ReportWire

Tag: Approach

  • ICE officials replaced with Border Patrol, cementing hard tactics that originated in California

    The Trump administration is initiating a leadership shakeup at a dozen or so offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to bring more aggressive enforcement operations across the U.S.

    Some of the outgoing field office directors at ICE are anticipated to be replaced with leaders from Customs and Border Protection, according to news reports. Among the leaders targeted for replacement are Los Angeles Field Office Director Ernesto Santacruz and San Diego Field Office Director Patrick Divver, the Washington Examiner reported Monday.

    The stepped up role of Border Patrol leaders in interior enforcement — which has historically been ICE territory — marks an evolution of tactics that originated in California.

    In late December, Gregory Bovino, who heads the Border Patrol’s El Centro region, led a three-day raid in rural Kern County, nabbing day laborers more than 300 miles from his typical territory. Former Biden administration officials said Bovino had gone “rogue” and that no agency leaders knew about the operation beforehand.

    Bovino leveraged the spectacle to become the on-the-ground point person for the Trump Administration’s signature issue.

    The three-decade veteran of Border Patrol, who has used slick social media videos to promote the agency’s heavy-handed tactics, brought militarized operations once primarily used at the border into America’s largest cities.

    In Los Angeles this summer, contingents of heavily armed, masked agents began chasing down and arresting day laborers, street vendors and car wash workers. Tensions grew as the administration ordered in the National Guard.

    The efforts seem to have become more aggressive after a Supreme Court order allowed authorities to stop people based on factors such as race or ethnicity, employment and speaking Spanish.

    Bovino moved operations to Chicago and escalated his approach. Immigration agents launched an overnight raid in a crowded apartment, shot gas into crowds of protesters and fatally shot one man.

    Now Bovino is expected to hand-pick some of the replacements at ICE field offices, according to Fox News.

    Tom Wong, who directs the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego, said the leadership changes are unsurprising, given Bovino’s strategies in Los Angeles and Chicago.

    “The Trump administration is blurring the distinction between Border Patrol and ICE,” he said. “The border is no longer just the external boundaries of the United States, but the border is everywhere.”

    Former Homeland Security officials said the large-scale replacement of executives from one agency with those from another agency is unprecedented.

    The two agencies have similar authorities but very different approaches, said Daniel Altman, former head of internal oversight investigations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    ICE officers operate largely inside the country, lean heavily on investigations and typically know when they set out for the day who they are targeting.

    Border Patrol, on the other hand, patrols the borderlands for anyone they encounter and suspect of entering illegally. Amid the rugged terrain and isolation, Border Patrol built a do-it-yourself ethos within the century-old organization, Altman said.

    “Culturally, the Border Patrol prides itself on solving problems, and that means that whatever the current administration needs or wants with respect to immigration enforcement, they’re usually very willing and able to do that,” said Altman.

    White House leadership has not been happy with arrest numbers. Stephen Miller, President Trump’s deputy chief of staff who is heading his immigration initiatives, set a goal of 3,000 immigration arrests per day, which the agency has not been able to meet.

    DHS says it expects to deport 600,000 people by January, a figure that includes people who were turned back at the border or at airports.

    Tricia McLaughlin, assistant public affairs secretary for the Homeland Security department, didn’t confirm or deny the changes but described immigration officials as united.

    “Talk about sensationalism,” she said. “Only the media would describe standard agency personnel changes as a ‘massive shakeup.’ If and when we have specific personnel moves to announce, we’ll do that.”

    White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “The President’s entire team is working in lockstep to implement the President’s policy agenda, and the tremendous results from securing the border to deporting criminal illegal aliens speak for themselves.”

    On Fox News on Tuesday, Trump’s border czar Tom Homan said the administration is dedicated to achieving record deportations of primarily immigrants with criminal records.

    “As far as personnel changes, that’s under the purview of the Secretary of Homeland Security,” he said. “I’m at the White House working with people like Stephen Miller, one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met, to come up with strategic policies and plans — how to get success, how to maintain success, and how to get the numbers ever higher.”

    Deborah Fleischaker, a former ICE and DHS official under the Biden administration, said the personnel moves appear to be an “attempt to migrate a Border Patrol ethos over to ICE.”

    “ICE’s job has historically focused on targeting and enforcing against public safety threats,” she said. “Border Patrol has a much more highly militarized job of securing the border, protecting against transnational crime and drug trafficking and smuggling. That sort of approach doesn’t belong in our cities and is quite dangerous.”

    Fleischaker said it would be difficult to increase deportations, even with Border Patrol leaders at the helm, because of the complexities around securing travel documents and negotiating with countries that are reticent to accept deportees.

    In the meantime, she said, shunting well-liked leaders will sink morale.

    “For the folks who are still there, everybody knows you comply or you risk losing your job,” she said. “Dissent, failure to meet targets or even ask questions aren’t really tolerated.”

    On Tuesday, DHS posted a video montage of Bovino on its Instagram page set to Coldplay’s song “Viva la vida.” The caption read, “WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED.”

    Staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

    Andrea Castillo, Rachel Uranga

    Source link

  • Obama endorses redrawing California congressional districts to counter Trump

    Former President Obama endorsed California Democrats’ plans to redraw congressional districts if Texas or another Republican-led state does so to increase the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of Congress after next year’s midterm election.

