Quantcast
Channel: ProPublica
Viewing all 7816 articles
Browse latest View live

Pro-Russian Bots Take Up the Right-Wing Cause After Charlottesville

$
0
0

Angee Dixson joined Twitter on Aug. 8 and immediately began posting furiously — about 90 times a day. A self-described American Christian conservative, Dixson defended President Donald Trump’s response to the unrest in Charlottesville, criticized the removal of Confederate monuments and posted pictures purporting to show violence by left-wing counterprotesters.

“Dems and Media Continue to IGNORE BLM and Antifa Violence in Charlottesville,” she wrote above a picture of masked demonstrators labeled “DEMOCRAT TERROR.”

But Dixson appears to have been a fake, according to an analysis by Ben Nimmo, a fellow with the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank. The account has been shut down. Dixson’s profile picture was stolen from a young Instagram celebrity (a German model rumored to have dated Leonardo DiCaprio). Dixson used a URL shortener that is a tell for the sort of computer program that automatically churns out high volumes of social media posts whose authorship is frequently disguised. And one of her tweets attacked Sen. John McCain for his alleged support of Ukrainian neo-Nazis, echoing language in tweets from Russian outlets RT and Sputnik.

A screenshot of one of Angee Dixson's tweets, before the account was suspended (Twitter)

The same social media networks that spread Russian propaganda during the 2016 election have been busily amplifying right-wing extremism surrounding the recent violence in Charlottesville, according to researchers who monitor the activity. It’s impossible to tell how much of the traffic originates from Russia or from mercenary sources. But there were hordes of automated bots generating Twitter posts and much more last week to help make right-wing conspiracy theories and rallying cries about Charlottesville go viral.

A sample of 600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations have been promoting hashtags for Charlottesville such as “antifa,” a term for activists on the far left; and “alt-left,” a term Trump used, which was interpreted by many as suggesting an equivalence between liberal demonstrators and white nationalists in the so-called alt-right.

The sample includes accounts that are openly pro-Russian like state-controlled outlets RT and Sputnik, which a joint U.S. intelligence assessment concluded are “part of Russia’s state-run propaganda machine.” The sample also includes those, like “Angee Dixson’s,” that seem to be written by typical Americans. And it follows automated bots that help make messages go viral and even users around the world who spread the Kremlin’s messages whether or not they mean to support Russia. The network is tracked by four researchers working with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a project of the German Marshall Fund that seeks to expose efforts to undermine Western democracy.

“The Russian influence networks we track are definitely amplifying the broader alt-right chatter about Charlottesville,” one of the researchers, J.M. Berger, said. “The major themes they have been pushing are the ‘both sides are violent’ argument and conspiracy theories that George Soros was behind the counter-protests, although the latter has been trending more sporadically.”

The latest Soros accusation, which PolitiFact found to be baseless, shows another aspect of how messages snowball as they pass between the American right-wing and Russian propagandists, according to Nimmo. A U.S. right-winger asserts a “fact,” a Russian news agency fuses it with a Kremlin narrative, and then American right-wing websites parrot the Russian news agency’s assertion.

Soros, a Hungarian-American investor and major Democratic donor, long ago became a frequent bugaboo for the Kremlin and for Republicans. He funds the Open Society Foundations, which support democracy and development around the world — and they have given money to ProPublica, including its Documenting Hate project, while accounting for less than 3 percent of ProPublica’s revenue so far this year. Many recipients of Soros’ contributions are viewed as politically liberal, but some right-wingers and the Kremlin tend to see his hand (or more precisely, his wallet) in any action they perceive as left-wing.

The accusation that Soros was behind the Charlottesville counter-protesters appeared to have been first uttered by Alex Jones, the conservative conspiracy theorist and provocateur, on Aug. 14. The next day, Lee Stranahan, a host for Sputnik, repeated the claim in several YouTube videos, according to Nimmo. Stranahan was previously a prominent advocate for the #FireMcMaster campaign against national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

The pro-Russian networks are also injecting Russian propaganda about other countries into U.S. far-right circles. After Jones’ InfoWars interviewed Stranahan on Aug. 15, Stranahan’s charge that the U.S. is hypocritical for supporting Nazis in Ukraine (a years-old Kremlin line) while condemning them at home appeared on fringe websites such as Mint Press News, TheLastAmericanVagabond.com, BBSNews and JewWorldOrder, Nimmo found.

“Given the number of channels that propagated the narrative at the same time, it is not possible to say whether a single channel or many different channels inspired the American actors’ linkage of Charlottesville and Ukraine,” Nimmo wrote in a blog post. “What does appear probable is that the U.S. activists derived their narrative directly from the Kremlin and its supporters  —  and thus amplified Russian disinformation in America.”

Some in the self-described alt-right have embraced Russian support. At an earlier protest of the removal of a Confederate monument in Charlottesville in May, people chanted “Russia is our friend!”

Tracking disinformation online is challenging because it can be hard to discern users’ motivations and affiliations. But congressional investigators probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 election are interested in how social networks spread fake news and propaganda, such as documents stolen by Russian hackers from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“The Internet and social media provide Russia cheap, efficient and highly effective access to foreign audiences with plausible deniability of their influence,” another of the researchers working with the Alliance to Secure Democracy, Clint Watts, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March. “This pattern of Russian falsehoods and social media manipulation of the American electorate continued through Election Day and persists today.”

Help Us Investigate: Do you have information about Russian influence efforts in the U.S.? Contact Isaac Arnsdorf at isaac@propublica.org or via Signal at 203-464-1409.


Florida Lawmakers to Review Law Targeting Injured Undocumented Workers

$
0
0

This story was co-published with NPR.

The second-highest ranking member of the Florida Senate pledged a legislative review of a state law that has allowed injured undocumented workers to be arrested and potentially deported rather than paid workers’ compensation benefits.

“Legitimate injuries shouldn’t be denied just because the person was an undocumented immigrant,” said Republican Sen. Anitere Flores, the president pro tempore of the state Senate and chair of the Banking and Insurance Committee.

“One needs to balance the going after fraudulent claims,” she said, “with not overcompensating and then denying claims to those individuals who have actually been injured.”

Flores spoke in response to a recent NPR and ProPublica investigation and a subsequent statement by the nation’s largest insurance fraud group, which called on Florida lawmakers to change the law. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud said employers and insurance companies are applying the law in ways that place “the credibility of combating real fraud at risk.”

“Legislators in the Sunshine State need to correct this loophole so workers hurt on the job get the care they need,” said Dennis Jay, executive director of the coalition, which is made up of insurance companies, government agencies, consumer organizations and insurance fraud investigators.

“I just see the credibility of the anti-fraud effort being hurt by such practices,” Jay said in an interview.

NPR and ProPublica found that nearly 800 undocumented workers in Florida have been charged with workers’ comp fraud for using illicit Social Security numbers to either get their jobs, file for workers’ compensation benefits or both. More than 560 didn’t actually file workers’ comp claims but still were charged with fraud. Another 130 suffered legitimate workplace injuries but were denied benefits and prosecuted. Some were detained by federal immigration authorities and deported.

Like most states, Florida provides workers’ comp benefits to undocumented workers despite their legal status. The state’s workers’ comp law was amended in 2003 to make the use of false identification in obtaining jobs and workers’ comp benefits a felony.

“I don’t see how they can legally justify that,” Jay said. “It also paints insurers as uncaring, greedy corporations that allow human suffering to make a buck.”

Some of the insurance companies who have used the Florida law to deny claims are members of Jay’s coalition, as is the state agency that administers the law.

Jon Moore, spokesman for the Florida Division of Investigative and Forensic Services, said his agency is “obligated to enforce the law as it relates to the workers’ compensation system in Florida.” But he said, “another look into the questions that are being posed may be warranted. What is the balance between the harm and the benefits that are being produced?”

They Got Hurt at Work. Then They Got Deported.

How insurance companies use a Florida law to get undocumented immigrants arrested and deported when they get injured on the job — and what it means in Trump’s America. Read the story.

Flores said she is especially concerned about companies who may hire undocumented workers knowing that the threat of prosecution and deportation may keep them from pursuing workers’ comp claims if they are injured at work.

‘That’s borderline unconscionable,” Flores said, adding that she’ll seek the legislature’s review of this use of Florida law as part of a planned broader look at the state’s workers’ compensation law.

John Porreca, the owner of SouthEast Personnel Leasing and subsidiaries Lion Insurance and Packard Claims, did not respond to a request for comment. Porreca’s companies were featured in NPR and ProPublica’s story and turned in far more injured workers than any others.

Steve Cassell, the president of Command Investigations, which investigates the backgrounds of undocumented workers for insurers and features a gallery of injured workers on its website, also did not respond.

Brian Carter, a Florida workers’ comp attorney, welcomed the call for changes to the Florida law. He says undocumented workers use illicit Social Security numbers because they can’t get jobs without them and employers in Florida need those workers.

“It is illogical to legislatively provide workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented workers,” Carter said, “and then legislatively make it criminal to use a false Social Security number for identification.” 

Jay added that his group is already engaging Florida lawmakers and will offer assistance in drafting alternative legislation.

Failure to Set Cost of Carbon Hampers Trump’s Effort to Expand Use of Fossil Fuels

$
0
0

President Donald Trump’s efforts to boost fossil fuel extraction face a courtroom hurdle of his own making.

His March 28 executive order “promoting energy independence and economic growth” rescinded the Obama administration’s calculation of the “social cost of carbon” — a metric that had been central to the process of crafting and justifying government rules addressing human-driven climate change.

All government regulations are subject to cost/benefit analysis. The “social cost of carbon” was developed in large part to compare long-term costs from coastal flooding and other impacts of emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide with upfront costs to the economy from curbing the burning of fossil fuels, the main source of such emissions.

The value at the end of the Obama presidency was set at roughly $40 for each ton of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, or equivalent amounts of other gases such as methane. At that price, the benefits of Obama’s proposals to reduce emissions outweighed the economic costs.

The Trump order required a new calculation and ordered agencies to use procedures issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 2003 to craft relevant regulations.

A protracted delay in the Trump administration coming up with its own carbon-cost estimate could empower environmentalists pursuing legal challenges to mining, drilling or pipeline projects, said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

In an email on Tuesday, he pointed to two recent court decisions. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, must consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from construction of three new interstate pipelines in the Southeast. The Sierra Club, other environmental groups and some affected landowners had challenged the commission’s environmental review of the project.  

“In the ruling, the judges held that FERC ‘must either quantify and consider the project’s downstream carbon emissions or explain in more detail why it cannot do so,’” Revesz said, adding: “The court further explained that FERC should either use the social cost of carbon to monetize the climate effects associated with those emissions or explain why it chooses not to do so.”

Just last week, another federal court decision blocked a proposed coal mine expansion in Montana in part over the government’s failure to assess the environmental impact of burning additional coal. (Nearly all of the coal from that mine has been exported to Asia or Europe of late, according to court documents).

In that ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy of Montana pointed to the government’s failure to use the existing calculations for the social costs of carbon, arguing that government officials “could, and should, have tied its greenhouse gas emissions calculation to the effects of those emissions.’’ The decision, Judge Molloy wrote, was arbitrary and capricious because officials quantified the benefits of expanded mining “while failing to account for the costs, even though a tool was available to do so.’’

The lawsuit about the Montana coal mine was filed in 2015, but expansion of western coal mining and exports has been a signature aspect of the Trump agenda. Similar mining plans have eventually gotten court approval, but only after officials submitted estimates of the environmental and climate impacts.

The expansion of Signal Peak Energy's Bull Mountain mine in Roundup, Montana, was blocked by a federal court over the government failing to assess the environmental impact of burning additional coal. (Janie Osborne/AP Photo)

“These rulings show how President Trump’s executive order withdrawing support for the social cost of carbon is misguided and shortsighted,” said Revesz. “As these recent rulings show, agencies will lose legal challenges when they don’t appropriately consider climate change impacts. Rather than speeding the process of infrastructure and energy development, the Trump administration has risked slowing it down.”

Given the pace of appointments at relevant agencies, the work of revising the cost of carbon calculation is likely to drag on. So far, the Trump administration has been slow to embrace science advice — with no presidential adviser yet named and many relevant positions at the Office of Science and Technology Policy cut or empty.

In June, Jim Laity, a career Office of Management and Budget employee who runs the environmental branch of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, signaled that work to revise the carbon calculation was under way. During an online presentation at a public workshop on the social cost of carbon at the National Academy of Sciences, he said relevant agencies were “actively working on thinking about the guidance, ” according to Greenwire. Asked what has changed since then, a spokesman for OMB, Jacob A. Wood, said in an email on Wednesday that the Trump administration “is still considering how to implement” the portion of the executive order on the social cost of carbon. “As of right now, there is no other update,” he wrote.

There’s plenty of advice the Trump administration can draw on to make a new estimate, ranging from a January report on ways to improve carbon-cost calculations from the independent National Academy of Sciences to a call to scrap the social cost of carbon altogether, made by the Institute for Energy Research, an industry-backed Washington policy group that strongly influenced the Trump campaign and presidential transition process.

Laity’s presentation in June did hint at a much lower cost of carbon to come, noting the significance of Trump’s reference to the 2003 Office of Management and Budget guidance for writing regulations. (Here’s the webinar recording.) “[I]t says pretty unequivocally that the main focus … should be costs and benefits that accrue to citizens and residents of the United States,” Laity said. “After that it says if a regulation does have significant impacts outside the United States that are important to consider in the regulation for some reason then they should be clearly segregated out and they should be reported separately.”

Under the previous administration’s process, he said, “That wasn’t what we were doing.”

The Obama-era cost of carbon included costs of impacts outside the U.S. — with more than $30 of that $40 a ton coming from projected climate change impacts abroad, according to several economists who have studied the process.

As OMB proceeds with its review, it will have plenty of input from groups affiliated with industry, including the Institute for Energy Research. In an email on Wednesday, Robert P. Murphy, a senior economist for the group, said: “We appreciate that agencies are in an awkward position right now, but our view is that the correct decision is to avoid using such a dubious concept as the ‘social cost of carbon’ in its present form.”

He said the calculations mask enormous value judgements, arguing that the resulting dollar value has little to do with science and much to do with an administration’s view of the world. “Even if we agreed on a particular computer simulation of the monetary damages accruing from climate change over the next few centuries, the calculation of the 'social cost of carbon' would vary widely, depending on our choice of parameters that have nothing to do with climate science,” he said.

In that, Murphy’s sentiments reflect those of some analysts whose views on climate are at odds with the Trump administration. David Roberts, now writing on climate and energy at Vox, wrote a much-cited column for Grist a few years ago dissecting economic calculations used to determine how much it is worth today to limit climate-related harms generations in the future. He warned, “They are social and ethical disputes being waged under cover of math, as though they are nothing but technical matters to be determined by ‘experts.’”

There’s really no legally defensible stance for having no social cost of carbon, said Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist who in 2009 co-led the Obama administration working group that updated federal carbon-cost calculations. That group was disbanded under Trump’s March order.

In a phone interview on Wednesday, Greenstone said, “There are several elements that go into the social cost of carbon about which we’re uncertain. But it’s specious to imply that the best response to that uncertainty is to do nothing.”

Interviews earlier this year with a range of economists and policy analysts suggested that the Trump administration would end up setting a very low cost of carbon, perhaps $5 a ton, but not reject the metric entirely. This would be consistent with an influential federal appeals court ruling late in 2007, which found that the administration of George W. Bush improperly ignored costs from global warming in setting gas-mileage standards for sport utility vehicles and small trucks.

“[W]hile the record shows that there is a range of values, the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero,” the ruling said.

