Operation Christmas Drop is a real Defense Department tradition that dates back to 1952. (Having spent most of my life on Saipan, I don’t think I’ve ever seen any of those goods actually dropped from the air.) But Netflix’s portrayal of the mission as a “life-changing” humanitarian event is infantilizing — Indigenous Pacific Islanders have survived for centuries pre-colonialism, coexisting with land and water. Before colonizers took their land away, they sourced their own food from plants, hunting in the island’s jungles, and fishing in the vast Pacific Ocean that is now tainted with military and industrial activities.
It’s not the only thing the film got wrong. It failed to show the vast development of buildings and bustling civilization on Guam. (The closest was showing islanders shop at a street market in Chamorro Village, a tourist spot.) Instead, the movie showcased Native islanders living in ancient huts that are, in reality, historically preserved tourist attractions.
Um @netflix Guam is not in the South Pacific *facepalm* pic.twitter.com/ESpJYHCN5l — Anita Hofschneider (@ahofschneider) November 6, 2020
But most of all, Operation Christmas Drop’s romanticization of the military’s presence in Guam, along with a heavy dose of the “white savior” narrative, feels out of place in an era when the grassroots movement to demilitarize the Marianas continues to grow. The truth is many local island residents have been critical of the growing US military presence in the Marianas. In 2005, the US signed an agreement with Japan to relocate thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, due to public health and environmental concerns voiced by Okinawans. If they didn’t want the US military, why should local residents in Guam?
Today, the Pentagon holds roughly 30 percent of Guam’s land, a share that’s growing fast. A new Marine Corps Base, the first new base in nearly 70 years, just opened last month and would join Guam’s Andersen Air Force Base, naval bases, and new live-fire shooting ranges, most of which are located in uninhabited islands in the Marianas. The buildup of the new military base faced widespread protests from local residents. The criticisms got even worse when military excavations in the new Marine base revealed dozens of sites containing human remains and cultural artifacts. Indigenous residents were livid. It seems telling that the movie dropped on the heels of the ongoing military expansion on the island.
For Netflix to produce and release a film set against this backdrop that instead celebrates the growing militarization of the Pacific islands in the name of Christmas cheer couldn’t be more tone-deaf.
Many Pacific Islanders are not having it with this movie
During the film’s shooting in summer 2019, many local islanders on Guam and the Northern Marianas were already upset with the idea of romanticizing the military for a holiday movie. When Operation Christmas Drop was released on Netflix, islanders across the Marianas archipelago and several parts of the Pacific were even more appalled by the film’s portrayal of Guam’s Indigenous Chamorro people (also known as Chamorus) and their culture. Some took their frustration to Twitter, calling the movie “propaganda” for the US military.
In one particularly baffling scene, Graham’s and Ludwig’s characters visited what the movie portrayed to be a small island village that lacks resources such as electricity. Graham’s character feels pity for the local children, giving them a used hairbrush, some other accessories, and ultimately her entire bag. “You need it more than I do,” she said.
This chick gave a bunch of little brown kids her used hair brush and hair ties and she thought she had a mother Theresa moment — chan freska   (@youngbiha) November 6, 2020
“This movie negatively represents Chamorros,” one native Chamorro resident on Guam said in a viral TikTok video. “It makes it seem like the military are our heroes, when in reality they’re thieves. They take away sacred land so they can build a shooting range and they lie to us about it. They don’t care about our concerns as locals and as Indigenous people here on Guam.”
Carlos Manalo, a longtime friend of mine who is also Chamorro, told me how disappointed he was with the film. The one time our culture is finally represented in the mainstream media, he said, it’s shown as “some kind of pity party needed for the main character to become less superficial.” The plot succeeded with the archetypal “white savior” trope seen in most Hollywood films.
typical “Guam our beloved bomb storage facility” but they really think we’d waste niyok like that? let alone DANCE IN IT #OperationChristmasDrop #theDODacity pic.twitter.com/aMVNzFAAnv — Microchild (@microchild) November 8, 2020
“It was equal parts silly to me but ultimately just sad seeing Chamorros wear grass skirts and living in ancient huts in the film, because it inaccurately shows how developed we are since the ’50s,” he told me. “If locals want to watch a holiday movie with your culture inaccurately seen, then ... best wait another 50 years.”