    Obama said that while he opposes partisan gerrymandering, Republicans in Texas acting at President Trump’s behest have forced Democrats’ hand.

    If Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy,” he said at a fundraiser Tuesday in Martha’s Vineyard that was first reported by the Associated Press on Wednesday.

    “I wanted just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas, and take it to the voters and see what happens,” Obama said, “… but we cannot unilaterally allow one of the two major parties to rig the game. And California is one of the states that has the capacity to offset a large state like Texas.”

    Redistricting typically only occurs once a decade, after the census, to account for population shifts. In 2010, Californians voted to create an independent redistricting commission to end partisan gerrymandering. California’s 52 congressional districts were last redrawn in 2021.

    Earlier this summer, Trump urged Texas leaders to redraw its congressional boundaries to increase the number of Republicans in Congress. Led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Democrats responded and proposed redrawing the state’s district lines and putting the matter before voters in a special election in November.

    The issue came to a head this week, with Texas lawmakers expected to vote on their new districts on Wednesday, and California legislators expected to vote on Thursday to call the special election.

    Obama called Newsom’s approach “responsible,” because the matter will ultimately be decided by voters, and if approved, would only go into effect if Texas or another state embarks on a mid-decade redistricting, and line-drawing would revert to the independent commission after the 2030 census.

    “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time,” Obama said.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Obama applauds Newsom’s California redistricting plan as ‘responsible’ as Texas GOP pushes new maps

    Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the wake of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections. “I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama’s attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared.The former president’s comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors, including Newsom, have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party’s position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures.In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state’s dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight for control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation’s most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43.A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval.Newsom and Democratic leaders say they’ll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline.”And we’re going to do it in a temporary basis because we’re keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,” Obama said, referencing Newsom’s take on the California plan. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”___Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAPSee more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the wake of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections.

    “I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”

    While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama’s attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared.

    The former president’s comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.

    Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors, including Newsom, have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party’s position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures.

    In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state’s dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight for control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation’s most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43.

    A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval.

    Newsom and Democratic leaders say they’ll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline.

    “And we’re going to do it in a temporary basis because we’re keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,” Obama said, referencing Newsom’s take on the California plan. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”

    ___

    Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • ‘Very aggressive treatment’ on the streets of Skid Row from a renegade M.D.

    ‘Very aggressive treatment’ on the streets of Skid Row from a renegade M.D.

    The team gathered at 4th and Crocker streets and headed south, into the blue-tented netherworld of social collapse, armed with life-saving drug-overdose kits and injectable, long-acting anti-psychotic medication.

    “We’re trying very aggressive treatment on the streets,” said Dr. Susan Partovi. “Housing definitely saves your life, but there’s a small sub-group of people who won’t accept housing because of their mental illness.”

    She figures that if she administers medication that lasts a month and can help stabilize patients — with their consent — they’ve got a chance.

    “They don’t think there’s anything wrong, and they think they don’t need housing,” Partovi said. “They don’t think rationally, and so once you treat their delusions and their irrationality, they start to realize, ‘Oh, I do need resources.’ ”

    California is about to be hit by an aging population wave, and Steve Lopez is riding it. His column focuses on the blessings and burdens of advancing age — and how some folks are challenging the stigma associated with older adults.

    Partovi, who began practicing street medicine in 2007 in Santa Monica, has never been shy about her lack of patience with the official response to the entrenched humanitarian crisis. In 2017, I shadowed her as she walked through Skid Row with County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, advocating for broader authority to assist those in obvious acute mental and physical distress, even if they refused help, and despite opposition from civil rights attorneys and others.

    By administering long-acting meds, Partovi—author of the just-published “Renegade M.D.: A Doctor’s Stories From the Streets”—is once again pushing boundaries. She’s acting out of a belief that her approach is medically sound, and with frustration sharpened by her street-level view of the countless bureaucratic cracks and canyons in the system. She’s driven, too, by an uncompromising compassion for homeless people who are so sick, she can sometimes predict who will die next.

    Critics might say a person in the throes of impairment isn’t competent to give consent for a month-long dose of medication, and that such meds are neither a panacea nor a substitute for intensive ongoing case management. But to Partovi, the slow pace of intervention — along with multiple daily deaths on the streets — add up to a human rights violation and a moral failure, so she’s stepping into the breach.

    But she’s not a psychiatrist, and her street medicine team’s approach is not fully embraced by the L.A. County Department of Mental Health. DMH has psychiatric street medicine teams operating in several parts of the county. The Skid Row unit —which is led by Dr. Shayan Rab and injcludes psychiatric nurses, social workers and addiction counselors, and sometimes conducts sidewalk court hearings for those who resist treatment — was featured in a September 2022 article by my colleague Doug Smith.

    Sally Flores waits to receive medical attention from outreach workers with Substance Use Disorder Integrated Services.

    Dr. Susan Partovi, left, and Dr. Steven Hochman talk to a woman during their medical outreach.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    Dr. Curley Bonds, chief medical officer of the department, says DMH psychiatrists first establish a working relationship with the client and invest time in determining a clinical history, including prescribed medications and dosage. It can be difficult, he said, to distinguish between psychosis and the effects of street drugs like methamphetamine, but trained psychiatrists have an advantage over doctors with other specialties. Treatment would ordinarily begin with short-term oral medication, Bonds said, to establish the “efficacy and tolerability of the agent.”