For more details, read Will Trump’s Climate Team Accept Any ‘Social Cost of Carbon’?

The Breakthrough: Behind the Scenes of Hillary Clinton’s Failed Bid for President

$
0
0

We watched on election night as dejected Hillary Clinton supporters poured out of New York City’s Javits Center, but we didn’t see her campaign team wrestling with how and when to concede. And in the months leading up to that moment, we watched Clinton give long, disjointed speeches, but we didn’t see the internal campaign drama that went into writing them.

Then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in February 2016 (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

That’s all in “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” the groundbreaking book from Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes that creates an intimate portrait of a campaign positioned to lose, even though it was favored to win.

On The Breakthrough, Allen divulges his process for digging deep into what was, by all accounts, a secretive campaign. He shares his agreement with sources — all spoke on background, and none of their names were used. Hear how he and Parnes gained their trust, kept their confidences and reported out stories no one else was able to tell. He describes the moment they realized what their reporting all meant:

“Right before the election, our editor sent us a note and got us on the phone and he said, ‘You guys have a problem. Your book has all these warning signs, all this, sort of, foreboding … and she’s about to be elected president.’ He was like, ‘How do you reconcile that?’”

Allen and Parnes interviewed nearly 100 insiders. The authors returned to sources again and again, clarifying timelines and confirming facts without revealing who gave them the information. They turned up some scoops. The campaign was dysfunctional — tense from infighting over how resources were spent. The candidate herself couldn’t settle on a message for why she wanted to run, and argued with staff over whether she should apologize for her email server scandal. And even in the most pivotal days of her campaign, Clinton didn’t seem to understand the mood of the country.

“She’s partway through the primaries already and she’s saying, ‘I don’t understand what this populist uprising is,’” says Allen. He and Parnes were “dumbstruck” when sources first told them this, long before Election Day.

Hear about these surprises and more on The Breakthrough, the ProPublica podcast where investigative reporters reveal how they nailed their biggest stories.

Have an idea for an episode? Email us your suggestions at podcasts@propublica.org.

Listen to this podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud or Stitcher.

The music for this podcast is from Blue Dot Sessions and Lee Rosevere.

Legisladores de Florida revisarán la ley que persigue a trabajadores lesionados indocumentados

$
0
0

Read in English.

La senadora con el segundo rango más alto de Florida prometió una revisión legislativa de una ley estatal que ha permitido que los trabajadores indocumentados lesionados sean detenidos y potencialmente deportados en vez de recibir pagos de compensación laboral.

“No se deberían de negar las lesiones legítimas solo porque la persona sea un inmigrante indocumentado,” dijo la Senadora Anitere Flores, presidenta pro tempore del Senado estatal y jefa del Comité de Banca y Seguros.

“Se necesita hacer un equilibrio entre perseguir las demandas fraudulentas y no sobre-compensar y negar las demandas a individuos que se han lesionado de verdad,” dijo.

Flores habló en respuesta a una reciente investigación de NPR y ProPublica y a una subsecuente declaración por el grupo contra el fraude de seguros más grande de la nación, que pidió a los legisladores de Florida cambiar la ley. La Coalición Contra Fraude de Seguros dijo que empleadores y aseguradoras están implementando la ley con métodos que “ponen en riesgo la credibilidad de combatir el fraude real.”

“Los legisladores en el ‘Estado del Sol’ tienen que corregir este vacío legal para que los trabajadores que sufren lesiones en el trabajo reciban la atención que necesitan,” dijo Dennis Jay, director ejecutivo de la coalición, que está compuesta por aseguradoras, agencias de gobierno, organizaciones de consumidores e investigadores contra el fraude de seguros.

“Veo que la credibilidad de la lucha contra el fraude está siendo dañada por estas prácticas,” dijo Jay en una entrevista.

NPR y ProPublica determinaron que casi 800 trabajadores indocumentados en Florida han sido acusados de fraude en el reclamo de compensación laboral por utilizar números de seguridad social ilícitos o bien para conseguir sus empleos, para hacer solicitudes para beneficios de compensación laboral, o para las dos cosas. Más de 560 de hecho no presentaron demandas por compensación laboral, pero todavía fueron acusados de fraude. Otros 130 sufrieron lesiones legítimas en el lugar de trabajo pero se les negó la compensación y fueron perseguidos penalmente. Algunos fueron detenidos por autoridades federales de inmigración y deportados.

Como la mayoría de estados, Florida otorga beneficios de compensación laboral a trabajadores indocumentados a pesar de su estatus legal. La ley de compensación laboral estatal fue enmendada en 2003 para convertir en crimen el uso de identificación falsa para conseguir empleos y beneficios de compensación laboral.

“No veo cómo pueden justificar esto legalmente,” dijo Jay. “También retrata a las aseguradoras como corporaciones indiferentes y avariciosas que permiten el sufrimiento humano para ganar plata.”

Algunas de las compañías de seguros que han utilizado la ley de Florida para negar demandas son miembros de la coalición de Jay, como también lo es la agencia estatal que administra la ley.

Jon Moore, un portavoz para la División de Servicios Investigativos y Forenses de Florida, dijo que su agencia “tiene la obligación de hacer cumplir la ley acorde al sistema de compensación laboral en Florida.” Pero dijo que “puede ser que otra mirada a las cuestiones que se están planteando esté justificada. ¿Cuál es el balance entre el daño y los beneficios que se están produciendo?”

Flores dijo que está especialmente preocupada por empresas que puedan contratar a trabajadores indocumentados sabiendo que la amenaza de procedimientos penales y deportación puede inhibirles de llevar adelante reclamos por compensación laboral si sufren lesiones en el trabajo.

Se lesionaron en el trabajo. Y entonces fueron deportados.

Cómo las compañías de seguros usan las leyes de Florida para hacer que inmigrantes indocumentados sean arrestados y deportados cuando se lesionan en el trabajo — y lo que significa en la América de Trump. Leer en Español.

“Esto raya en lo inadmisible,” dijo Flores, añadiendo que va a solicitar la revisión por la legislatura de este uso de la ley de Florida como parte de una evaluación planificada más amplia de la ley estatal de compensación laboral.

John Porreca, el dueño de SouthEast Personnel Leasing y las filiales Lion Insurance y Packard Claims, no respondió a una petición de comentario. Las empresas de Porreca fueron examinadas en el reportaje de NPR y ProPublica y delataron a muchos más trabajadores que cualquier otra compañía.

Steve Cassell, presidente de Command Investigations, que investiga para las aseguradoras los historiales de trabajadores indocumentados y presenta una galería de trabajadores lesionados en su sitio de Internet, tampoco respondió.

Brian Carter, un abogado de compensación laboral en Florida, dijo que la iniciativa para cambiar la ley de Florida era bienvenida. Dice que los trabajadores indocumentados usan números de seguridad social ilícitos porque no consiguen trabajos sin ellos, y que los empleadores en Florida necesitan a esos trabajadores.

“Es ilógico que legislativamente se otorguen beneficios de compensación laboral a los trabajadores indocumentados y que después los legisladores conviertan en crimen el uso de un número de seguridad social falso como identificación,” dijo Carter.

Jay añadió que su grupo ya está contactando con los legisladores de Florida y ofrecerá ayuda en la redacción de una legislación alternativa.

Traducción al español por Carmen Méndez.

Why Houston Isn’t Ready for Harvey

$
0
0

Houston faces massive flooding from Harvey. Here’s where it’s flooded in the past.

White Supremacists Joked About Using Cars to Run Over Opponents Before Charlottesville

$
0
0

Nearly a month before a car driven by an alleged neo-Nazi plowed into counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12, white supremacists planning the “Unite the Right” rally joked about using vehicles to run over their opponents.

That message and thousands of other conversations among white supremacists were leaked from a chat app called Discord and posted on the website of a left-wing media collective called Unicorn Riot. Many users’ participation could not be verified, but ProPublica was able to confirm that two people whose statements were included in the leaked trove made the comments attributed to them.

The pre-Charlottesville chats include discussions of potential violence, the use of weapons, and excitement at the prospect of “fighting for the white race.”

The leaked discussions also reveal an intense level of planning and nationwide coordination. As ProPublica reported earlier this month, the “Unite the Right” demonstrations were dominated by a younger, more tech-savvy generation of white supremacists than in past protests. They coordinated logistics for disparate groups and came together a thousand strong to take over city streets in military-style formation. The two-plus months of leaked planning discussions, reviewed by ProPublica, support this assessment. Below are five key takeaways from the messages.

1. Some Activists Insisted on Peace — But Many Were Hungry for Violence

The discussion boards include repeated fantasies of violence against counter-protesters and black residents, only occasionally challenged by board moderators. (Wired.com reported on several examples over the weekend.) On July 18, for example, user AltCelt(IL) posted a photo of vehicles surrounded by crowds in response to fellow commentors’ discussion of car insurance and logistics. Another user replied, claiming that in North Carolina “driving over protesters blocking roadways isn’t an offense.” The user seemed to be referring to a controversial bill that was recently passed by the North Carolina Statehouse. The user then posted a meme showing a combine harvester that could be a “digestor” for multiple lanes of protesters, saying, “Sure would be nice.”

Less than a month later, at the actual “Unite the Right” rally, a car struck a group of counter-protestors, killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. The white supremacists made light of that after the fact, with one user posting a meme that inserted an image of the car from the movie “Back to the Future” into a photo of the crowd at Charlottesville, adding the phrase, “Back to the Fhurer (sic).”

Evan McLaren, executive director of Richard Spencer’s white supremacist National Policy Institute, argued in an interview that what he characterized as “irreverent banter” was “not relevant to what happened” and did not spur the violence in Charlottesville.

The chat group members often used Discord before the rally to discuss street-fighting with their enemies, especially antifa groups. And some conversations focused on terrorizing Charlottesville residents. On Aug. 3, a user copied a posting for a Facebook event for a black community back-to-school party near Emancipation Park, the site of the planned Robert E. Lee statue removal. Users joked about crashing the party and stabbing attendees, who would have presumably included schoolchildren. (“RAHOWA,” cited below, is an acronym for “racial holy war.”)

2. White Supremacist Groups Spent Months Tracking Potential Foes Online and in the Real World

A month before the rally, white supremacists used their chat site to collect information on counter-protesters they anticipated they might encounter. As one chat group leader put it, “knowing faces is always helpful.” For weeks in the lead-up to the rally, white nationalists shared photos of a wide variety of potential adversaries, from out-of-state leftists to local Charlottesville racial justice activists.

On July 17, a user with the handle Stanislav Dajic posted “>Nigger >shoot intended targets,” followed by a smiley-face emoji, under a photo of Joseph Offutt, a black Dallas-area activist who has taken part in several counter-protests against Black Lives Matter.

Chat group users also trawled through left-wing websites and social media, aiming to exploit what they viewed as their political advantage in the Trump era.

McLaren, for instance, posted information about a “DC Training to Resist the Alt-Right” car pool, which he took from the discussion section of a left-wing Facebook event. (McLaren said he did so to protect his fellow marchers.)

The white supremacists also gathered and shared information they had gleaned via in-person sleuthing efforts. One post from July 26, for example, showed a photo a white supremacist took of notes left on a whiteboard from a meeting of a group called Showing Up For Racial Justice in Charlottesville. The board included references to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Black Lives Matter and other entities.

On July 20, another user took pictures of three left-wing groups in Ann Arbor as they raised money and recruited volunteers to go to Charlottesville.

The user advised his compatriots, “If you guys live in leftie areas and have art or street fairs coming up, it’d be worth it to mosey through and see if your local leftists are out trying for the same thing.”

3. Users Collected “Evidence” of Left-Wing Social Media Threats to Give to Police and Courts

Weeks before the “Unite the Right” rally, chat-room participants were collecting alleged left-wing threats of violence, such as “Punch a Nazi” posts on social media, suggesting this content should be forwarded to police or compiled for court proceedings. In one post from Aug. 9, for example, a user advised members of the “Antifa Watch” discussion thread to share threats against the rally “to help with our court case.”

In another post, this one on July 30, a user noted that an anarchist blog post discussing the Charlottesville rally should be forwarded to the Virginia State Police. Eli Mosley, who played a lead role in organizing the “Unite the Right” rally, told ProPublica via Twitter that police had been informed about “potential threats” his group had received. (The Virginia State Police and the Charlottesville Police Department did not respond to ProPublica’s inquiries as to whether they received any such content.)

4. Some Members Displayed a Sophisticated Understanding of Digital Security Culture and Leftist Tactics

On an intelligence-gathering thread, a user identified as McCarthy recommended not bringing phones to the rally, since “any stolen phones will compromise your entire affinity group, any organizations you are a part of, and entire networks of communication.” McCarthy may have been referring to cellphone extraction devices and programs that can perform link analysis, which are increasingly used by law enforcement and can map phone users’ communication networks based on analysis of call and text logs. In addition, a stolen phone could be used to reveal the identities of white supremacists in a doxing campaign.

The user then shared a link to a page dedicated to operational security for right-wing protesters on the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer. In a message to ProPublica, Mosley attributed this security focus to members who he claimed are “high level tech workers and IT security consultants.”

Malcolm Harris, a left-wing writer whose work often focuses on far-right organizations, noted that this reference to “affinity” groups suggests that the right wing is borrowing from left-wing organizing tactics. The affinity model brings smaller operations to work together in a larger action, and the right seemed to use this approach to coordinate among numerous white supremacists groups, such as Identity Evropa, the Traditionalist Worker Party and Vanguard America.

“The base form of an affinity organization is a group of five to six people that know and trust each other, then knit themselves into a larger [collection],” Harris told ProPublica. “They love taking left-wing terminology, so I’m not surprised to see them talking about affinity groups. It’s a pretty decent model for when you don’t have a single organization running things.”

Right-wing activists also shared information about local and state police scanners to help gather intelligence.

“It’s not exactly surprising that they adopt these tactics,” said Harris. “But on the other hand, the police and the state have not made it a priority to break their networks.”

5. Organizers Worked Closely With Police and Assumed Law Enforcement Would Focus on Counter-Protesters

In planning documents and discussion threads, chat group leaders repeatedly referred before the march to close collaboration with police and voiced expectations that law enforcement would treat them respectfully. A secret planning document, entitled “Operation Unite The Right Charlottesville 2.0,” for example, prepped for various possible police responses to their demonstrations, but noted “in our communications with them [the police] they know that the left are the ones looking to do violence.”

In the message boards leading up to the rally, apparent chat group leaders also repeatedly referred to their close work with law enforcement. When asked about these communications, Mosley, who was quoted in one of the threads, explained, “when I said ‘they knew,’ I was referring to the police who, time and time again, admitted to us that they knew the left was (sic) going to be the violent ones.”

The perception of law enforcement was more mixed among commenters who appeared to be in the rank and file of the chat group. Some hoped to recruit white police officers to their cause and praised past law enforcement efforts against left-wing Antifa protesters.

Others felt cops could “betray” them and were fundamentally pawns of the establishment (and added what may have been caricatures of Jewish people).

After the rally, counter-protesters and progressives criticized law enforcement’s apparent unwillingness to shut down violent altercations. During the torchlit march on Aug. 11, for example, white supremacist forces led by figures like Richard Spencer were able to storm through the University of Virginia, with some participants beating up counter-protesters, some of whom fought back but were overwhelmed. Witnesses, such as the Harvard professor and activist Cornel West, noted how few police were in sight. The next day at the rally, according to the Daily Beast, police ignored pleas from wounded activists and did not intervene or make arrests after the beating of a black protester, Deandre Harris, in a parking garage next to the Charlottesville police station.