One of our mutual friends, Maria Atalig, also Chamorro, also voiced her frustration. She was especially angry after someone she knew, a white person stationed on the Guam Air Force base, talked up the movie. On the internet, there has been plenty of praise, too: BuzzFeed published a listicle of tweets celebrating the movie. “The caucacity,” she said.
“Do they not realize the history of the islands they’re shooting this on?” she added. “They’re really out here making it seem like Guam, one of the most developed islands there, is still stuck in the past with no electricity.”
disappointing that Guam is rarely ever portrayed in big media so when we actually are, no matter how inaccurate or rude it is, some people will applaud the creators — (@xxtalysada2nd) November 11, 2020
Guam residents are US citizens with limited rights
Probably the saddest part is that a number of mainland Americans, after tuning in for a night of mindless holiday cheer, will come away with Operation Christmas Drop as their primary impression of the Pacific Islands.
In the movie, a Congress member, played by actress Virginia Madsen, poses the question, “How does this [Operation Christmas Drop] benefit Americans?” It’s a thoughtless line of dialogue. Anyone born in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands is a US citizen. But despite US citizenship, residents of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands cannot vote for president. They can get American passports but lack full constitutional rights.
They can elect a member of Congress, but that delegate cannot vote on the floor, only make suggestions. Guam residents enlist and die serving the military at the highest rate per capita. Yet when it comes to helping Guam veterans who have been historically exposed to toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange and radioactive materials, Veterans Affairs provides little to no help to these residents. This isn’t new for the military, which has often treated its territories in the Pacific with negligence on human rights, seizing Indigenous lands and ignoring calls for justice.
Then there’s the environmental aspect. Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other islands in the Pacific are on the front lines of the climate crisis. The military planes running on fossil fuels only pollute the air local islanders breathe. The fact that the US military is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet is not lost on local activists.
Samantha Barnett, an outspoken activist in the movement to demilitarize Guam, told me Operation Christmas Drop not only erases Chamorro culture and history but also promotes the military contamination of our islands.
As a #Micronesian this is a particularly painful image. nuclear radiation lingering in our bodies and lands across archipelagos and here we are painted as happy natives. #OperationChristmasDrop #beingmicronesian pic.twitter.com/R4kNcv2eT9 — Microchild (@microchild) November 6, 2020
“The film presents us as helpless and dependent on the US military, but in reality the military has stolen our land and continues to poison our environment without our consent,” said Barnett, who has represented Guam as a delegate to the United Nations, fighting for the return of Indigenous lands, demilitarization, and climate justice.
She added, “No amount of canned foods and reused items dropped from planes can make up for the US military occupying our island, dispossessing Chamorus from our land, and poisoning our water for their war games.”
Part of what stings about this movie is that pro-military propaganda is alive and well in these US territories. Military presence was unfortunately natural to me growing up in Saipan. In high school, I joined the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program. (It was a prerequisite choice of JROTC or Physical Education II, which involved dreadful campus runs every day.)
There were more military recruiters than college recruiters at our public high schools. It wasn’t until college when I moved to the mainland in Portland, Oregon, that I became more aware of how all-encompassing their presence was. Watching this movie and thinking about the historical legacies of violence and injustice the US military brought to my home islands was infuriating.
So the next time you decide to watch a holiday movie, please reconsider putting Operation Christmas Drop on the list — or at the very least, learn the history of US colonialism and militarization in the Pacific before diving into a movie that disrespects an Indigenous culture.


vox--2020-11-23--The $35 million play to fix Democrats’ data problem is shutting down

One of the most expensive , highest-profile efforts to fix the Democratic Party ’ s data woes is shutting down .
Alloy , a group started with $ 35 million in part from Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman , said on Monday that it would begin to “ wind down its operations ” next year after it completes its work for the January runoff elections in Georgia .
The decision is a huge reversal in fortunes for Alloy , which had massive hype when announced but has failed to live up to its original promise , many Democratic data operatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Alloy was originally seen as a tech solution that the party establishment — the Democratic National Committee — couldn ’ t provide .