    Only then would long-acting injectables be an option, he continued, but even then, the civil rights of the patient would have to be a consideration.

    “We are more cautious about making sure there is informed consent and … we really want to respect a person’s autonomy for decision-making,” Bonds said. Despite procedural differences and quibbles over the Partovi team’s approach, Bonds added, “I don’t want to put us at odds with them … because what they are doing is important work.”

    A glance at the reality on the streets of Los Angeles makes clear that far more help and substantially greater urgency are badly needed. And Partovi is not alone in practicing what she calls “low barrier bridge psychiatry.”

    Dr. Coley King, director of homeless healthcare at the Venice Family Clinic, is not a psychiatrist, either. But as a street medic in L.A., the national capital of homelessness, he works in what is essentially an outdoor mental hospital, with tents instead of beds. King treats mental illness and whatever else he sees — and what, often, no one else is treating.

    He told me he has used both short-term and long-term anti-psychotics, depending on the situation. The risks posed by medication are not as great, he said, as the risk of being homeless, sick and untreated.

    “The need is so dire, and the patients are dying at such a young age, and the lack of available psychiatry is so marked,” said King, who leads a street medicine team through Westside streets four days a week and often works with a psychiatric nurse practitioner. “We’re not doing this in any sort of cavalier fashion. We’re doing it very thoughtfully with a mind to knowing our medications and knowing our diagnosis and treatment are based on a ton of experience and a lot of exposure to working side-by-side with psychiatrists in the field.”

    In 2020, I wrote about a formerly homeless Santa Monica woman whose life had been turned around after King treated her for her addiction and physical and mental ailments. The treatment included a long-acting injection the woman agreed to, and when I met her, she was living in a hotel before moving into housing arranged by the outreach team.

    ::

    When I met with Partovi last month on Skid Row, her team consisted of Dr. Steven Hochman, an addiction specialist; David Dadiomov, director of USC’s psychiatry pharmacy program; and social worker Sylvia Meza. It was Meza who established this nonprofit outreach team — it’s called SUDIS, for Substance Use Disorder Integrated Services — and brought in Partovi as medical director last year.

    Overdose bags contain Naloxone, a medication designed to reverse an opioid overdose, were distributed.

    Overdose bags contain Naloxone — a medication designed to reverse an opioid overdose — fentanyl strips to detect the presence of fentanyl and reading materials about avoiding overdose.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    As someone who works the aging beat, I was struck by how many of the people we encountered were late middle age and beyond. Partovi estimated that about 50% of the people served by the team are 50 and older.

    “They got caught up in Skid Row when they were young and were never able to get out of it,” Meza said. “Skid Row is like bondage. People are trapped in there. They have this poverty mentality where they feel like they can’t get out, but they can. It’s just about motivating them to see the cup as half full and not half empty.”

    A gray-haired man crossed the street before us, and just up ahead, 63-year-old Israel stood near a tent, not far from a woman named Diane, who said she was 60 and was caring for her two cats, Gold and Silver, along with two dogs owned by a woman who’s in jail.

    “That’s French Fry,” Partovi said as one of the dogs, a white terrier, crossed the street.

    She knew the dog’s name because that’s how outreach works— you get to know people, their routines, their histories, even their pets. Neither Diane nor Israel was interested in medication on this day, but a connection was made, the first step in building trust.

    Hochman spoke to Israel in Spanish and English, letting him know he’d be back again, and that medication was available. He told me the outreach team tries to determine a patient’s medical history, and at times does prescribe short-term medication if there are concerns about tolerability. But people often lose their daily medication, Hochman said. Or they forget to take it. Or it gets stolen, or swept away in storms or street-cleaning sweeps. A month-long dose can up the chances of turning things around.

    On Crocker Street, where the team distributed Narcan kits to slow the epidemic of overdose deaths, Meza was joking with a 68-year-old man when we noticed that Partovi, a half block away, was waving for the team to join her.

    Dr. Steven Hochman, left, Dr. Susan Partovi and Sylvia Meza check on the well-being of a man in downtown L.A.

    Dr. Steven Hochman, left, Dr. Susan Partovi and Sylvia Meza check on the well-being of a man in downtown Los Angeles.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    The doctor had spotted a woman she thought would be a candidate for an injection. Amanda, 51, said she had been diagnosed with two psychiatric conditions. She listed her most recent medications and said she wanted something to treat her depression.

    Partovi asked several questions, including whether Amanda had a history of adverse reactions. Partovi has a network of psychiatrists she can consult, but she didn’t think she needed to in this case. She informed Amanda that with the injection, she’d be medicated for a month. Amanda gave her approval.

    “I’m gonna hold your hand,” Meza said as Partovi rolled up Amanda’s sleeve and poked a syringe into the soft tissue of her right shoulder.

    “We want to do this every month,” Partovi said as Amanda grimaced from the sting.

    “Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, almost done,” Partovi said before adding: “OK, now you’re good.”

    Partovi said that in the best scenarios, the “word salad” dissipates, patients express themselves more clearly, and they make better decisions about recovery. “In my experience, once they get their mental health stabilized, then they want to work on substance abuse,” she said.

    I asked how she can distinguish between mental illness and the effects of drug use.