McLaren, the white supremacist, blames the local political establishment, claiming — without proof — that it engineered the violence. “I don’t blame police for this; it’s the people who were directing police,” said McLaren. “They obviously engineered an event where it had to be designed so that violence would occur.”

In the wake of the leaks (and efforts by Discord to ban them from the app), white supremacist leaders say they will simply move to other apps or abandon them. “I’ve never liked using Discord or things like that anyway,” Mosley wrote on Twitter. “We’ve done it without that before. We used it this time because it was a large and public event.”

McLaren echoed that view. “You know also there’s a robust nature to what we’ve accomplished so far,” said McLaren. “We’re pretty personally networked now so there’s an extent we can continue to coordinate things even if we’re completely shut out of social media.”

Have You Experienced Hate Speech on Facebook? We Want To Hear From You.

$
0
0

Earlier this month, in the wake of the Charlottesville attack on protesters, a post began circulating on Facebook titled: “Heather Heyer, Woman Killed in Road Rage Incident was a Fat, Childless 32-Year-Old Slut.”

You might have thought that the post violated Facebook’s rules against hate speech. But, in fact, it did not. Facebook’s arcane hate speech rules, revealed by ProPublica in June, only prohibit hate speech attacks against “protected categories” of people — based on gender, race or religious affiliation — but not against individuals.

We’re launching an effort to learn more about Facebook’s secret censorship rules. (Details of how you can help are below.) These rules, which it distributes to thousands of human censors it employs across the world — draw elaborate distinctions between hate speech and legitimate political expression. One Facebook training slide published by ProPublica was particularly surprising to many of our readers. It asked which group was protected against hate speech: female drivers, black children or white men. The correct answer was noted as being “white men.”

The reason: Facebook doesn’t protect what it calls “subsets” of its protected categories. Black children and female drivers were both considered subsets under Facebook’s rules, while white men were protected based on race and gender.

After ProPublica’s article was published, Facebook changed its rules to add age as a protected category, according to a person familiar with the decision. That adjustment means that Facebook will delete slurs against black children, because both race and age are now protected groups.

The “protected categories” rule doesn’t always prevail. Facebook eventually deleted the post about Heather Heyer for reasons unrelated to hate speech, according to a person familiar with the situation. It was expunged because it was published by The Daily Stormer — an organization that is on Facebook’s secret list of hate groups that are not allowed to publish on the platform, and because it violated Facebook’s anti-bullying rules.

As Facebook’s rules evolve and expand based on their own secret logic, Facebook users are understandably confused. Many have sent us examples of hate speech that they suspected had slipped through the censors’ filters, or speech that they felt was wrongly designated as hateful. Facebook’s decisions on these posts sometimes appeared to contradict its internal guidelines.

This raised a new set of questions for us: Are Facebook censors following the site’s rules consistently? And, even more importantly, despite all its efforts, is Facebook succeeding in ridding its site of hate speech?

Only Facebook users can help us answer these questions.

So we’re hoping you can join us in investigating Facebook’s handling of hate speech. To make it easy to participate, we built a Facebook bot — which is a tiny computer program that automatically converses with you over Facebook Messenger.

To use the bot, all you have to do is send a Facebook message to ProPublica’s page and click the “Get Started” button. Our bot will ask you questions about your experience with hate speech.

If you or someone you know reported a hateful post, or had one flagged as hateful, we’d like to hear about it, regardless of the outcome. Screenshots, links and exact wording are especially helpful, but please share whatever you have.

We know some people who violate Facebook’s community standards are blocked from the platform. If you’d rather not use Facebook for any reason, we’ve also put the questions into a survey.

We may publish the information that you share with us, but we will redact any individual identifying information unless we contact you and get your permission. The more people who contribute their experiences, the more accurate a picture we’ll be able to get.

Also, this is ProPublica’s first Facebook bot, and we know it can be a little bit finicky. If you have any problems or notice any glitches, please do let us know at social@propublica.org.

Thanks for your help!


Trump’s Pardon Aside, Reporters Have Built Long Rap Sheet Against Sheriff Joe

$
0
0

President Donald Trump issued his first pardon to Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff famous for using his local police force to aggressively pursue undocumented immigrants. In its official statement, the White House credited Arpaio with “more than fifty years of admirable service to our nation,” which made him “a worthy candidate” for a pardon.

Below is a list of essential reading on one of the most reviled and beloved lawmen in the U.S.

In November 2004, Arpaio won re-election to his fourth term as sheriff and quickly set about reorganizing the police force by transferring some 140 deputies to different positions. Mark Flatten, then a reporter at the East Valley Tribune, found evidence the moves were tied to the deputies’ political loyalty, or lack thereof, to Arpaio. “Those who worked to re-elect the sheriff moved into more prized positions,” Flatten wrote. “An analysis of the transfers of sworn officers by the Tribune shows deputies who backed Saban, Arpaio’s rival in the Republican primary last September, were moved to such jobs as transporting prisoners or standing watch in courtrooms.”

The sheriff’s office had long feuded with the Phoenix New Times, an alternative weekly newspaper that broke major stories about misconduct by Arpaio’s force. In August 2007, the agency’s top commanders teamed with local prosecutors to subpoena seemingly every document inside the newsroom, ostensibly as part of a criminal probe. The order warned the New Times that it was a crime to disclose anything about the subpoena. Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, then New Times’ publishers, did not remain silent.

That October, the newspaper plastered across its front page the headline: “Breathtaking Abuse of The Constitution,” and provided the public with every detail. The subpoena demanded “every note, tape, and record from every story written about Sheriff Arpaio by every reporter over a period of years,” the publishers wrote. Worse yet, the sheriff’s office wanted information on the newspaper’s readers, including “every individual who looked at any story, review, listing, classified, or retail ad over a period of years.” Sheriff’s deputies arrested Lacey and Larkin at their homes the evening they published, and held them for several hours.

Arpaio allowed William Finnegan, staff writer at The New Yorker, to attend his meetings, ride along in his car, and interview his top commanders at great length in early 2009. The result of that access is a revealing, unsparing profile of Arpaio and the police force he ran at the peak of its illegal immigration enforcement.

One of then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies works after an operational sweep in Phoenix in 2010. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images)

In July 2008, the East Valley Tribune published a multipart investigation of the sheriff’s office’s immigration enforcement and overall police work. The agency’s arrest rate had plummeted, emergency response times soared, deputies were shelving sex crime cases without investigation, and the immigration arrests often involved unconstitutional practices. Arpaio was also using the immigration operations as a form of patronage. The sheriff’s office argued it pursued undocumented immigrants because they were a public safety threat. But agency records showed Arpaio often directed deputies to target day laborers along specific locations at the request of his supporters in the state Legislature and local businesses in his hometown of Fountain Hills. “I have a strange old philosophy that if someone does something for you, gives you resources, gives you money, I think if they want something back, we ought to do it,” Arpaio said in an interview.

Jacques Billeaud, a reporter for The Associated Press, revisited the office’s uninvestigated sex crime cases in 2011, and detailed multiple cases in which children were reportedly assaulted. The story prompted Arpaio to apologize for these failures for the first time.

Maricopa County taxpayers spent roughly $92 million on court settlements, awards, and legal bills during Arpaio’s 24 years as sheriff, The Arizona Republic calculated. Of that, $28 million was paid for “legal matters listed as civil-rights violations, false arrest, conspiracy and malicious prosecution.” And $30 million was spent on lawsuits stemming from the county’s jails.

New Times has reported scores of stories about egregious abuse and misconduct by sheriff’s employees inside the jails. Among them is a 1997 story about Richard Post, a wheelchair-bound paraplegic, who suffered a broken neck when corrections officers strapped him in a restraint chair for six hours. A decade later, Ambrett Spencer was pregnant with a baby girl while an inmate in Maricopa County jail. Suffering severe pain, Spencer waited four hours for the jail to transfer her to a hospital. Her daughter, Ambria, died of internal bleeding before she was delivered. Pregnant women were in significant peril in Arpaio’s jails. From the New Times: “The water well in the facility where pregnant women are jailed has been infested with mice and mice feces since 2005, Maricopa County Environmental Health Services Records show.”

The Joe Arpaio I Knew

The former Maricopa County sheriff made his name in part by targeting immigrants — even after a judge ordered him to stop. As President Trump considers a pardon, it’s worth remembering precisely what Arpaio did in his decades in law enforcement. Read the story.

Joe Dana, a reporter at Phoenix’s NBC affiliate, revealed that the sheriff’s office spent nearly $300,000 in 2007 and 2008 to build a criminal intelligence data system and provide training for the Honduran national police. It remains unclear why this occurred.

The sheriff’s office effectively entrapped an inmate in a fake plot to assassinate Arpaio, for which the agency purchased bomb parts, as told in an exhaustive Phoenix Magazine narrative. The inmate was acquitted at trial and later won a million-dollar legal settlement.

The sheriff’s office also helped gain clearance for a Chinese software engineer to work inside an intelligence center in Phoenix that houses federal and local law enforcement, including FBI counter-intelligence agents, for several months in 2007, reporting by ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting found. The engineer worked on a facial recognition system using Arizona’s driver’s license database. He abruptly returned to China, taking time to aggressively erase the computers he’d worked on, while packing other hardware, before boarding his flight home.

Houston’s Dams Won’t Fail. But Many Homes Will Have to Be Flooded to Save Them

$
0
0

The water that goes around the spillways is going to have to leave the reservoir somehow — and enter areas surrounding it.

Are You an Immigrant Protected by DACA? We Want to Hear From You.

$
0
0

Since he became president, Donald Trump has been pondering whether to continue one of President Obama’s signature immigration programs.

Known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program has granted almost 800,000 young immigrants since 2012 the possibility to live legally in the United States, obtain a work permit and travel abroad — all while receiving the government’s word that they will not be deported unless they commit certain crimes. To be eligible for the program, immigrants have to have been brought to the U.S. before age 16 and lived here continuously since 2007.

But a decision to end DACA may be imminent, according to numerous recent press accounts.

What Is DACA?

DACA emerged as the Obama administration’s response to the failed DREAM Act — a bill that, in various forms, moved unsuccessfully through Congress between 2001 and 2011. The DREAM bill would have permanently legalized young immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

When that legislation finally failed, Obama created similar programs through executive orders, starting with DACA in 2012. That means DACA can easily be undone by Trump or any other president, which would not be the case if legislation had been enacted.

Why Is DACA in Peril?

A number of Trump’s advisers oppose the DACA program; they consider it to be executive overreach. Among the administration officials espousing that view are Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House policy advisor Stephen Miller.

Trump, who campaigned on pledges to expel illegal immigrants, has expressed sympathy for those protected by DACA. At a February press conference, he said he was going “to deal with DACA with heart” and that the immigrants granted that status were mostly “some absolutely incredible kids.”

In July, however, Trump sounded more neutral when asked about the program: “It’s a decision that I make.”

Since then, a coalition of state attorneys general who previously won a court ruling striking down a similar Obama program — DAPA, which would have given similar protections to undocumented parents — said they would tack on DACA to their so-far successful DAPA lawsuit. They gave Trump an ultimatum: get rid of DACA by next Tuesday or be prepared to defend it in court.

On Friday, NBC News reported that Trump “appears likely” to end the program. But no official announcement has been made.

What Can Trump Do and What Would the Effects Be?

Trump has few options. He can keep the program as is, leaving its defense in the hands of AG Sessions. But it’s unclear if Sessions would defend DACA in court, given his often-stated contention that the program is illegal.

Trump could also let DACA die a slow death, by deciding to block the renewal of work permits. Without permits, those protected by DACA could lose their jobs.

“I think the most likely scenario is that the Department of Homeland Security will stop reviewing DACA applications and renewals,” said Julia Gelatt, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute. “Young people have a two-year work authorization that would expire over time.”

If that were the case, about 1,000 immigrants per day would lose their legal protections. That would expose them to deportation, like the rest of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the U.S. What worries some is that DACA recipients have identified themselves to the government — providing their home address, among other things — and as a result, could be more easily located and detained.

Who Are the DACA Immigrants?

Half of the people receiving DACA protections live in just two states: California and Texas. Almost four in five of them are Mexican citizens, and most are in their twenties. A study conducted by MPI’s Gelatt found that 76 percent of DACA recipients are active members of the labor force, many of them in office jobs.

“We saw in our data this move from outdoor jobs, which you associate with undocumented workers, toward white-collar jobs,” Gelatt said. “If DACA recipients lose their work authorization they may lose access to the white collar jobs.”

Help Us Shape Our DACA Reporting

Knowing what's at stake, we want to hear from DACA recipients about how they are living, preparing and coping with an uncertain future. A cancellation of DACA could affect you if you are currently abroad, if your DACA status is tied to your college financial aid or if you are currently employed. In all cases, it could affect whether you are able to remain in the country. DACA has affected the lives of 800,000 young immigrants and we want to tell those stories. So, how does DACA affect your life? Please tell us by sending an email to daca@propublica.org answering any of the three questions below:

  1. What, if anything, have you been able to achieve with DACA? 

  2. If Trump cancels DACA, how would that affect your future? 

  3. When does your work permit expire?

We’ve Updated Prescriber Checkup

$
0
0

Medicare’s popular prescription-drug program serves more than 42 million people and pays for more than one of every four prescriptions written nationwide. Use this tool to find and compare doctors and other providers in Part D in 2015.

Why Giving Birth is Safer in Britain Than in the U.S.

$
0
0

At 11:58 p.m. this past June 25, Helen Taylor gave birth to her first baby, a boy, at West Suffolk Hospital in the East of England. At 11:59 p.m., with 15 seconds to spare before midnight, his sister was born. The obstetrician and her team were pleased; the cesarean section was going smoothly, fulfilling Helen’s wish that her twins share a birthday.

But 40 minutes later, Helen had lost over a third of her blood.

Enraptured by new motherhood, she barely noticed when the obstetrician’s head appeared around the surgical drape. “We need to give you a drug to help stop the bleeding, is that OK?” Helen nodded. Ten minutes passed before the question came again. Then again. The fourth time, Helen realized something was seriously wrong.

During pregnancy, the uterine blood vessels that nourish the fetus are wide open. Once the baby is delivered and the placenta removed, these vessels should constrict and close. If they don’t, as with Helen, the mother can bleed profusely. She may reach a point where her body can no longer compensate for the blood loss. The extent of the flow can be unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic. The surgical team’s response must be meticulous. And fast.

Helen’s team — an experienced obstetrician with her resident in training, a pediatrician, an anesthesiologist with an assistant, two nurses (one scrubbed-in, one fetching equipment), and three midwives — responded to her developing hemorrhage with a routine ingrained from rehearsal and real life.

“We are like a Formula One race team at a pit-stop,” the anesthesiologist had reassured Helen by way of introduction.

The key to this well-oiled machine is standardization. It used to be that every obstetrician in the U.K. had his or her own signature strategy to manage an emergency. In the U.S., that still sometimes happens. But these days, every British doctor, whether newly qualified or approaching retirement, is required to follow the same guidelines for many aspects of maternity care, including treatment of bleeding. Postpartum hemorrhage guidelines are regularly updated by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and then written into local protocols for practice in every National Health Service (NHS) hospital. You don’t need to be a doctor to read the guidelines: they are freely available online. Women can find out exactly what standard of care to expect.

Helen’s was the kind of deceptively complex case that shows why a consistent approach is desirable. Her hemorrhage flared from minor (over 500 millimeters) to major (over 1 liter) to massive (over 2 liters) in less than an hour. First, the team gave her IV fluids to help replace the lost volume. After checking for bits of retained placenta, the obstetrician massaged Helen’s uterus to encourage its natural ability to contract, but her bleeding continued. The anesthesiologist lifted the surgical drapes to inject Helen’s thigh with a drug containing syntocinon, which stimulates the uterine muscle to tighten the blood vessels. The same medication was then given by a drip.