Plotted in the aftermath of the 2016 election when Democrats across the board saw their flagging data operation as one of the many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump , Alloy was originally envisioned as a new data exchange where all Democratic efforts could swap information on progressive voters .
But when it was introduced , the effort angered some party leaders who saw it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires to fix a problem they didn ’ t understand .
Also complicating Alloy ’ s path was that the Democratic Party ended up having its own solution to its 2016 errors .
The Democratic Party started building out a data portal called the Democratic Data Exchange , which attracted some of its own tech money .
Many data operatives grew to see the two efforts as largely duplicative , and the relationship between Alloy and the Democratic Party could be tense at times , with some party leaders seeing Alloy as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely focusing on voter-registration efforts during the 2020 cycle , a more humble mission and one that its leaders feel was successful : It checked that 23 million voters were registered .
“ We will close out this chapter of Alloy by cheering on those carrying forward with the ongoing work of protecting and strengthening our democracy , ” Alloy said in an email to its partners on Monday that was obtained by Recode .
The announcement on Monday is a far cry from the initial expectations of Alloy .
It was seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem , not something that would end operations after just one presidential cycle .
Half of the money for Alloy came from LinkedIn founder Hoffman , who has become one of the Democratic Party ’ s most controversial donors .
Several political projects of Hoffman ’ s have failed , although he has argued that he is merely making a number of high-risk , high-upside political investments like he does in his day job as a venture capitalist .
But no single project was more closely associated with him than Alloy — his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some progressive groups if they decided to use it .
This is expected to be just the first of the post-election reconsiderations both parties will have to do when it comes to their tech .

One of the most expensive, highest-profile efforts to fix the Democratic Party’s data woes is shutting down.
Alloy, a group started with $35 million in part from Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman, said on Monday that it would begin to “wind down its operations” next year after it completes its work for the January runoff elections in Georgia. The decision is a huge reversal in fortunes for Alloy, which had massive hype when announced but has failed to live up to its original promise, many Democratic data operatives have said over the course of the year.
Alloy was originally seen as a tech solution that the party establishment — the Democratic National Committee — couldn’t provide. Plotted in the aftermath of the 2016 election when Democrats across the board saw their flagging data operation as one of the many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, Alloy was originally envisioned as a new data exchange where all Democratic efforts could swap information on progressive voters. But when it was introduced, the effort angered some party leaders who saw it as a stereotypical attempt by hubristic Silicon Valley billionaires to fix a problem they didn’t understand.
Also complicating Alloy’s path was that the Democratic Party ended up having its own solution to its 2016 errors. The Democratic Party started building out a data portal called the Democratic Data Exchange, which attracted some of its own tech money. Many data operatives grew to see the two efforts as largely duplicative, and the relationship between Alloy and the Democratic Party could be tense at times, with some party leaders seeing Alloy as an “existential threat.”
Alloy ended up largely focusing on voter-registration efforts during the 2020 cycle, a more humble mission and one that its leaders feel was successful: It checked that 23 million voters were registered.
“We will close out this chapter of Alloy by cheering on those carrying forward with the ongoing work of protecting and strengthening our democracy,” Alloy said in an email to its partners on Monday that was obtained by Recode.
Big news:
Alloy, the $35 million data play from Reid Hoffman to fix the Democratic Party, is ending its operations next year.
From an email out to partners this AM:
“Beginning in 2021, we will begin to transition Alloy to wind down its operations.” pic.twitter.com/MHI8yRTQqo — Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) November 23, 2020
The announcement on Monday is a far cry from the initial expectations of Alloy. It was seen as a long-term fix to a long-term problem, not something that would end operations after just one presidential cycle.
Half of the money for Alloy came from LinkedIn founder Hoffman, who has become one of the Democratic Party’s most controversial donors. Several political projects of Hoffman’s have failed, although he has argued that he is merely making a number of high-risk, high-upside political investments like he does in his day job as a venture capitalist. But no single project was more closely associated with him than Alloy — his team was even willing to essentially repay some progressive groups if they decided to use it.
This is expected to be just the first of the post-election reconsiderations both parties will have to do when it comes to their tech.