    “We’re not treating a diagnosis,” she said. “We’re treating symptoms. If someone is having psychiatric symptoms, the literature shows that whether it’s meth-related or organic schizophrenia, the anti-psychotics are going to work. That’s been my experience as well.”

    Among the homeless people of Skid Row or anywhere else, the back stories are usually long and messy narratives involving childhood trauma, domestic abuse, sexual assault, chronic disease, poverty, incarceration, a lack of affordable housing, mental illness and self-medication with increasingly dangerous street drugs.

    Amanda said she’d been homeless since 2017 after doing some jail time and that she couldn’t recall having a place of her own. Meza promised Amanda she would investigate options for housing and other services.

    “Do not lose my number,” Meza said, handing Amanda her business card. “This is my personal cell number.”

    They posed together for a photo, and then the team kept moving, getting approval for injections from two more clients over the next 20 minutes.

    I first connected with Partovi many years ago, after I’d met a homeless Juilliard-trained street musician whose career had been derailed after a diagnosis of mental illness. In full disclosure, at her request, I interviewed Partovi about her work and “Renegade M.D.” at her book-launch party last month.

    In the book — a compelling and personal front-lines look at who becomes homeless and why, complete with triumphs and tragedies and an unflinching examination of a fragmented system that is a often a barrier to recovery — Partovi says that as a Westside teenager, she traveled to a leprosy clinic in Mexico with a Christian service group and medical team. She knew then what she wanted to do with her life.

    “I made the commitment to become a doctor and focus on patients who experience the worlds of poverty and injustice,” she writes.

    In 2007, while working as a street doctor in Santa Monica, she came upon “a woman who looked to be in her 80s but was probably younger. Living on the streets ages people quickly.”

    She thought of her own grandmother, who had passed away in her 90s.

    “If my grandmother had wanted to panhandle on the Promenade in her flannel nightgown, I would have picked her up … and thrown her into my car. … I would never allow my family member to live on the streets. … Why do we, as a society, allow it?”

    steve.lopez@latimes.com

    Steve Lopez

    Source link

  • Older Americans Are About to Lose a Lot of Weight

    Older Americans Are About to Lose a Lot of Weight


    Imagine an older man goes in to see his doctor. He’s 72 years old and moderately overweight: 5-foot-10, 190 pounds. His blood tests show high levels of triglycerides. Given his BMI—27.3—the man qualifies for taking semaglutide or tirzepatide, two of the wildly popular injectable drugs for diabetes and obesity that have produced dramatic weight loss in clinical trials. So he asks for a prescription, because his 50th college reunion is approaching and he’d like to get back to his freshman-year weight.

    He certainly could use these drugs to lose weight, says Thomas Wadden, a clinical psychologist and obesity researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, who recently laid out this hypothetical in an academic paper. But should he? And what about the tens of millions of Americans 65 and older who aren’t simply trying to slim down for a cocktail party, but live with diagnosable obesity? Should they be on Wegovy or Zepbound?

    Already, seniors make up 26.6 percent of the people who have been prescribed these and other GLP-1 agonists, including Ozempic, since 2018, according to a report from Truveta, which draws data from a large network of health-care systems. In the coming years, that proportion could rise even higher: The bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, introduced in Congress last July, would allow Medicare to cover drug treatments for obesity among its roughly 50 million Part D enrollees above the age of 65; in principle, about two-fifths of that number would qualify as patients. Even if this law doesn’t pass (and it’s been introduced half a dozen times since 2012), America’s retirees will continue to be prescribed these drugs for diabetes in enormous numbers, and they’ll be losing weight on them as well. One way or another, the Boomers will be giving shape to our Ozempic Age.

    Economists say the cost to Medicare of giving new drugs for obesity to just a fraction of this aging generation would be staggering—$13.6 billion a year, according to an estimate published in The New England Journal of Medicine last March. But the health effects of such a program might also be unsettling. Until recently, the very notion of prescribing any form of weight loss whatsoever to an elderly patient—i.e., someone 65 or older—was considered suspect, even dangerous. “Advising weight loss in obese older adults is still shunned in the medical community,” the geriatric endocrinologist Dennis Villareal and his co-authors wrote in a 2013 “review of the controversy” for a medical journal. More than a decade later, clinicians are still struggling to reach consensus on safety, Villareal told me.

    Ample research shows that interventions for seniors with obesity can resolve associated complications. Wadden helped run a years-long, randomized trial of dramatic calorie reduction—using liquid meal replacements, in part—and stringent exercise advice for thousands of overweight adults with type 2 diabetes. “Clearly the people who were older did have benefits in terms of improved glycemic control and blood-pressure control,” he told me. Other, smaller studies led by Villareal find that older people who succeed at losing weight through diet and exercise end up feeling more robust.

    Such outcomes are significant on their own terms, says John Batsis, who treats and studies geriatric obesity at the UNC School of Medicine. “When we talk about older adults, we really need to be thinking about what’s important to older adults,” he told me. “It’s for them to be able to get on the floor and play with their grandchildren, or to be able to walk down the hallway without being completely exhausted.” But weight loss can also have adverse effects. When a person addresses their obesity through dieting alone, as much as 25 percent of the weight they lose derives from loss of muscle, bone, and other fat-free tissue. For seniors who, through natural aging, are already near the threshold of developing a functional impairment, a sudden drop like this could be enfeebling. Wadden’s trial found that, among the people who were on the weight-loss program for more than a decade, their risk of fracture to the hip, shoulder, upper arm, or pelvis increased by 39 percent. An analogous increase has turned up in studies of patients who undergo bariatric surgery, Batsis told me.