But there’s a catch: Drugs that narrow arteries can increase blood pressure. During her third trimester, Helen had developed preeclampsia, a type of hypertension induced by pregnancy that can lead to seizures and strokes. Not only does preeclampsia complicate treatment for bleeding, it makes hemorrhage more likely in the first place.

The immediate danger of more blood loss outweighed the risk of raising the blood pressure. The anesthesiologist followed protocol and administered two more drugs to intensify uterine contraction, with several minutes of watching and waiting in between. Still the blood flowed. The final step would be a transfusion.

Then, just as the team was about to dial up units of O negative from the blood bank, the obstetrician noticed that her absorbent surgical swabs were taking longer to soak through with red. The uterus felt firmer, more like a bicep than loose tissue. Helen’s bleeding was under control. Due to the guidelines, a more serious crisis was averted. A transfusion wouldn’t be needed after all.

As a medical student at the University of Cambridge in England, I got to know Helen on the ward. This account of her pregnancy, labor and medical emergency is based on my observations and interviews with Helen, her partner Marcus, and caregivers at West Suffolk Hospital. The hospital approved my access to interview patients, and Helen gave full consent to share her experience. It’s a tale that highlights the profoundly different approaches in the U.K. and the U.S. to maternal care — and to saving mothers’ lives.

“Ultimately, it’s a story I didn’t think I’d get to tell,” Helen said.


For a pregnant woman in the 1950s, the two childbirth complications most likely to prove fatal were hemorrhage and preeclampsia. Whether American or British, one in every 1,000 expectant and new mothers died.

British health authorities recognized this number was unacceptably high, given that nearly half of the deaths were considered preventable. Starting in the late 1940s, a national commitment was made to standardize maternity care across the NHS, assess each maternal fatality, and learn how it might have been avoided.

That campaign has succeeded. Today, the average mother in the U.K. receives more comprehensive and consistent care, ranging from earlier prenatal appointments to closer monitoring after she gives birth, than does her American counterpart. And if a mother dies, the U.K. investigates and tries to learn from it. Medical authorities in the U.K. view maternal deaths as public health failures that underscore deficiencies in healthcare systems. In the U.S., maternal deaths are too often treated as disconnected, private tragedies. If they are scrutinized by hospitals or regulators at all, the findings typically prompt institutional rather than national reforms. 

Underlying these contrasts is a different view of the medical responsibility to mother and child. In the U.S., laudable aspirations for infant safety have intensified focus on the fetus — more sonograms, continuous fetal heart monitoring and granting rights to the unborn. But these measures may at times distract attention from the mother’s health.

By contrast, British medical professionals are legally required to prioritize a mother’s well-being if both she and her baby are in danger. They’re trained to stabilize mom first, and then tend to baby. “That sense that the woman (while the fetus is in utero) is the agent in charge is in place. I think that’s the right way,” said Denis Walsh, a midwife and associate professor in midwifery at the University of Nottingham. “Otherwise you start undermining individual women’s autonomy and then you go down a slippery slope.”

The numbers reflect the difference in national priorities. Today in the U.K., 8.9 women for every 100,000 live births die from complications of pregnancy or childbirth, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. In the U.S., this figure declined in tandem with Britain’s until 1990. It then reversed course, rising to 25.1 women per 100,000 in 2015, almost three times higher than the U.K., and among the worst in the Western world.

These U.S. deaths are not spread equally. Women who are poor, African-American, or live in a rural area are more likely to die during and after pregnancy. In the U.K., while inequalities persist when it comes to serious complications, according to 2012-2014 data, there is no statistically significant difference in mortality rates between women in the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups. All British women have equal access to public medical services, including free care and prescriptions from pregnancy through the postpartum period.

There is a significant gap between the U.K. and U.S. in outcomes for pregnancy-related conditions that are highly treatable but can lead to death if they are not recognized and managed in time. One in 1 million women die of preeclampsia in the U.K.; that’s less than a single death per year. By contrast, preeclampsia killed an estimated 50 to 70 women in the U.S. in 2016, accounting for 8 percent of maternal deaths. According to the most recent data available, hemorrhage is responsible for 6.5 percent of maternal deaths in the U.K. versus 11.4 percent in the U.S.

The U.K. has achieved these results while spending less on delivering babies. On average, the total price charged for a vaginal birth in the U.S. is $30,000 (£24,000), which rises to $50,000 (£39,000) for a cesarean section, according to Truven Health Analytics, a New York firm that collects healthcare data. The BBC reported that in the U.K. the average cost for a normal delivery or planned cesarean section on a hospital labor ward in 2016 was $2,300 (£1,755), while a complicated case like Helen’s rose to $3,400 (£2,582).


Ironically, the centerpiece of the U.K.’s strategy to reduce maternal mortality is an American import. In 1949, the British Congress on Obstetrics and Gynecology suggested adopting a new method for reviewing maternal deaths that was already practiced in some parts of the U.S. Fatalities in those regions were assessed by local committees of experts, who published reports in medical journals to educate the profession. The British Minister of Health agreed to try it. The result was the Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in England and Wales, established in 1952.

The confidential enquiry has far outstripped its American forebears. Now run by MBRRACE-UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries in the United Kingdom), its report drives training, assessment and practice in British obstetrics — including the types of treatment protocols that saved Helen Taylor’s life. Crucially, hospitals can neither opt out of MBRRACE’s surveillance nor ignore its recommendations.

In many parts of the U.S., such enquiries do not have the same prominence and clout. There is no federal-level scrutiny of maternal deaths, and only 26 states have an established committee (of varying methodology and rigor) to review them. Nor do all U.S. hospitals routinely examine whether a death could have been avoided. Procedures for treating complications such as preeclampsia, and for responding to emergencies such as hemorrhage, vary from one doctor, hospital and state to the next.

The Richard Doll building at the University of Oxford, named after the epidemiologist who saved millions of lives by establishing the link between smoking and lung cancer, is the home of MBRRACE. That the enquiry can declare itself “the international gold standard for maternity audit and quality-improvement programs” is due to more than 100 doctors and midwives who read the cases in their spare time for free. MBRRACE continues the search for answers begun in 1952: What are the causes of maternal deaths, why are they occurring, and how can they be prevented?

MBRRACE’s full report covers a three-year period and includes data on every woman in the U.K. who has died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after childbirth. It also discusses later maternal deaths — those occurring up to a year after delivery — and makes recommendations for improvements to care. Direct deaths from obstetric causes, such as hemorrhage, sepsis or blood clots — are distinguished from indirect deaths from conditions worsened but not caused by pregnancy, such as epilepsy or certain types of heart disease.

When a woman dies, the delivery unit responsible for her care submits a local report, which includes perspectives of the health professionals who treated her, and a copy of her medical notes. First, a pathologist reviews the documents to pronounce the cause of death. Next, 10 to 15 practitioners from specialties including obstetrics, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, psychiatry and midwifery piece together what happened, and decide whether the death could have been prevented.

Data about maternal age, race and cause of death is extracted and analyzed. Also counted are the survivors who must grow up without a mother’s care. The 2012 – 2014 report states that “the women who died left behind a further 253 children, thus together a total of 358 motherless children remain.” The individual women are not named, but their stories are preserved in the report through short vignettes. Marian Knight, head of MBRRACE, who trained in obstetrics and is now professor of maternal and child population health at the University of Oxford, insists that statistics alone do not have the same impact.

“Stories are what make the difference,” Knight told me. “That’s what people remember. In the States, they are just collecting numbers. It’s all very well to know a woman died of sepsis, but to know that she died of sepsis because nobody measured her temperature, as they had no thermometers on the postnatal ward, that’s where the instruction Put a thermometer on your postnatal ward might make a difference. It’s not just the what, it’s the why.”

Andrew Testa for ProPublica

MBRRACE doesn’t seek to blame individual health professionals, but rather to learn from systemic mistakes. These lessons feed back into NICE’s and the Royal College’s guidelines, standardizing care from Inverness to Southampton. Committing to predetermined pathways of treatment, as in Helen’s delivery, requires humility from clinicians. The power of protocols — informed by the profession’s collective experience and research findings — is that, over time, they will result in better outcomes than one doctor’s instinct.

Catherine Aiken, fellow in maternal-fetal medicine at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, interned at Yale New Haven Hospital before returning to the U.K. “As a behemoth organization, [the NHS] is good at agreeing that there is a way of taking a woman’s observations [vital signs] in labor. If you don’t have a thermometer, the whole thing grinds to a halt until you find one, which can be frustrating at times,” she said. “You have to remind yourself in the moment this is good, and ultimately it will save lives because you have less of the stupid mistakes.”

There are, of course, moments when deviating from a protocol is defensible, but “you should have something that makes you think very hard before you override a safety mechanism in any situation,” Aiken added. “I’m glad that I work in an operation where I would be stopped if I were doing something off-piste,” or in other words, not recognized as best practice.

MBRRACE’s findings also influence how interns and residents are evaluated. Questions about the confidential enquiry appear on the Royal College’s examinations, which all aspiring obstetricians and gynecologists must pass.

The Care Quality Commission, which inspects medical services nationwide, takes MBRRACE’s report to birthing units and labor wards to ask doctors and midwives how they are integrating its findings. PROMPT (Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training), a nonprofit formed in response to evidence from the confidential enquiry, runs drills and refresher courses for obstetricians, anesthesiologists and midwives. Protocols are practiced in simulated emergencies to make the pit-stop in real crises as efficient as possible.

Despite these measures, the U.K. appears to be one of the poorer performing European Union countries. France and the Netherlands, the two other nations that conduct enquiries comparable to MBBRACE, have lower maternal mortality ratios (7.6 per 100,000 live births, and 6.3 per 100,000 respectively).

Does comparison with the U.S. mask the U.K.’s shortcomings? Defenders of the British system say the NHS is simply more vigilant in defining and identifying all pregnancy-related deaths. If you search hard enough for bad news, you are likely to find more of it. In the U.K., 85 percent of women who die of causes connected to pregnancy or childbirth have an autopsy, versus 49 percent in the Netherlands and 29 percent in France.

“I’m pretty sure we’re very close, if not perfect, at identifying all of our maternal cases. So obviously our rates look higher,” Knight said.

The U.S. lags behind the U.K. in this area too. In the U.S., for deaths listed as related to pregnancy on death certificates from 2011 to 2013, the autopsy rate is estimated at close to 60 percent, said Dr. William Callaghan, Chief of the Maternal and Infant Health Branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “There is little to no standardization regarding autopsy,” he said. “States and even localities have their own practices.”


Last year, at the age of 42, Helen Taylor had almost given up hope she would ever hold her own baby. After 12 years of trying, and three unsuccessful cycles of in vitro fertilization provided free by the NHS, the chances looked slim.

Balancing her job as a primary school teacher with IVF treatment was “incredibly hard,” she said. After one appointment, she had to lead a sex education class, “talking about eggs and sperm.”

“You had to leave it behind, leave it in the car, and then go into the classroom, put a smile on your face and try and forget about it.” She paused. “You start to bury it a bit.”

After the third failed IVF cycle, a private fertility doctor had bluntly told her the few eggs she had were “poor quality.”

“You’re really scraping the barrel,” he said.

Devastated but determined, Helen and her partner Marcus decided to pay for one final attempt. This time they opted for an egg donor. She was 34 years old, a Caucasian brunette with blue eyes. That’s all they knew.

After implanting a couple of embryos in Helen’s womb in November 2016, her doctor told her to wait two weeks before taking a pregnancy test. But after 10 days, Helen noticed some light spotting: the familiar sign of failure. The next morning, her birthday, she just wanted to get the bad news over with. Three minutes later she was staring at a pair of blue lines. After another four tests, she let herself believe it was true.

Maternal care in the U.K. and the U.S. begins to diverge early in the first trimester. When she was less than a month pregnant, Helen shared the news with her family doctor, following the NHS recommendation to do so as soon as possible. In the U.S., the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says care should be initiated by 10 to 12 weeks, and the first point of contact is likely to be an OB-GYN practice. In Britain, it’s usually a community midwife, and Helen was put in touch with the local branch in Sudbury.

A kindly 40-something woman led the first meeting, known as the “Booking Appointment,” and talked Helen through what to expect from the next months. As a first-time mom, she would be scheduled for 10 prenatal sessions (which would have been seven sessions if this were her second child), and was reassured there would be no limit if she had trouble.

They spent over an hour going through Helen’s past medical history, checking her weight and blood pressure, testing her urine, and discussing diet and self-care. The midwife encouraged Helen to consider the NHS “Bump, Birth and Beyond” prenatal classes, a breastfeeding workshop, screening tests for fetal abnormalities and immunizations. She asked whether Helen had concerns about her mental health or domestic violence. (She didn’t.) Screening for both is mandatory in the U.K., but not in the U.S.

To each midwife appointment Helen brought her NHS pregnancy booklet — “maternity notes” — given to every expectant mother. It is designed to ensure that all risk factors are considered, with checklists of questions and space for the midwife’s comments on mom and baby’s progress. At delivery, this booklet provides useful information to the medical team.

Perhaps the biggest difference compared with the U.S. is the way pregnancies are quickly triaged into two broad categories: low or high risk. Low-risk women — those deemed unlikely to have complications — account for 45 percent of pregnancies, and see a midwife every four weeks. A quarter of these women will end up being escalated to the care of an attending obstetrician during or just before labor. But if a pregnancy is uneventful it is possible, even probable, that the woman will not see a doctor over the entire nine months.

In the U.K., all planned births, from home deliveries to complex C-sections, are attended by midwives, whereas in the U.S., midwives are present at just 8 percent of births. Helen would have liked to deliver on a midwife-led birthing unit, but her pregnancy was high risk from the outset because she was over 40 and had conceived by donor IVF, both of which increased the likelihood of complications, including preeclampsia and hemorrhage.

Other factors that can elevate risk include pre-existing medical conditions, increased maternal age or substance abuse. Risk factors may also relate to the baby: If there is more than one in the womb, or if the fetus is small for its age, moves less than expected, or in the last days of pregnancy is positioned breech (with bottom or legs at the lowest point in the uterus).

High-risk women see an obstetrician and a midwife, as well as a specialist if the mother has a co-morbidity — a disease or disorder that could complicate pregnancy and childbirth. Their deliveries take place on hospital labor wards, overseen by an attending obstetrician. Helen’s midwife automatically checked the “location of birth” box that said “Labor ward.”

Risk can change as pregnancy progresses. With this in mind, many hospitals are designed with their maternity unit next to the labor ward. “We are very good at sliding people between the high- and low-risk models of care,” said Sally Collins, associate professor of obstetrics at the University of Oxford. Or, as Helen said to Marcus, “No one can know what’s going to happen. You better cover all your contingencies.”


Helen went back to the IVF clinic for an early ultrasound scan. The NHS routinely offers two ultrasounds for every low-risk pregnancy: at 12 weeks and 20 weeks. High-risk women may be scanned more regularly.

As the sonographer moved the probe over Helen’s jellied tummy, she paused.

“There isn’t just one heartbeat. There are two.”

“Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.”

“Does she say anything else?” the sonographer laughed, turning to Marcus.

Despite her excitement, Helen knew twins increased the likelihood of complications. She was booked for a scan every two weeks from 20 weeks, and then would see a doctor for 10 minutes to talk through the results. More business-like than meetings with the midwife, these appointments would give Helen a formal reassurance that the pregnancy was going according to plan.