    The effect of dieting on muscle and bone can be attenuated, but not prevented, through resistance training. And obesity itself—which is associated with higher bone density, but perhaps also reduced bone quality—may pose its own fracture risks, Batsis said. But even when a weight-loss treatment benefits an older patient, what happens when it ends? People tend to regain fat, but they don’t recover bone and muscle, Debra Waters, the director of gerontology research at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, told me. That makes the long-term effects of these interventions for older adults very murky. “What happens when they’re 80? Are they going to have really poor bone quality, and be at higher risk of fracture? We don’t know,” Waters said. “It’s a pretty big gamble to take, in my opinion.”

    Villareal told me that doctors should apply “the general principle of starting slow and going slow” when their older patients are trying to lose weight. But that approach doesn’t necessarily square with the rapid and remarkable weight loss seen in patients who are taking semaglutide or tirzepatide, which may produce a greater proportional loss of muscle and bone. (For semaglutide, it appears to be about 40 percent.)

    Then again, when given to laboratory animals, GLP-1 drugs seem to tamp down inflammation in the brain; and they’re now in clinical trials to see whether they might slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Their multiple established benefits could also help seniors address several chronic problems—diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease, and kidney disease, for instance—all at once. “Such a ‘one-stop shop’ approach can lead to reduction of medication burden, adverse drug events, hypoglycemic episodes, medication costs, and treatment nonadherence,” one team of geriatricians proposed in 2019.

    Overall, Batsis remains optimistic. “As a clinician, I’m very excited about these medications,” he told me. As a scientist, though, he’s inclined to wait and see. It’s surely true that some degree of weight loss is a great idea for some older patients. “But the million-dollar question is: What’s the sweet spot? How much weight is really enough? Is it 5 to 10 percent? Or is it 25 percent? We don’t know.” Waters said that if Medicare is going to pay for people’s Wegovy, then it should also cover scans of their body composition, to help predict how weight loss might affect their muscles and bones. Wadden said he thinks that treatments should be limited to people who have specific, weight-related complications. For everyone else—as for the hypothetical 72-year-old man who is prepping for his college reunion—he counsels prudence.

    To some extent, such advice is beside the point. Older people are already on Ozempic, and they’re already on Trulicity, and some of them are already taking GLP-1 drugs as a treatment for obesity. Truveta reported that the patients in its member health-care systems who are over 65 have received 281,000 prescriptions for GLP-1 drugs across the past five years. Given the network’s size, one can assume that at least 1 million seniors, overall, have already tried these medications. Millions more will try them in the years to come. If we still have questions about their use, mass experience will start providing answers.



    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • Charles Munger, who helped build one of the greatest fortunes in U.S. history, has died

    Charles Munger, who helped build one of the greatest fortunes in U.S. history, has died

    Charles Munger helped build one of the greatest fortunes in U.S. history, but he often explained his success in terms that sounded deceptively uncomplicated.

    “Take a simple idea and take it seriously.”

    “Load up on the very few insights you have instead of pretending to know everything about everything at all times.”

    And above all, he stressed the need for patience and a long-term investment view — an approach that has vanished from much of Wall Street in recent decades.

    In his trademark curmudgeonly style, Munger advised investors to take stakes in a relative handful of great companies and then “just sit on your ass.”

    Munger, the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren E. Buffett, died Tuesday at a California hospital, according to Berkshire Hathaway, where he was vice chairman.

    “Berkshire Hathaway could not have been built to its present status without Charlie’s inspiration, wisdom and participation,” Buffett said in a press release.

    Though born in Omaha, like Buffett, Munger lived in Los Angeles most of his life. And for the most part, he shunned the media spotlight that Buffett often relished.

    Munger sometimes was described as Buffett’s “sidekick,” but that grossly understated his influence on Buffett, who is six years his junior.

    Buffett said he never made a major investing decision without consulting Munger as the two presided over the explosive growth of their company, Berkshire Hathaway, into an American business icon.

    Berkshire, with over $1 trillion in assets, owns such well-known brands as insurance company Geico, the BNSF railroad, See’s Candies, Fruit of the Loom and Dairy Queen.

    After meeting Munger at a dinner party in Omaha in 1959, Buffett — then an ambitious but novice investor — said he quickly realized that there was “only one partner who fit my bill of particulars in every way: Charlie.”

    Buffett’s wife, the late Susie Buffett, once wrote of the two men that “both thought the other was the smartest guy they ever met.”

    In the last decade Munger’s name has become better known, at least among serious investors, as he shared the spotlight with Buffett at Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting. The two became a nightclub act of sorts, peppering sage investment advice with one-liners that kept the crowd of thousands enraptured.

    One of Munger’s most famous zingers encapsulated his frequently acerbic wit: “I’m right, and you’re smart, and sooner or later you’ll see I’m right.”

    Charles Thomas Munger was born on Jan. 1, 1924, in Omaha to Al and Florence Munger. His father was a lawyer, and his grandfather had been a federal judge.

    As described by Michael Broggie in the 2005 book “Poor Charlie’s Almanack: The Wit and Wisdom of Charles T. Munger,” Munger’s family fared comparatively well during the Great Depression.

    Still, young Charlie was expected to work. One of his first jobs was clerking — for $2 per 12-hour shift — at Buffett & Son, an upscale Omaha grocery run by Warren Buffett’s grandfather. But Munger never met the younger Buffett during their youth.

    A voracious reader whose hero was Benjamin Franklin, Munger showed an aptitude for business early on when he began to raise hamsters to trade with other kids.

    “Even at an early age, Charlie showed sagacious negotiating ability, and usually gained a bigger specimen or one with unusual coloring,” Broggie wrote.

    After high school, Munger enrolled at the University of Michigan as a math major, but he left in 1943 to join the war effort. He enlisted in the Army Air Forces and was trained in meteorology at Caltech in Pasadena.

    Though he lacked a bachelor’s degree, Munger in 1946 decided to apply to Harvard Law School. He was accepted after a family friend intervened.

    Munger excelled at Harvard, graduating magna cum laude. His first law job was at Wright & Garrett in Los Angeles.

    But in his personal life, Munger struggled. At age 21 he had married Nancy Huggins, a family friend. They divorced in 1953, when Munger was 29.

    Shortly afterward the oldest of their three children, Teddy, was diagnosed with leukemia. He died at age 9.

    In 1956 Munger married Nancy Barry Borthwick, a Stanford University economics graduate. They had met through Munger’s friend Roy Tolles. Borthwick had two sons from her first marriage. She and Munger had four more children together.

    The size of the family was key to Munger’s fateful decision to shift career tracks from law to investing.

    “Nancy and I supported eight children,” Munger said in 1996. “And I didn’t realize that the law was going to get as prosperous as it suddenly got.”

    He put it another way to Janet Lowe, who wrote the biography “Damn Right! Behind the Scenes with Berkshire Hathaway Billionaire Charlie Munger” in 2000.

    “Like Warren, I had a considerable passion to get rich,” Munger told Lowe. “Not because I wanted Ferraris — I wanted the independence. I desperately wanted it.”

    In 1962 Munger co-founded the L.A. law firm Munger Tolles & Hills (today known as Munger Tolles & Olson). But by then his investing pursuits were already taking up much of his time.

    Though he began trading investment ideas with Buffett in 1959, from 1962 to 1975 Munger was mostly focused on building his own stock investment fund, Wheeler, Munger & Co., according to biographer Broggie.

    Munger racked up strong returns in the fund, but, like most investors, he was hit hard in the deep bear market of 1973-74, amid the first Arab oil embargo.

    After the market rebounded in 1975, Munger decided to stop directly managing money for others. Instead, he joined with Buffett in investing via the “holding company” concept: The two would buy businesses and make stock investments through a publicly traded company. They would control the firm by virtue of their large stake in it, but other investors could buy the company’s shares if they wanted to join in as essentially silent partners.

    Their primary vehicle was Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Munger became vice chairman of the firm in 1978.

    Munger also ran a smaller holding company, Pasadena-based Wesco Financial, which was majority-owned by Berkshire. It was merged into Berkshire in 2011. Separately, Munger headed Daily Journal Corp., an L.A.-based publisher of legal newspapers, including the L.A. Daily Journal.

    But Berkshire’s success is what made Munger’s name synonymous with brilliant investing.

    Buffett credited Munger with refining the former’s basic “value” approach to investing. Buffett was a devotee of Ben Graham, the father of the value school, which preached the discipline of buying shares only in companies that met rigid financial criteria.

    Munger, however, convinced Buffett that a long-term investor could prosper by focusing on the very best companies — even if they didn’t meet all of Graham’s value requirements.

    Munger’s approach was crystallized in his most famous investing maxim: “A great business at a fair price is superior to a fair business at a great price.”

    Munger “expanded my horizons,” Buffett has said.

    That, in turn, led to Berkshire’s purchases of huge stakes over the years in such blue-chip companies as Coca-Cola, American Express, IBM and Wells Fargo, in addition to the dozens of companies Berkshire owns outright.

    Munger, who owned a small fraction of of Berkshire stock, was listed on the Forbes roster with a net worth of $1.7 billion.

    Later in life, Munger at times became almost apologetic for his financial success. In a 1998 speech he bemoaned the allure of Wall Street for talented young people, “as distinguished from work providing much more value to others.”

    “Early Charlie Munger is a horrible career model for the young, because not enough was delivered to civilization for what was wrested from capitalism,” he said.

    He was an outspoken critic of excessive executive pay. He and Buffett drew annual salaries of $100,000 at Berkshire, a pittance compared with what most top Fortune 500 executives are paid.

    Still, his Berkshire stock wealth enabled Munger to make some large charitable gifts in his life.

    He was a longtime benefactor and board chairman of Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles. He also funded a science center at Harvard-Westlake School in L.A. and a research center at the Huntington Library.

    In higher education, Munger said he wanted to foster more dialogue and mixing of ideas on campus. In 2004 he gave $43.5 million for a graduate residence adjacent to Stanford Law School. In April 2013 Munger donated $110 million in stock for a graduate residence at the University of Michigan.

    Though a self-described conservative Republican (in contrast to Buffett, a Democrat), on some issues Munger defied the conservative stereotype. He was a longtime supporter of Planned Parenthood, for example, and fought in the 1960s to legalize abortion.