The first trimester started with nausea, but by the second, Helen was in her element. “It was brilliant,” she said, beaming. “You’re in a position where you can tell everybody, everyone knows, you’ve got a bump but it’s not massive and weighing you down.”

An ongoing complication of pregnancy for Helen was over-Googling. “I would go to the midwife with a list of questions that I was worrying about,” she said, such as what might be causing a rhythmic beat, not as fast as a heart pumping, deep in her abdomen. “Oh, that’s probably baby hiccups,” the midwife said. “Totally normal.” Her WhatsApp group of six other moms and dads from prenatal classes added to this pool of practical wisdom.

As if on a timer, at 28 weeks — the beginning of her third trimester — Helen’s usually low blood pressure started to rise. Her feet swelled, then her ankles, then her calves: the telltale signs of preeclampsia. Although Helen’s blood pressure was at the upper end of normal, the midwife sent her to the hospital twice a week for closer monitoring. There, an obstetrician prescribed labetalol — a drug that widens the arteries to lower the pressure.

On the 34-week scan, the babies were fortunately in the correct position: head-down, four feet kicking above Helen’s navel. A vaginal delivery still looked likely.

Helen wanted her delivery to be as natural as possible, even though she was resigned to the necessity of being induced at 37 or 38 weeks if the babies hadn’t arrived by then, standard practice for the delivery of twins.

“Natural birth” — now called “physiological birth” within the midwifery profession — is a common request in the U.K., and not something women have to fight for. It tends to be defined by what it is not: no induction, minimal medical involvement and certainly no cesarean section. Every pregnant woman is encouraged to write a birth plan with her midwife, which includes the desired location of birth, medical interventions mom would agree to, the role a partner is to have (cutting the cord, for example), and forms of acceptable pain relief.

Making it more likely that U.K. women get the kind of delivery they want is due to the influence of midwives. The NHS employs over 21,000 midwives, compared with 4,710 OB-GYNs. Unlike obstetric nurses in the U.S., midwives in Britain do not work under the auspices of obstetricians. Midwives are independent practitioners in their own right, but trained to recognize when a woman or her baby is in trouble and needs an obstetrician’s eye.

“A midwife looks at a pregnant woman and sees a beautiful, normal, physiological, wonderful event about to happen,” Oxford’s Sally Collins told me. “An obstetrician looks at a pregnant woman and sees a disaster lying in wait for them. If you’ve got these two healthcare professionals working together as a team and meeting in the middle, what you end up with is really good healthcare. The normal women are normalized and the high-risk women are medicalized.”


Thirty-five weeks pregnant to the day, Helen was at home in the twins’ new jungle-themed nursery. Her induction date was over a fortnight away, but she was already hanging up the tiny clothes handed down from her nieces.

At 4:30 p.m., the phone rang. The line was crackly, as usual in her rural neighborhood, but she could just make out the voice of a midwife at the other end.

“Your urine reading is not good, the protein level is very high. You need to come in.”

Helen had a doctor’s appointment the following morning and suggested she could talk through the results then.

“No, you need to come now.”

Hearts racing, Helen and Marcus drove the 40 minutes to West Suffolk Hospital, forgetting their pregnancy notes in the rush. On arrival, the midwife repeated the urine test, which showed 370 mL/deciliter of protein, or more than 12 times the normal level. Helen’s blood pressure was up, too, exacerbated by anxiety. Another midwife strapped a fetal heart monitor around Helen’s large bump: 138 and 125 per minute, both babies beating perfectly normally, oblivious to what was about to happen.

Helen’s preeclampsia had worsened rapidly. In line with NICE protocol, the obstetrician-on-call decided that immediate induction and delivery was imperative.

Helen was given a steroid shot to accelerate the babies’ lung development over those final hours. Entering the world five weeks early, the twins might struggle to breathe unassisted.

It was the end of a weeklong heatwave in the U.K. with temperatures over 90 degrees, the hottest June days in 40 years. Helen settled into a six-bed bay on ward F11 for the night. The window safety catches opened less than a hand’s breadth and there was no air conditioning. Three other women were on the ward, too, separated by disposable fabric curtains.

“They’re going through their own experiences and you don’t really want to share that, but because they’re next to you, you do,” Helen told me later. Two were moved to the labor suite in the early hours as their deliveries progressed, while the remaining woman endured the first stages of labor that night, gasping with each contraction.

The next morning I met Helen for the first time. Wearing a loose jersey dress, she was propped up in bed to ease her back pain, with her legs stretched out, shiny and swollen as though a needle might pop them. She had made herself at home, unpacking her pregnancy kit: a half-liter bottle of Gaviscon antacid, a large tangerine-colored birthing ball, “To Kill a Mockingbird”, cereal bars, and “What to Expect When You’re Expecting,” the American pregnancy Bible. As 3 milliliters of prostaglandin hormone were infused through a pessary (a ring-shape device which sits in the vagina and delivers medication to start the contractions), Marcus fell asleep in the chair beside her.

After 24 hours in the hospital and three pessaries, not much was happening. Helen’s Bishop’s score was five, meaning that her cervix was still too narrow for delivery. “I had some period cramps and a little bit of back ache,” Helen said, “but I’m meant to be having full-on contractions, and there was just nothing, which I really wasn’t expecting.”

It was agreed that the next day an obstetrician would break Helen’s waters. “It sounds like a hook,” Helen recalled. “You have to have your legs up in stirrups and then they literally find where the cervix is and tear [the membranes], which was incredibly painful,” so bad that she had to be on a painkiller, nitrous oxide, known as “gas and air.” A syntocinon drip was started at 6 milliliters per hour to coax the uterus toward delivery. Helen was allocated her own midwife for the day, and was pleased that this woman “was totally focused on us.”

After examining Helen’s cervix, still far from the 10-centimeter dilation needed for active labor, the obstetrician increased the drip. This happened four times over the course of the day.

“I got more and more disheartened because I was really set on a vaginal birth and it all being as natural as possible,” said Helen. After eight hours, she had reached 60 milliliters per hour, the recommended maximum amount. The obstetrician agreed to go one dose higher. Without saying a word, she seemed to understand how much Helen wanted to avoid surgery.

During the last half hour on the drip, Helen anxiously searched the U.K. parenting website Mumsnet on her phone to see what other women had done in her situation. “I thought, could I just leave it and go another day and see what happens?” But with her waters already broken, the risk of infection was too high.

By 10 p.m., Helen was exhausted. Other than a hurried slice of toast and jam for breakfast, she hadn’t eaten all day. “It was definitely my decision to say I’ve had enough of being on the drip, it’s not working and I can feel it’s not working.”

The obstetrician nodded.

“We’re going to have to do a C-section.”

For Helen, this felt like a failure.


NHS doctors and midwives are working together to reduce the number of cesarean sections in the U.K. C-sections are one of the most common operations in the world (and the most common inpatient surgery in the U.S.), but far from all of them are necessary. Incidence of surgical births has been steadily rising – from one in 10 births 30 years ago, to almost one in four today. For the U.S., this number is even higher: one in three pregnancies end in a C-section.

Most are emergency procedures, but too many are elective. The World Health Organization suggests that an “ideal rate” of C-sections is 10 to 15 percent of total births, which would maximize survival of mothers and babies without causing needless complications.

In the U.K., many hospitals are seeking to reduce the number of C-sections that are requested by patients but are not medically indicated. The NHS supports vaginal delivery for even complicated presentations, sometimes when the baby is in the breech position (head uppermost), commonly for twin deliveries and often after a mother has had a prior C-section (known as vaginal births after cesarean, or VBACs). Counseling and individualized birth plans have enabled skeptical women to choose a vaginal delivery tailored to their needs rather than default to surgery.

Why Giving Birth is Safer in Britain Than in the U.S.

The U.S. and the U.K. used to have the same rate of women dying in pregnancy and childbirth. Now, Britain’s is almost three times lower. Here’s what they’re doing right.

Besides the immediate dangers, including postpartum hemorrhage and infection, C-sections increase the risk of problems in subsequent pregnancies. The placenta is more likely to embed on an old cesarean scar, where the uterus is thinner, and sometimes invades the uterine muscle, which can cause serious organ damage or even death.

NICE states that women should have the right to choose a C-section, but many hospitals in the U.K. are extremely reluctant to perform them unless strictly necessary or if the woman is diagnosed by a psychiatrist to have tokophobia, a fear of childbirth.

Jac Reeve, an attending obstetrician and gynecologist at West Suffolk Hospital, said she’s “very anti” performing C-sections simply because a patient wants one. “I take the ‘first do no harm’ principle as fundamental,” she said. “For me, cutting someone open when there is no need to is first doing harm.”

Nevertheless, when options for a vaginal birth have been exhausted or deemed unsafe, emergency cesareans can be the only choice for mom and baby. That was Helen’s situation.


On Sunday night at 10:30 p.m., Helen was prepped for surgery. The anesthesiologist, obstetrician and a midwife each carefully explained to Helen every stage of what was about to happen and she consented.

“I was petrified,” she recalled. “I probably looked very calm. I’m almost glad it happened that quickly, because if I’d have had time to sit and think about it, I’d have felt even more scared.”

She perched on the edge of the operating table in the blue backless gown she had worn all day, not resisting as an IV drip was placed in her arm. She leaned forward as the injected local anesthetic tingled her lower spine before the larger epidural needle went in. The anesthesiologist tapped her thighs to test the numbness as it spread. He touched an ice cube to Helen’s leg, then over her tummy, asking if she could feel its chill.

A surgical drape was hoisted, dividing the intimacy of expectant parenthood from the business of surgery. At Helen’s side sat Marcus, togged in navy scrubs, a yellow cap and disposable booties. “I look like a doctor now,” he said. Three senior midwives stood around the couple, soothing them with jokes and stories.

“This is going to feel like someone washing up in your stomach,” said the obstetrician. Scalpel to skin at 11:53 p.m. “I don’t know why, but I kept waiting for the knife to go in,” Helen remembered. “Obviously, I wouldn’t have been able to feel that. It was only then that I felt this rummaging sensation. They’re in!”

One of the midwives leaned firmly on Helen’s stomach to push the twins towards the incision. Even though she hadn’t been allowed to eat before surgery, Helen was sick four times, and felt relief only after a shot of anti-nausea medication.

Helen listened to her son and daughter before she saw them, relieved that their lungs were strong enough to cry. Those first screams in stereo were the happiest sounds of her life. It took 15 minutes until she finally held them, one in the nook of each arm, just 5 pounds, 1 ounce, and 5 pounds, 6 ounces, swaddled and topped in pink and cream knitted hats. Helen stroked a spot of milky vernix from her son’s cheek. Marcus took a picture on his iPad.

“It’s strange, because I look at the photos now,” Helen said, “I’m cuddling these two babies, and I think to myself, ‘I was bleeding out at that point.’”


It was an emergency landing, but everyone survived. Pilots learn early in their training that every descent is a calculated crash, nothing less. The same is true for obstetricians.

For Helen, the post-op hours passed in a haze. “I may have slept slightly. I remember being checked on a lot, and they’d ask me if I could feel my legs yet, and I couldn’t,” she recalled. “They were monitoring my blood pressure the whole time, and they’d come in and take readings every so often.”

The obstetrician who performed the C-section visited Helen the next morning on her rounds. “You had me really worried there,” she said, her poker face breaking into a smile.

A midwife arrived to ask Helen if she wanted to express colostrum, the first milk, for the twins in NICU. “It was just what I needed really because I felt slightly disconnected because they weren’t with me,” Helen said. “By doing that, I felt like I was helping.”

Another midwife came to check Helen’s pain level. Halfway out the door, she turned back, “You don’t look like someone who’s lost three liters of blood.”

An hour later, when I went to see Helen, she told me about the midwife’s comment. I had to agree. Helen struck me as animated, even vibrant, showing few signs of the physical and emotional strains of the past 24 hours. I thought to myself: “How should someone look who for 12 years has longed for a baby, and then gets two?”


Contrary to what some obstetricians still believe, delivery does not always cure preeclampsia. Its course is variable, with the potential for devastating outcomes post-partum. Helen was offered a transfusion two days later to recover some much-needed energy after the hemorrhage. “My first reaction was, ‘No, I don’t want any more medical intervention’,” she said, but after talking to her sister-in-law, who had also suffered a hemorrhage with her first baby, Helen changed her mind. Although she felt somewhat better after the transfusion, her blood pressure remained stubbornly high, peaking at 177/97 three days after the birth. She was prescribed a drug to help prevent these spikes, which she would continue to take for several weeks.

On July 4, after 11 days of recovery and care, mother and babies left the hospital, finally free.

In both the U.K. and the U.S., the demographics of maternity are changing. Women tend to delay motherhood to an older age, and obesity and pre-existing conditions like diabetes are more common. Despite the associated rise in high-risk pregnancies, the U.K. government set an ambitious goal in 2015: to reduce maternal mortality by a further 20 percent before 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. MBRRACE is expanding its mission, to learn from near-misses as well as fatalities, morbidity as well as mortality. The U.K. Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) is part of this effort, and sends out monthly forms to hospitals nationwide asking about recent cases of specific severe maternal morbidity. It is not mandatory for clinicians to reply; nevertheless, 93 percent of the cards are returned with information.

U.K. maternity services, though, face a looming crisis. One in three midwives in England is now in his or her fifties or sixties — a “retirement time-bomb,” according to an October 2015 report by the Royal College of Midwives. Funding for training has been cut, and pay has been frozen. Diminished numbers of practitioners are entering and staying in the profession, while total births rose by 10,000 last year. Currently there are 3,500 fewer full-time midwives in England than required for the volume of work. This, as well as a shortage of beds, forced 40 percent of maternity units to close temporarily at least once in 2016.

“The single biggest thing we can do in the U.K. to improve obstetric care is to value our midwives,” Collins said. “Not just train more but retain the quality we have got. We are losing them like a hemorrhage, and it’s desperately sad.”


The heaviest things Helen picks up these days are the babies. Resuming her old habit, she incessantly Googles the significance of each of their new sounds and gestures.

In the U.S., new mothers are usually sent home with only their family and friends for support. While the newborn is supposed to see the pediatrician early and often, the mom typically doesn’t see her doctor for a follow-up for four to six weeks, which can delay recognition of postpartum depression and other serious problems.

In Helen’s case, a community midwife and a “health visitor” (an NHS professional who takes over fully from the midwife two weeks postpartum if everything is going well) dropped in the day after she and the twins arrived home. In the first two weeks after discharge, every woman in the U.K. should receive four visits, or more if either mom or baby is having problems. There is also a 24-hour obstetric triage helpline that new mothers can call with any concerns.

When I visited Helen one recent sunny morning, she sat in her living room, the music from the mobile on the babies’ downstairs crib tinkling in the background. “It’s funny how naïve I was,” she told me, remembering her pre-birth expectations that feeding twins at the same time would be a breeze. “It’s really tricky!” Like an athlete, she’s tested different techniques with the help of her coaches, the neonatal nurse and lactation consultant, both NHS employees who help with premature babies and suckling difficulties. In bed, surrounded by a dam of pillows, two pairs of blue eyes staring up at her, Helen likes to tuck each baby under an arm and support their heads in her hands, known as the “rugby ball hold.” After feeding, brother and sister fall asleep in a star pose, arms stretched up and heads together. The health visitor told Helen it’s a sign of contentment.

There is barely a minute in the day for Helen to worry about her own recovery. If she does, the twins are on her mind: “I do need to be healthy, I do need to get a certain amount of sleep because otherwise I’m no good to these babies. It’s always in terms of, am I going to be strong enough to look after them?” Marcus spends time with his son and daughter after work in the evenings so Helen can get some rest, and the babies’ grandparents are regular visitors.