    “I’m more conservative, but I’m not a typical Colonel Blimp,” Munger said in 1996, referring to the jingoistic, reactionary British cartoon character.

    Munger’s wife, Nancy Barry Munger, died in 2010.

    Petruno is a former Times staff writer.

    Tom Petruno

    Source link

  • Monarch: Legacy of Monsters takes the Watchmen approach to a Godzilla show

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters takes the Watchmen approach to a Godzilla show

    The rise of franchise-first pop culture has made what was previously a genre stumbling block into everyone’s problem: Exposition. Specifically, the stuff we call “lore.” When every big show or movie has to connect to something else, those connections aren’t always graceful. Especially when you need to work in how your villain was in the Amazon with your mom when she was researching spiders right before she died.

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, Apple TV Plus’ extremely good mystery-thriller based on Legendary Pictures’ MonsterVerse, deftly dances around every major pitfall modern mega-franchises happily dive into. The series packs the frame with fascinating little details that unobtrusively build out the world of the show without having characters explain much of anything. It’s thoughtful in its visual design in a way that recalls HBO’s Watchmen, another show full of extensive references to a prior work, carefully building out a story that stood on its own.

    The similarity is more than superficial. Both shows are very interested in the background construction of a political and cultural apparatus predicated on one massive, divergent event in history. Both shows have clearly had writers do a ton of mapping out the ways in which their fictional worlds were similar and the ways in which they diverged, and instead of having characters recite endless factoids better served by a wiki, they merely depict the characters living in that world. It’s for the viewer to notice the ways in which it is different.

    Image: Apple TV Plus

    The early episodes of Monarch are filled with details like this. Passengers on a commercial flight are sprayed down by men in hazmat suits after an international trip, airline corridors have clearly marked Godzilla evacuation routes, and installations of military weaponry stand ready for another Titan appearance.

    This, coupled with the show’s noteworthy focus on human drama about two siblings whose father kept them from each other, gives Monarch a thematic richness that surprises and delights. If the big, cacophonous MonsterVerse movies use their kaiju as a metaphor for humanity’s disregard for the planet on a grand scale, then Monarch personalizes that devastation. Not just by showing what it’s like to try and adhere to normalcy after surviving a spectacular catastrophe, but in showing how the men and women who chased these monsters over generations shattered their families to pursue their reckless work — work that would in turn shatter the planet.

    Monarch is less openly about thorny, difficult topics than Watchmen was. You won’t find, for example, provocative explorations of race in America. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a show for these times. Much like Watchmen found new relevance in its revisitation of a comic book from 1986, Monarch finds depths to plumb in the haphazard cinematic universe that was jury-rigged around Gareth Edwards’ 2014 Godzilla remake. In it, we can see a consideration of humanity’s struggles to navigate a collective disaster, a casual reflection of our inability to solve great crises without militarism, and the way institutions warp fear of collapse into an excuse to control more of our lives. The story may be set in 2015, but few genre shows feel more 2023.

    Joshua Rivera

    Source link

  • Back In The Office? Why Your Company’s One-Size-Fits-All Approach Is Destined to Fail. | Entrepreneur

    Back In The Office? Why Your Company’s One-Size-Fits-All Approach Is Destined to Fail. | Entrepreneur

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Many organizations adopt a broad-brush approach to hybrid work that fails to differentiate between various departments and roles. For example, Comcast told every employee to come to the office every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and work remotely Monday and Friday. Apple asked all of its employees to come in on Tuesday, Thursday, and one more day that each department gets to pick.

    Such indiscriminate treatment generally indicates the leadership of a company did not adopt hybrid work willingly. Instead, their hand was forced by employees threatening to leave without at least some flexibility. Indeed, both Apple and Comcast employees explicitly threatened to quit over the heavy-handed return-to-office plans, and some did so. For instance, the head of Apple’s AI team resigned due to Apple’s lack of flexibility.

    As a result of being dragged kicking and screaming into allowing at least some work from home, the leadership of such companies fails to optimize their approach to hybrid work, undermining its potential for a major boost to productivity, retention, and cutting costs. Having worked with 24 organizations to help them transition to hybrid work, I can attest that getting the true benefits from hybrid work requires creating a customized decision framework for different departments and roles.

    With 79% of all companies switching to hybrid work, according to the EY Work Reimagined Employer Survey, such poor decision-making around this work modality both harms the bottom lines of individual companies and also causes a harmful drag on the economy as a whole. Not surprisingly, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity decreased significantly in the first quarter of 2022 when workers returned to in-person work environments with a drop of 7.5%; that fall marks the largest reduction in productivity since 1947. The second quarter also saw a large productivity decrease at 4.6%. By contrast, productivity increased sharply in the first two years of the pandemic, and that boost occurred specifically in the industries where much of the work can be done remotely such as IT and finance, as found by a recent National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study; while industries that require more in-person work fell behind in productivity measures.

    Related: Why Hybrid Work Will Win Out Over Remote and In-Person — Whether You Like It or Not.

    The basis for the hybrid work model decision framework

    The basis for the decision framework centers around two distinct questions. First, what kind of work is best done remotely, and what in the office? Second, what type of work is done in each department and by different roles within them?

    To answer the first question, we need to recognize that extensive investigations illustrate workers are fine with the office itself. What they don’t like is the commute, which takes many hours per week and costs many thousands of dollars per year.