Luckily, the healthcare team is keeping an eye on mom. “I didn’t have to be too worried, because they were being overly cautious for me,” Helen said. The midwife suggested compression stockings to guard against clots. Helen’s scar will be troublesome for a while longer, but there has been no infection or bleeding, and driving is now possible. She can see her anklebones again. Her latest blood pressure is within the normal range, and she is due to come off the tablets in several days.

At the six-week appointment in the local clinic, the babies are on track with their weight — in fact they’re “thriving.” It's the word all mothers are relieved to hear. The health visitor laid the twins down, turning her full attention to the other person in the room. Any pain, exhaustion, sadness, bleeding, anxiety, headaches, dizziness?

She starts with a simple question:

“So, Helen, how are you?”

Kate Womersley is a graduate medical student in her final year at the University of Cambridge.

Nina Martin of ProPublica contributed to this article.

At Last, Air Monitor Set to Test for Lead Near Military Open Burn Site

$
0
0

Virginia environment officials say they will soon begin monitoring the air near a public elementary school outside the town of Radford amid concerns that pollution from an Army weapons plant there is endangering people’s health.

For the first time in the more than 65 years since the facility, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, began burning hazardous explosives and other waste without environmental controls, the monitoring will measure how much lead reaches the surrounding community. Officials may add the capability to measure arsenic, chromium and other pollutants as well.

In July, ProPublica reported that open burning of hazardous waste was standard practice at U.S. military facilities despite the fact it has been banned by law for years at almost every other type of industrial operation. The Radford plant is just one of at least 51 military sites across the country where dangerous materials are burned on a regular basis, according to documents obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and reported by ProPublica.

The Department of Defense and environmental regulators have insisted that the burns are safe, but those assurances have relied on computer models to estimate the pollution and officials had never measured the actual emissions — either at the burn sites within the boundaries of the military bases, or in the surrounding civilian residential areas.

According to the federal toxic release inventory, the Radford plant is the single largest polluter in Virginia, responsible for millions of pounds of toxic chemicals every year. Some who live near Radford fear that the pollution has contributed to poor health in the region, including unusually high rates of thyroid disease and elevated rates of cancer in the surrounding counties.

But the health links have never been studied and no measures have ever been taken of the reach of the actual pollution from the plant.

Earlier this month, a draft EPA report obtained by ProPublica showed that the first tests of the burn pollution taken by Army officials inside the plant detected higher levels of some pollutants than previous computer models had estimated. Arsenic was emitted at rates 37 times greater than what federal officials had previously estimated when determining the burns were safe for public health. Lead — dangerous to children’s cognitive development — was emitted at five times the level estimated to be safe. Cadmium, silver and methyl chloride also exceeded previous estimates.

The new air monitor will be purchased by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, with a grant from the EPA, and will cost $26,000. It will mainly detect lead levels, but a DEQ spokesman says arsenic and chromium may also be part of the monitoring.

According to the spokesman, the monitor’s installation has been planned since the spring, and is unrelated to ProPublica’s reporting about the open burn practices in Radford. The monitor is being installed to comply with new EPA guidelines requiring monitoring for facilities that are known to emit lead in excess of new federal ambient air quality standards proposed by the EPA in 2015. In numerous interviews with the agency’s staff over the past four months, plans to install the monitor were never mentioned.

Once in place, the monitor could provide the first concrete answers for a region that has been seeking them more than a half a century. DEQ officials could not say when the monitor would begin operating or how soon its findings would be available to the public.

Lifting the Veil on Another Batch of Shadowy Trump Appointees

$
0
0

President Donald Trump has left hundreds of government jobs unfilled that require a vote by the Senate. Yet his administration has installed more than 1,000 people through political appointments at every major federal agency, handing over control of the government’s day-to-day operations to industry insiders and loyalists to an unprecedented degree.

Among the latest Trump administration appointees is a lobbyist who until March worked for a leading hepatitis C drugmaker that priced its treatment at $1,000 a pill and is now leading a White House working group setting drug pricing policies. The list includes the new head of the government’s offshore oil drilling safety and enforcement agency, who previously sat on the board of Sunoco Logistics and who told an industry conference earlier this month that deepwater drilling should ramp up. Then there’s the Hollywood actor who has called global warming and climate change a “leftist political tool” and “not sound science” on Twitter and who is now the communications director at the Department of Health and Human Services. Finally, this group also includes the 80-year-old retired chief legal officer of Morgan Stanley, who once told government lawyers he was “going to kick your ass” and is now a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division, overseeing litigation while his boss awaits Senate confirmation. (At the time, Kempf denied using the expletive in exactly those terms.)

These political appointees, some of them members of what have been dubbed “beachhead teams” during the presidential transition, and others who are now permanent employees, don’t need Senate confirmation. Many of them have operated in the shadows and the White House has declined to publicly reveal their identities. Some political appointees, such as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s chief of staff, Wendy Teramoto, were initially hired as special government employees, or SGEs. They are brought on as temporary advisers and don’t face the same rules that other federal employees do. But Teramoto and others have stuck around, and been promoted to permanent jobs. The administration reveals virtually nothing about this category of staffers.

“As long as you know who to call, they are more than willing to work with ‘industry,’” said Scott Mason, a Trump campaign veteran who’s now a lobbyist with Holland & Knight. “The swamp continues as the ecosystem it has always been, advocating on behalf of Americans who are all represented in one way or another by an interest group.”

We now have a full list from the Office of Personnel Management, the federal government’s human resources department, and it counts more than 1,000 political appointments since Trump took office on Jan. 20. The 1,000 include some 400 that ProPublica first revealed in March, and another 140 that were added in subsequent updates. We found that of the roughly 500 new appointees on our list, at least 61 have been registered lobbyists at the federal level. (This is likely an undercount since it does not include those who have not registered or who worked solely on the state level.)

We found at least 44 people who have been rehired for second stints in the same government jobs after their initial terms expired. Another 194 people have been given new jobs after their initial beachhead terms.

“The pool of ‘Trump Republicans’ was small so that they had to go to regular Republicans, a lot of whom worked for the Bush administration,” said Ivan Adler, a lobbying headhunter with the McCormick Group. “And there happen to be a lot of lobbyists among that group.”

We’re still sorting through the new names and we want your help. If you have tips or want to flag someone for us, email beachhead@propublica.org.

“What’s unusual is the size and scope of these teams,” said Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, which advises both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations on transitions. “The normal process in filling your political team is going from the campaign to the transition team to a political appointment. The cabinet picks manage all of this. But without them, the beachhead teams have been in charge. It’s added a whole other level of confusion to an already difficult process.”

It has also added a layer of shadows, said Jeff Hauser, who runs the Revolving Door Project at the D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. “These are political appointees who are subjected to much less scrutiny than if they went through the Senate-confirmed process,” he said. “And these special employees, many of whom are on short stints and go back to regulated industries, are not answerable to anyone except the White House. It’s an outsourcing of government.”

Dozens of original beachhead team members have left government altogether, with several returning to lobbying or other industry-advocacy work. Donald Schnare, a lawyer and longtime critic of the EPA named to that agency’s beachhead team in December, resigned in March after infighting between political appointees and the hand-picked staff of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt boiled over. Schnare told ProPublica that nearly every member of the Trump administration beachhead team at the EPA were refused permanent jobs by Pruitt.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is lagging in nominating key leaders to government jobs that require a vote of the Senate. As of the August congressional recess, the Trump administration has nominated 277 people for Senate confirmation and just 44 percent have been confirmed, according to the Partnership for Public Service. By comparison, the previous four presidential administrations — those of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush — had nominated at least 315 people by the August recess and had their picks confirmed at rates above 60 percent at that point in the process.

To fill the gaps, the White House placed at least 18 “senior White House advisers” at federal agencies, to act as the administration’s eyes and ears. Many were Trump campaign staffers and loyalists with little to no government experience and they publicly clashed with several of Trump’s top Cabinet picks, including Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin and Transportation secretary Elaine Chao.

Staffing records show that at least 11 of these advisers have left their original jobs or departed the government. (Several advisers, such as Paula Stannard at Health and Human Services, Mary Anne Bradfield at the Small Business Administration and Maren Kasper at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, were promoted to permanent positions.)

But seven still remain, including Sam Clovis, a former radio host whose nomination as the Agriculture Department’s chief scientist is pending. (Clovis has attracted press scrutiny for, among other statements, his assertions that he is “extremely skeptical” about climate change.)

Here are a few Trump political appointees we’ve found:

  • Joe Grogan, an associate director for health programs at the Office of Management and Budget, most recently worked as a lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that has been accused of price-gouging in its sales of a novel hepatitis C treatment. Since his appointment, Grogan has taken a leading role in a White House working group on drug pricing policies. As reported by Kaiser Health News, internal documents from the working group show that, despite vows by President Trump to lower the price of medications, Grogan’s team is pushing pharma-friendly policies, such as extending a drug’s patent time in foreign markets. Grogan and the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comment.
  • Donald G. Kempf Jr., a hard-nosed attorney and former Marine who spent 35 years at Kirkland & Ellis and another six years as chief counsel at Morgan Stanley. He was personally recruited by incoming Deputy Attorney General Makan Delrahim, whose nomination has languished without a vote since March. As to why he came out of a 12-year retirement, Kempf told ProPublica that “my country has been very good to me” and that he “welcomed the responsibility.” Kempf had a storied career, often representing corporations in antitrust and mergers and acquisitions litigation at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis. But during his tenure at Morgan Stanley, the bank suffered a series of legal defeats and regulatory fines before his retirement from the organization in 2005.
  • Brad Bailey is the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, focusing on tax and the budget, at the Department of the Treasury. Before his new role he was a registered lobbyist for O’Rourke and Nappi where one of his clients was H&R Block. As ProPublica has reported, H&R Block has been fighting to stop a free government tax filing system for years that would make the company obsolete. As recent as April, Bailey was one of the people lobbying on behalf of H&R Block. In response to questions, the Treasury Department said in a statement: “Treasury’s ethics officials work with agency personnel to address and mitigate potential conflicts if and when they arise.”
  • Scott Angelle is the director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the agency that oversees safety for offshore oil and gas drilling. He served as Louisiana’s secretary of natural resources from 2004 to 2012, and was appointed interim lieutenant governor from May to November 2010. During that time, Angelle helped lead a successful effort to bring an early end to the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling that was imposed after the April 2010 BP oil spill. Before joining the Trump administration, Angelle spent several years on Louisiana’s Public Service Commission, where his position on the board of Sunoco Logistics Partners, an oil pipeline company — for which he received $989,238 — raised conflict of interest concerns. (Angelle denied any conflicts at the time.) Sunoco Logistics merged with Energy Transfer Partners, the developer of the Dakota Access pipeline, in April. Angelle spoke at an industry conference this month where he encouraged oil and gas companies to drill deepwater wells. Angelle did not respond to requests for comment.
  • Charles Faulkner, who was appointed deputy assistant secretary of state on June 11, left BGR Government Affairs, a D.C. lobbyist firm, where he had been a lobbyist for several foreign governments. His client list included the Kazakh embassy, for which he provided political consulting and arranged meetings between U.S. and Kazakh government officials. He also advised the Kurdistan Regional Government, a semiautonomous part of Iraq that often has tense relations with Baghdad, as well as neighboring Syria, Turkey and Iran. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
  • Until March, Wendy Teramoto was a managing director at Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s former investment firm, WL Ross & Co., and held board positions on several Ross-connected corporations, including the Greenbrier Companies, an Oregon supplier of railroad equipment. Teramoto took a job as a part-time special government employee at the Commerce Department, as an adviser to Ross, in mid-March. Commerce Department officials said that between March and August, Teramoto “resigned from all outside non-federal positions” and signed an ethics pledge but she did not become a full-fledged government employee, subject to ethics requirements, until Aug. 1, when she was appointed Ross’s chief of staff. In a statement, the Commerce Department said Teramoto is “subject to the same disqualification requirements under conflict of interest statutes as the Secretary and other federal employees.”
  • As assistant secretary for border, immigration and trade policy at the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Dougherty could be in a position to benefit his former employer. Dougherty was previously CEO of the Identification Technology Association, a trade group for companies that sell biometric and cybersecurity technologies for borders, law enforcement and emergency management. Before that, he worked for the Raytheon unit that sells products and services to U.S. law enforcement agencies. Dougherty is careful to comply with ethics rules and keep his government work separate from his past employment, according to his successor at the trade group, Jason Conley. “Where members have tried to reach out, he’s been appropriately nonresponsive,” Conley said. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said it provides ethics training to all political appointees and reviews any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Mark Vafiades, a Hollywood actor (best known for roles in “An American Carol” and “Vengeance Trail,” according to his IMDB listing) is now communications director at Health and Human Services. Vafiades has been particularly vocal on social media, calling global warming and climate change a “leftist political tool” and “not sound science!” and advancing claims of voter fraud in his home state of California. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.
  • Emily McBride, a former aide to Jeff Sessions when he was a senator, and then an assistant in the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs, in June became a special assistant to the head of the General Services Administration. The GSA leases the building housing Trump’s Washington hotel, which ethics experts say is a conflict of interest because the president is effectively both tenant and landlord. The GSA has already concluded that Trump’s ascension to president didn’t violate his lease (despite the opinion of some legal experts), but the agency is still responsible for ongoing review of the hotel’s finances. A GSA spokesman said McBride won’t participate in the oversight of Trump’s hotel.
  • Adam Kissel, who joined the Department of Education as deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, has spent the past five years at the Charles Koch Foundation, working on higher education projects. The foundation has faced scrutiny for donating millions to colleges and universities around the country, including to academic institutes focused on “market-oriented ideas” and “the practice and potentials of freedom.” Before his role at the Charles Koch Foundation, Kissel worked at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where he was a prominent critic of the Obama Administration’s approach to investigating sexual violence on campus. Kissel and the Education Department did not respond to requests for comment.
  • Jonathan Galaviz was hired as an adviser at the State Department's Office of Security, Democracy and Human Rights, on June 11. He has consulted for foreign governments, including Russian state-run investment firms, helping with a host of gaming industry issues. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
  • Alexander Fitzsimmons was appointed chief of staff and senior adviser at the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He came to government from the advocacy group American Energy Alliance and Fueling U.S. Forward, a public relations group supporting fossil fuels. Both organizations are backed by Koch Industries and they called for the elimination of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in 2015.

Al Shaw, Annie Waldman, Lisa Song and Lylla Younes contributed to this report.


Will Trump Kill the Dream for These Immigrants?

$
0
0

Marco Guajardo starts a new job today that, he said, will provide him with health insurance for the first time. Matias Zubko is set to close on a new house on Wednesday. Roberto Angulo is hoping for a promotion at the electrical company that employs him as he nears his first anniversary there.

All three of them, immigrants in their 20s, now fear those prospects could vaporize in a matter of days. Guajardo, Angulo and Zubko were all brought to the U.S. illegally as children, yet since 2012 they’ve been able to work legally, get access to credit, obtain drivers’ licenses, buy houses and travel around the country. In short, they could achieve a semblance of a normal life.

Now, they may lose their jobs and face deportation.

The Trump administration seems poised to eliminate the immigration program on which the three men have depended. Called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program has allowed almost 800,000 young immigrants to receive renewable work permits. But as an executive order from President Barack Obama — announced after his administration’s failure to pass the DREAM Act, which would’ve enshrined the protections in law — it can be reversed with the swipe of a presidential pen.

Trump has shown some hesitation to undo the order, expressing sympathy for those protected by it. But a group of state attorneys general, who view the program as an example of illegal executive overreach, have given him an ultimatum: End DACA by Tuesday or defend it before a judge who blocked a similar program in 2014 that would have protected undocumented parents.

An announcement could come as soon as today. Trump could cancel all of DACA’s provisions on the spot, though a February draft order that circulated in the administration suggests he may phase out the program in stages. Under that plan, 1,000 immigrants a day would lose their work authorizations and deportation protections until none are left.

ProPublica spoke on Thursday with more than a dozen people helped by DACA whose work permits expire as soon as a month from today and as far out as August 2019. They expressed a combination of dread and uncertainty, describing plans aborted, a terror of deportation they hadn’t felt in years, and anxiety that their lives are about to be upended.

The potential change is forcing them to make decisions they didn’t expect to have to make. “Should we buy this house?” asked Zubko, a 28-year-old Argentinian whose wife is also protected by DACA, of the purchase he was about to make. “We got a loan,” he said. “We both have good paying jobs. And last year we had a baby and she’s an American citizen. But if DACA gets taken away, we’re not sure we’d be able to close on the house and that’s scary.”

Such concerns are widespread. Two immigrants said they’re frightened that losing their jobs means their homes will be taken away in foreclosures. One said she didn’t know whether to renew her lease. Another said she would drop out of school: Why study to be a teacher if no one will be able to employ you?

“I don’t know what would happen to my 401(k) or my taxes or my lease,” said Nathali Bertran, an engineer in Honda’s research and development division. A native of Peru, Bertran helped create DACA Time, a website that allows immigrants to prepare their applications digitally.

As for Angulo, the man nearing his one-year anniversary at the electrical company, his work permit expires on October 6. Angulo renewed his Mexican passport last week — just in case. On Wednesday, he emailed his company’s human resources department wondering if they could sponsor him for an employment visa. He hasn’t heard back yet.

“It feels like I just went from being able to look at the stars and shoot for them to all of a sudden getting dragged down,” he said, “like if someone put cement blocks on your feet.”

For Guajardo’s part, his new job — and his health insurance — may turn out to be temporary. Before DACA was implemented, he lived near the Mexican border and had never left his town, scared of what would happen if he encountered one of the dozens of immigration checkpoints that the Border Patrol operates along the border.

“Now I’ve traveled all around the country,” he said. “DACA changed my life completely, from being stuck in a little town, to going to my favorite university, to getting a great job and exploring new places.”

When DACA was created in 2012, only four states allowed undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, and that list didn’t include Texas or California, where the majority of DACA recipients live.

“To have a driver’s license is a tremendous thing,” said Ken Schmitt, an immigration lawyer who has helped file hundreds of DACA applications. “In the past, one way ICE got people into removal proceedings was after they were pulled over by police,” he said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They would arrest them for driving without a license and then turn them over to ICE.”

Barclay’s livelihood depends on his commercial driver’s license. A 25-year-old immigrant from Guyana, he drives a truck in New York, where, should he lose his legal status, he would no longer be eligible for a license.

“The only thing that I can do now is honestly to work as much as I can, basically get no sleep until that day,” Barclay said. “Once my work permit expires, I still have to pay rent, eat and live and that money won’t be building anymore, just depleting every single day. I can’t even fathom this right now.”

Applying for DACA costs $485 every two years, excluding attorney fees. At any given moment, there are around 100,000 applications and renewals pending, according to statistics from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers the program. Steve Blando, a USCIS spokesman said on Thursday evening the agency was still accepting and processing DACA applications.

Carlos Garcia is worried not only about losing his job but also that the government will try to deport him and his wife, who is not shielded by DACA. His work permit expires on Dec. 3 and his renewal is pending. After obtaining DACA privileges, he had started a job as an IT help desk technician and moved up to become a server administrator.

“No matter what the administration says, it’s open season on immigrants now,” Garcia said. “It’s easy to find us.”

DACA applicants feel particularly nervous because applying for the program meant they voluntarily revealed information to the government, including where they live. They also submit new portrait photographs of themselves every two years and provide details such as their height, weight, and eye and hair colors. A large number have also provided copies of their birth certificates, which identify their parents by name.

Alan Torres, a 31-year-old Mexican immigrant, experienced firsthand what happens when DACA protections lapse. A few years ago, his new work permit did not arrive before his old one expired. His company told him he’d have to take a leave of absence.

Indeed, Torres’s career wouldn’t have been possible without the program. He has a degree in information systems but when he started college he thought he might never be able to work in his field. Said Torres: “If I had graduated without DACA I would still be working in the restaurant industry.”

Thousands of Criminal Cases in New York Relied on Disputed DNA Testing Techniques

$
0
0

This story was co-published with The New York Times.

Over the past decade, the DNA laboratory in the office of New York City’s chief medical examiner emerged as a pioneer in analyzing the most complicated evidence from crime scenes. It developed two techniques, which went beyond standard practice at the FBI and other public labs, for making identifications from DNA samples that were tiny or that contained a mix of more than one person’s genetic material.

As its reputation spread, the lab processed DNA evidence supplied not only by the New York police, but also by about 50 jurisdictions as far away as Bozeman, Montana, and Floresville, Texas, which paid the lab $1,100 per sample.

Now these DNA analysis methods are under the microscope, with scientists questioning their validity, ProPublica has found. In court testimony, a former lab official said she was fired for criticizing one method, and a former member of the New York State Commission on Forensic Science said he had been wrong when he approved their use. The first expert witness allowed by a judge to examine the software source code behind one technique recently concluded that its accuracy “should be seriously questioned.”

Earlier this year, the lab shelved the two methods and replaced them with newer, more broadly used technology.

A coalition of defense lawyers is asking the New York State inspector general’s office — the designated watchdog for the state’s crime labs — to launch an inquiry into the use of the disputed analysis methods in thousands of criminal cases. While the inspector general has no jurisdiction over the court system, any finding of flaws with the DNA analysis could prompt an avalanche of litigation. Previous convictions could be revisited if the flawed evidence can be shown to have made a difference in the outcome.

The medical examiner’s office “has engaged in negligent conduct that undermines the integrity of its forensic DNA testing and analysis,” the Legal Aid Society and the Federal Defenders of New York wrote the inspector general on Friday. Because the lab has kept problems with its “unreliable” testing and “unsound statistical evidence” secret from the public and the courts, they continued, “innocent people may be wrongly convicted, and people guilty of serious crimes may go free.”

In addition to those convicted using the disputed methods, many defendants may have chosen to plead guilty when they learned prosecutors had DNA evidence against them. Their cases face significant barriers to reconsideration.

The medical examiner’s office stands by its science. Its chief of laboratories, Timothy Kupferschmid, said that the discarded techniques were well-tested and valid, and that the lab was adopting newer methods to align with changing FBI standards. He compared it to a vehicle upgrade.

“So just because we’re switching to the new model, I mean, our old pickup truck worked great, but my new pickup truck is so much better,” he said.

One case that hinges on the disputed DNA techniques stemmed from the beating of Taj Patterson in December 2013. A group of Hasidic men attacked Patterson, a black student, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. Prosecutors blamed the attack on the Shomrim, a Hasidic group that patrols Williamsburg, a neighborhood where tensions between Orthodox Jews and blacks have long simmered.

Six days after the attack, the police found one of Patterson’s black Air Jordan sneakers on a nearby roof.

The police sent the sneaker to the DNA lab, where a technician swabbed a 3-inch by 6-inch area of its heel — and recovered 97.9 picograms of DNA from at least two people. A picogram is one trillionth of a gram.

The sample bore Patterson’s DNA. Using software developed in-house, the lab calculated that it was 133 times more likely than not that the remainder belonged to Mayer Herskovic, a young father who lived and worked in Williamsburg and had no criminal record.

“I don’t believe that this is DNA,” Herskovic told ProPublica. “A mixture, like you take milk, orange juice and water and you mix it, what is it? Is it still milk? Is it still orange juice? I don’t know.”

“DNA is the magic word,” he added. “If you throw it into a trial, they eat it up. For me, it’s not magic at all.”

No other physical evidence linked Herskovic to the attack on Patterson, who was blinded in his right eye. Neither the victim nor those who witnessed the crime identified Herskovic at trial, nor was he seen on surveillance video. Herskovic said he has never been part of the Shomrim, and deplored the assault on Patterson.

Nevertheless, he was convicted by a judge of gang assault, and sentenced this past March to four years in prison. He is appealing.

Three years ago, Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project, a nonprofit that uses DNA evidence to exonerate wrongly convicted prisoners, yelled at his colleagues on the state forensic commission about the potential perils of the DNA work at the city’s lab.

“The day of reckoning is going to come,” Scheck told his fellow commissioners, some of whom rolled their eyes, a video of the meeting showed. “Someday people are going to review this,” he continued. “It’s an Ebola. It is a cancer here that could be spreading. We are all on notice.”


For three decades, forensic DNA evidence has been a valuable tool in criminal investigations, incriminating or exonerating suspects. Matching a defendant’s genetic material with a sample found on a weapon or at a crime scene has proved extremely persuasive with judges and juries.

But not all DNA evidence is equal. Sometimes it’s clear: blood or semen identifies a single person. If it’s just a few skin cells left on an object, or if it contains more than one person’s genetic material, it can be more ambiguous. In such situations, labs used to report that the results were inconclusive, or the defendant could not be excluded from the mix.

New types of DNA analysis have been introduced in recent years to interpret trace amounts or complex mixtures, spawning an industry of testing tools, chemical kits and software. As analysis has become more complex, the techniques and results are coming under fire nationwide.

In the past three years, flaws in DNA methods have temporarily shut down testing in public crime labs in Austin, Texas, and Washington, D.C. Lab analysts “make it seem like it’s a completely objective process,” said Bicka Barlow, a lawyer in California with a master’s degree in genetics and molecular biology. “But I’m 100 percent convinced that there are many people who are incarcerated who were convicted with DNA evidence who are innocent.”

The two techniques that New York’s lab introduced were the “high-sensitivity testing” of trace DNA amounts, and the Forensic Statistical Tool, or FST, in which software calculates the likelihood that a suspect’s genetic material is present in a complicated mixture of several people’s DNA. By its own estimate, the lab has used high-sensitivity DNA testing to analyze evidence samples in 3,450 cases over the past 11 years, and FST in 1,350 cases over the past six. Cases in which both methods were used may be counted in both totals.


In February 2012, responding to a 911 call about gunshots near East Tremont Avenue, police officers from the 45th Precinct in the Bronx saw a passer-by make a motion as if he was dropping an object under a parked car.

His was a familiar face: Johnny Morgan, who had been arrested 75 times. The police found a .40-caliber Glock 23 beneath the car. Morgan was charged with gun possession, based both on DNA evidence and witness testimony. But the amount of DNA recovered from the gun was extremely small; the lab initially said it was unsuitable for testing.

After the prosecutor and the police requested a high-sensitivity test, analysts said Morgan’s DNA was a match. He was convicted.

Public crime labs assessing DNA evidence, including the FBI’s lab, “amplify,” or copy, the material 28 times to conduct their analysis. Under the high-sensitivity testing method developed by Theresa Caragine, a forensic scientist, and implemented in 2006, New York’s lab began to push very small amounts through three more cycles, bringing the total to 31. This approach provided more material to look at — as much as eight times the standard approach. But, like turning up the volume on a radio, those additional cycles amplified small imperfections from missing or contaminated DNA.

To reduce potential problems, the lab decided not to amplify samples smaller than 20 picograms, or about three cells’ worth of DNA, its then-director, Mechthild Prinz, said in 2005 during the state’s approval process for the test. She declined to comment for this article.

“The scientific community has been asked to test more and more evidence with less and less amounts of DNA,” Prinz explained in 2009 to the DNA Subcommittee of the state forensic science commission, which approves all forensic methods used in New York State.

“A couple of years ago, DNA testing was limited to body fluids — semen, blood and saliva. Now every laboratory in the country routinely receives swabs from guns,” other weapons, burglary tools and cash registers, she said.

After several years of high-sensitivity testing of small amounts of DNA, the lab developed a second method: a piece of software to interpret complex mixtures.

Invented by Caragine and Adele Mitchell, a geneticist with a specialty in statistics who joined the lab in 2008, the Forensic Statistical Tool, or FST, considers the overall amount of DNA in the mixture, how many people are in it, how much information is probably missing or contaminated, and the frequency with which each piece of DNA appears in different racial or ethnic groups. Then it compares the defendant’s DNA profile to the mixture, and calculates a likelihood ratio, which it expresses as a single number.

The bigger that number — and it’s sometimes in the millions or even trillions — the more likely that the defendant’s DNA is present. Caragine and Mitchell testified in 2012 that about a third of all test results were favorable to defendants, by indicating that their DNA was probably absent.

Only a small proportion of cases using the Forensic Statistical Tool went to trial. Most defendants faced with unfavorable FST results pleaded guilty, defense lawyers say. “Just the prospect of those numbers going in front of the jury could really warp the plea bargaining process,” said Brad Maurer, a lawyer and DNA specialist at New York County Defender Services.

Eric Rosenbaum, an assistant district attorney and head of the DNA Prosecutions Unit in Queens, described FST as an “extremely powerful tool because it is devastating in court.”


In December 2012, The New York Times profiled Mitchell and Caragine in the article “Helping Decide Guilt or Innocence,” which described their fruitful collaboration, but also hinted at a brewing controversy. The Legal Aid Society was gearing up for an extensive fight against admission of FST results in court.

One interested reader was Eli Shapiro, the former mitochondrial DNA technical leader in the DNA lab. One reason for his early retirement, he later testified, was the stress over having to sign off on lab reports generated by the software. Even in the lab, few people knew the science behind it.

Shapiro later said in court that he found the FST process described in the article “very disturbing.” He reached out to his former boss and colleagues to express his alarm. “They were not concerned,” he testified.

So, in early 2013, Shapiro offered his help to Legal Aid, which had just formed a unit specializing in DNA evidence. Under a judge’s order, the lab had given Legal Aid the results of its validation studies — internal tests of FST’s accuracy. Shapiro helped decipher the data.

“He knows the math,” said Clinton Hughes, a Legal Aid lawyer. “For relaxation, he does long division on the beach with a pencil.”

From 2012 to 2014, a hearing in Brooklyn before Judge Mark Dwyer focused on DNA evidence in two cases: it had been recovered from the handlebars of a bicycle after a shooting, and from the clothing of a sexual assault victim. With the help of testimony from Shapiro and some of the world’s most renowned DNA experts, Legal Aid hoped to persuade the judge to throw out the evidence.

The defense experts were denied access to FST’s software code, which would later come under scrutiny. Instead, they criticized the way that Caragine and Mitchell designed and tested FST.

Bruce Budowle, an architect of the FBI’s national DNA database, testified that New York’s statistical methods were “not defensible.”

He said that FST was designed with the incorrect assumption that every DNA mixture of the same size was missing information or had been contaminated in just the same way. He also criticized the lab’s overreliance on “pristine” saliva and samples to test its methods, which do not mirror the ways real crime-scene evidence is degraded by time and weather. The lab underestimated the challenges, he testified.

“Five-person mixtures can look like three-person,” he said, “four contributors can look like two-person mixtures. It’s almost impossible to actually be accurate.”

The software’s inventors acknowledged a margin of error of 30 percent in their method of quantifying the amount of DNA in a sample, a key input into the FST calculation. They acknowledged that FST didn’t consider that different people in a mixture, especially family members, might share DNA.

In April 2013, weeks after testifying, Caragine was forced to resign from the lab after New York’s inspector general found that she had violated protocol by changing her colleagues’ FST results in two cases. Her defense was that she was correcting their mistakes. Mitchell left in 2014. Caragine declined to comment for this article, and Mitchell did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Perhaps the most dramatic testimony in the hearing came from Ranajit Chakraborty, who had developed the FBI’s policy on DNA in the 1990s and, as a member of New York’s DNA Subcommittee, voted to approve both high-sensitivity testing in 2005 and FST in 2010. What he had since learned about FST bothered him.