    So the tasks that employees can easily and productively do at home should be done there. And those tasks include the large majority of what many employees do: individual-focused work, asynchronous collaboration and communication, and videoconference and phone meetings. By contrast, the office is best suited for more intense and synchronous collaboration and communication, challenging conversations, cultivating team belonging and organizational culture, mentoring, on-the-job learning and leadership development.

    Answering the first question shows the problematic nature of decreeing a fixed number of days of more than half the work week in the office for all staff, as did Apple and Comcast. Staff in various departments and roles have a different balance of the kind of work they do; their time and efforts are wasted if they do the wrong work in the wrong place, such as coming to the office and doing videoconference meetings. According to Stuart Templeton, the head of Slack in the U.K., “making a two-hour commute to sit on video calls is a terrible use of the office” and kills productivity. Moreover, it breeds staff frustration and resentment, leading to retention problems and higher costs due to replacing talented employees.

    Instead, a decision framework needs to factor in the specific kind of work done in different departments and by specific roles in each department. For example, consider the finance department. Most of the activities of individual accountants involve solitary number crunching, with occasional asynchronous communication and collaboration. However, the end of a quarter, and especially the end of the fiscal year, usually involves more intense and synchronous collaboration. Thus, my clients find that it works best to have accountants come in once every couple of weeks during much of the year. But then, for the last week of a quarter and for the last two weeks of the year, accountants come in nearly every day.

    While this pattern fits the role of most accountants, some accountants occupy more specialized roles. A case in point: auditors. They have a different pattern of work, which involves intense collaboration when preparing for and launching an audit. Next follows individual-focused work analyzing their findings. The end of an audit features intense collaboration — with some challenging conversations. That pattern demands a distinct approach to coming to the office to fit the needs of their particular roles within the accounting department.

    The sales department has its own particularities, depending on what kind of sales a company does. For one of my clients, a B2B IT service provider, sales involve frequent phone calls. My client found it helpful in developing junior sales staff to have them sit together with more experienced salespeople with both making calls. Recently hired staff learned tips and tricks from how senior staff handled sales calls; in turn, experienced salespeople listened to the calls made by newer staff and provided quick feedback on improvements. As another benefit, the kind of sales they do involves frequent rejection, which can be demotivating: having everyone make calls together provides motivation and helps everyone celebrate wins. As a result, the sales team decided to come to the office three days a week to make phone calls and spent the other two days on more individual work at home.

    For a financial management company, the analyst department found it most useful to spend the large majority of time at home. They did individual tasks such as evaluating data and preparing their own initial versions of predictions and recommendations. But then they came together once a month for several days in the office to synthesize the data, hash out differences and develop company-wide predictions and recommendations they could provide to clients about what investments to make for strong risk-adjusted returns.

    In a Fortune 500 consumer products manufacturing company, the HR department had a more differentiated approach based on specific roles. Some staff who handled back-end HR functions worked mostly from home, coming together once a week for socializing and team building. The training staff in the HR department had a more varied approach. They provided some in-person as well as remote training to different business units in that company and came to the office mostly on the days of in-person training events. For a different case in point, recruiters operated largely independently of everyone else; the department found it cost-effective to allow them to work full-time remotely. Another type of role was the HR business partner, who functioned as a support person to the operational manager of each individual product team in the company. They adopted a pattern that reflected the specifics of the department that they supported.

    How to tailor the hybrid work model decision framework

    To tailor the hybrid work decision framework to each department and role, the company’s leadership team should start by determining some broad guidelines and budgeting priorities. Thus, some of my clients closed subsidiary offices, which made it impractical for many staff members to come to the office except for truly important events; others decided to save on salary costs by hiring some fully remote staff in lower cost-of-living areas for individual contributor roles that did not require intense collaboration.

    After that, educate your staff —and especially middle managers who lead departments and teams within them — about what tasks are best done at home and what at the office. Create a broad understanding and acceptance among the management of the burden of the commute and the need to minimize it for the sake of retention, productivity and cutting costs.

    Next, each department should develop an initial plan for itself. This process needs to involve the staff as well as department leaders, to garner buy-in from all staff. According to a November Gallup survey, 46% of employees who work in a hybrid setting reported feeling engaged when their team is able to make their own decisions about when to come into the office. On the other hand, 35% said they feel engaged when leadership determines the policy for the entire team.

    Notably, only 41% of respondents indicated that they are engaged if everyone made the decision individually. This finding might seem counterintuitive. Indeed, when I run focus groups in client organizations, the large majority would prefer to make the choice by themselves. However, the result of such an approach is people coming to the office and not seeing the members of their teams and departments there. The result is disengagement since collaboration is the whole point of coming to the office and braving the commute. That problem highlights the value of coordination at the level of departments, roles and teams.

    Related: You Should Let Your Team Decide Their Approach to Hybrid Work. A Behavioral Economist Explains Why and How You Should Do It.

    Conclusion

    After developing this initial plan, treat it as a draft rather than set in stone. Experiment for a couple of months and measure the success of your decision framework. After three months, have each department reassess the initial plan and update it based on what they found worked well and what needed improvement. This customized hybrid work model decision framework most effectively combines department-level coordination with rank-and-file buy-in from those in different roles and teams, helping my clients gain the best balance of productivity, retention and cutting costs.

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link