“What would your vote be today?” Jessica Goldthwaite, a lawyer for Legal Aid, asked Chakraborty on the stand.

“My answer would be no,” he said. In November 2014, Judge Dwyer sided with the defense, excluding evidence produced by both high-sensitivity testing and FST. He was the first state judge to do so, and so far the only one.


Appointed to the state forensic science commission when it formed in 1994, Scheck didn’t vote for either of the lab’s methods. His misgivings grew when he learned that the DNA sample used to convict Morgan in the Bronx gun case was only 14.15 picograms. That was below the 20-picogram minimum for high-sensitivity testing the lab had promised to set during its approval process back in 2005.

At the October 2014 commission meeting, Scheck pounded the table as he proposed to compel the lab to turn over any validation studies it had conducted for high-sensitivity testing of especially small samples. He accused lab officials of not having performed the necessary studies, despite their assurances otherwise. While Scheck’s motion failed, it drew a vote from an unexpected supporter: Marina Stajic, who then worked for the medical examiner’s office as the director of the toxicology lab. She supported the motion, she later testified, because she believed that the DNA lab should be transparent with its data.

Her boss, Dr. Barbara Sampson, the chief medical examiner, heard about Stajic’s vote the next morning. She expressed her anger in an email to a colleague, “Hold me down.”

Mimi Mairs, then a lawyer for the DNA lab, emailed, “She sucks.”

A spokeswoman for the medical examiner’s office declined to comment on the correspondence, as did the Manhattan district attorney’s office, where Mairs is now a prosecutor.

In April 2015, Dr. Sampson and Kupferschmid fired Stajic, who had worked at the lab for 29 years. Kupferschmid then called a commission member to inquire whether Stajic would also be removed from the oversight group, according to court documents.

In February 2016, Stajic sued Dr. Sampson, Kupferschmid and the city for allegedly violating her First Amendment rights. The defendants’ lawyer contends Stajic can’t prove why she was fired, and that her vote wasn’t constitutionally protected speech. Her case is pending.


The case that finally revealed FST’s source code began with a few drops of cooking oil.

Kevin Johnson and his ex-girlfriend Octaviea Martin shared custody of two sons, and he sometimes stayed over in her Bronx apartment. One night in April 2015, he was cooking cheeseburgers when some oil spilled. He and Martin argued about cleaning it up.

Her daughter got upset and called 911, telling the dispatcher that Johnson was pointing a gun at Martin. A police search of the apartment turned up two socks wedged between the refrigerator and the wall. In one sock was a black pistol; in the other, a silver revolver.

Johnson, who had been convicted on a previous weapons charge, was arrested.

The lab found that one gun contained two people’s DNA; by FST’s calculation, it was 156 times more likely than not to contain Johnson’s DNA. The second gun had three people’s DNA and a formidable likelihood of 66 million.

Hoping to cast doubt on the DNA results, his lawyers, Christopher Flood and Sylvie Levine, asked for the FST source code, which other lawyers had sought in vain.

Again, the government refused to hand it over on the grounds that it was a “proprietary and copyrighted” statistical tool owned by the City of New York.

The federal judge granted the defense access to the FST code in June 2016 under an order that bars wider disclosure. (The medical examiner’s office denied ProPublica’s public records request for the code, citing its “sensitive nature.”)

Nathaniel Adams, a computer scientist and an engineer at a private forensics consulting firm in Ohio, reviewed the code for the defense. He found that the program dropped valuable data from its calculations, in ways that users wouldn’t necessarily be aware of, but that could unpredictably affect the likelihood assigned to the defendant’s DNA being in the mixture.

“I did not leave with the impression that FST was developed by an experienced software development team,” Adams wrote in an affidavit. Pending more rigorous testing, “the correctness of the behavior of the FST software should be seriously questioned.” Characterizing Adams’ criticisms as merely stylistic rather than substantive, the lab told ProPublica that FST provided reliable calculations.

Technology consultants wrote the software code for FST, according to a spokeswoman at the medical examiner’s office. Few, if anyone, at the lab or on the state’s DNA Subcommittee had the expertise to double-check the software, said a scientist in the lab who worked on the techniques who asked to remain anonymous for fear of career repercussions. “We don’t know what’s going on in that black box, and that is a legitimate question,” the scientist said, adding that evidence in older cases should “absolutely” be retested in light of growing questions about FST. “As a scientist, I can’t say no.”

The U.S. attorney’s office withdrew the DNA evidence against Johnson days before the hearing about its admissibility was scheduled to begin.

Nevertheless, Johnson pleaded guilty this past May. On Aug. 28, he was sentenced to 28 months in prison, almost all of which he has already served. His lawyers declined to make him available for an interview.

As Johnson’s case proceeded, the lab circulated a memo to clients in September 2016, notifying them that it would replace both high-sensitivity testing and FST on Jan. 1. A new chemical kit would make the additional amplification cycles of the high-sensitivity method unnecessary. The lab would retire FST in favor of STRmix, a commercially available and FBI-endorsed software program for DNA mixtures that dozens of public labs use.

The medical examiner’s office “is fully committed to staying on the cutting edge of new technology to best serve the City of New York,” Kupferschmid wrote in the memo. He added that the lab would raise the minimum sample size for testing to 37.5 picograms — almost twice the initial floor of 20 picograms.


The change in policy is scant consolation to those who were convicted based on the discarded DNA techniques, like Mayer Herskovic. After the gang attack on Patterson, two confidential informants gave Herskovic’s name to a police detective. Herskovic was then arrested and swabbed for DNA. Neither informant testified against him at trial.

Sitting at a table in his apartment in Williamsburg, Herskovic discussed the DNA evidence, first calmly and then indignantly. The white walls were bare except for a small mirror, a clock and a portrait of his children, who were scribbling in coloring books on the kitchen floor. He recalled how, when the police asked him to give a DNA sample, his lawyer cautioned him not to, but Herskovic went ahead and did so.

“I was the first one to give DNA,” Herskovic said. “He told me they needed it, I said, ‘Go ahead, take it! It will be better.’”

The DNA on Patterson’s sneaker was pivotal to the case against Herskovic. Patterson testified that whoever pulled off his shoe had punched and kicked him. Although four other suspects were arrested, and several other men were identified by witnesses, seen on surveillance video, or had their license plates photographed at the scene, only Herskovic has been tried or sentenced to prison. Two people pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and were given probation; charges were dropped against the other two.

Herskovic’s four-year sentence was stayed pending appeal. He’s working at an hourly job for a heating, ventilating and air-conditioning company to support his wife and two young children. His appeals lawyer, Donna Aldea, plans to argue that FST was never tested on a population as insulated as the Hasidic Jews of Williamsburg, who very likely share many of the same ancestors, and therefore much of the same DNA.

“This case is a poster-child for how ‘DNA evidence’ can literally be fabricated out of thin air, and how statistics can be manipulated to create a false impression of ‘scientific evidence’ of guilt,” Aldea said. “This must be exposed.”

Another Thing Disappearing From Rural America: Maternal Care

$
0
0

Maternity care is disappearing from America’s rural counties, and for the 28 million women of reproductive age living in those areas, pregnancy and childbirth are becoming more complicated — and more dangerous. That’s the upshot of a new report from the Rural Health Research Center at the University of Minnesota that examined obstetric services in the nation’s 1,984 rural counties over a 10-year period. In 2004, 45 percent of rural counties had no hospitals with obstetric services; by 2014, that figure had jumped to 54 percent. The decline was greatest in heavily black counties and in states with the strictest eligibility rules for Medicaid.

The decrease in services has enormous implications for women and families, says Katy B. Kozhimannil, an associate professor in health policy who directs the Minnesota center’s research efforts. Rural areas have higher rates of chronic conditions that make pregnancy more challenging, higher rates of childbirth-related hemorrhages — and higher rates of maternal and infant deaths. And because rural counties tend to be poorer, any efforts to revamp or slash Medicaid could hit rural mothers especially hard. We spoke with Kozhimannil about the new study and the implications for maternal care. (The conversation has been edited and condensed.)

You and your colleagues have been looking at maternal health issues for several years. What’s the most surprising part of this new study?

I was surprised about the findings on race. Being aware of structural racism in U.S. health care, I shouldn’t have been. But we found that hospitals are more likely to close their doors entirely or close their obstetric units in communities that have more black residents. Rural black communities also experience some of the poorest birth outcomes in the country, especially in the Southeast.

I think [the race findings] are new and really important. In all the discussions I've had around maternity care access, I think there's often a false association of “rural” with white communities and with farming, but that doesn't represent the demographic reality of rural America, which is very diverse. There are 10 million people of color in rural America, that’s about 20 percent of all rural Americans.

What has led to the decline in rural obstetric services more broadly over this 10-year period?

We didn’t choose this period because we thought it was particularly unique. We chose it because it was the most recent decade of data we could get. That said, this was a period when there was a substantial shift in the health care delivery system. The debates around Obamacare, the implementation, the threats to repeal — all that really created instability with respect to what hospitals and clinicians were expecting around payments.

And the role of finances is key. If hospitals want to offer obstetric services, they need to be ready for a baby to be born at any time — they need to have a bed available, the equipment available for mom and for baby, clinicians and staff available that have the necessary skills. That's a substantial expense. If a hospital’s revenues are limited because it has a low volume of births — as many rural hospitals do — or if revenues are unpredictable, that creates a really difficult administrative problem.

(John Fedele/Getty Images)

How does Medicaid play into this?

Medicaid funds about half of all births in the United States, and an even greater percentage of births in rural hospitals. Medicaid funding for births is incredibly important and it’s one factor in hospitals’ decisions around whether to keep obstetric services. We found that rural counties in states with more generous Medicaid programs — with higher income eligibility limits for pregnant women — were less likely to lose hospital-based obstetric services.

Meanwhile, there’s talk of allowing states to impose new rules that could restrict access to Medicaid.

Changes to the financing of Medicaid would likely have big negative effects on the availability of obstetric services in rural areas. Based on our study, the generosity of a state’s Medicaid program seems directly linked to access to maternity care in rural counties. As such, any new reductions or restrictions on Medicaid funding or services may affect rural hospital financing.

What is it like to be pregnant in a rural area that doesn’t have adequate maternity care? What do women do?

For some women, there may be a nearby clinic or their general practitioner may be able to see them for prenatal visits if they have a low-risk pregnancy. But then they need to give birth in a more distant area with a different set of providers.

That may not even be a choice for women who live in communities that don't have any providers that see pregnant patients, or for women that have higher risk complications that require more specialized care.

I remember talking to one woman who lived in rural northern Minnesota and who had a preterm birth with her first pregnancy. For her second pregnancy, she had to drive two hours to the nearest hospital with a high-risk obstetrician. With one child at home already, and a full-time job and a partner who worked, it was almost untenable. It would take a whole day for her to drop her child off at daycare, drive all the way to the hospital, wait for a 15-minute visit that felt rushed, then drive all the way back.

I just heard on the radio this morning that a truck ran into a railroad bridge that goes over the highway that this woman would take to go back and forth to the hospital. So if she was pregnant right now, there's a 27-mile detour on three dirt roads to get around this broken bridge. That adds probably another 45 minutes to an already two-hour drive. Things like that can happen, you know, all the time.

What about giving birth? How does living in a remote area affect the kinds of choices doctors and women make?

In a typical childbirth education class in an urban area, childbirth educators say things like, “Go to the hospital when your contractions are five minutes apart.” None of that makes any sense in a rural context where women give birth far from home.

For rural moms, a lot of the conversation in childbirth education and in prenatal care revolves around logistics and transportation: “Do you know how you’re going to get to your appointment? Do you have access to a car? Is your car reliable? Do you have money for gas? Do you have a backup plan if your car doesn't start? Do you have someone that you can call if you need to go in quickly?”

Anecdotally, I hear a lot about labor induction. The rural physicians I’ve talked to are like, “I can't believe I am trying to talk patients into having an induction.” They believe in letting labor start naturally, but given the long drive, induction is often better for patients clinically. So that if complications come up, someone’s there, monitoring your blood pressure and vital signs. It’s not, you know, your partner or friend desperately driving down dirt roads as fast as they can while you yell in the back seat.

How does all this affect outcomes for babies?

We have good information from Canada that the women who have to drive long distances to give birth have higher rates of the babies being in the neonatal intensive care unit, and even of infant mortality. And so we know that distance is associated with outcomes of care. When rural hospitals close the doors of their maternity units, women have to drive longer distances.

These seem like pretty huge hurdles for rural mothers and babies. Is there any way to address these problems to improve maternity care?

One idea is programs to support pregnant women and families, especially with respect to their housing and transportation needs when they live far away from where they're going to give birth. Alaska has actually done a tremendous job of this.

Another is for states to allow midwives and nurse practitioners to play a greater role in offering prenatal and postpartum care, without having to be under a doctor’s supervision. That would be useful. Our prior research shows that midwives, for example, attend births at about one-third of all rural hospitals, and that hospital administrators would like to expand the role midwives play.

State and federal programs to support the rural maternity workforce are crucial. There ought to be programs to support training in emergency births in rural communities that lose obstetric care, and to support the costs of providing maternity care in communities where there are willing providers.

Do you know someone who died or nearly died in childbirth? Please tell us your story. If you want to reach out to us directly, email us at Maternal@propublica.org

We've Updated Prescriber Checkup

Risky, Overused Medications Prescribed Far Less Often in the Aloha State

$
0
0

If you think you would be healthier if you lived in Hawaii, you may be right.

People in Hawaii appear to be much less likely to overuse problematic prescription drugs, including opioid pain medications and antibiotics, than people in the mainland United States.

Medicare beneficiaries in Hawaii used fewer opioid pain medications, fewer antibiotics, fewer antipsychotic drugs and fewer drugs labeled as risky for seniors on average than patients in any other state in 2015, according to a ProPublica analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare’s prescription program covers more than 42 million seniors and disabled people, and pays for more than one in every four prescriptions in the U.S.

These four classes of medications are problematic for a number of reasons. Misuse and abuse of opioid painkillers has been linked to an ever-growing overdose epidemic. Overuse of antibiotics has been linked to the emergence of deadly superbugs that are resistant to drugs. Critics have faulted the use of antipsychotics in the elderly, particularly those with dementia, as a means of chemically restraining them. And the American Geriatrics Society has labeled some medications inappropriate for the elderly because they can increase the risk of falls, confusion and other problems.

Today, ProPublica is updating its Prescriber Checkup tool, which allows people to compare their doctors’ prescribing patterns in Medicare to other providers in the same specialty and state. While it has long been known that patients in the southern and southeastern United States use more medications that are prone to abuse and overuse, there’s been little discussion about why Hawaii fares so well.

“Hawaii is so different,” said Dr. Chien-Wen Tseng, a family physician and health services researcher at the University of Hawaii. “I think there is more of a cultural thing that says we don’t want to overuse medications.”

Other research also has found that people in Hawaii use fewer prescription drugs. Recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that after the District of Columbia, Hawaii had the lowest rate of opioids dispensed of any state. The state also has among the lowest rates of antibiotic prescribing per capita overall, not just among its Medicare population.

Dr. Lauri Hicks, director of the CDC’s Office of Antibiotic Stewardship, said she can’t definitively explain why some states, including Hawaii, have lower rates of prescribing than others. Some of the variation could be explained by differences in the population and the health status of each state’s residents, she said in a written statement.

That said, Hicks wrote, for conditions that don’t warrant antibiotic use, such as uncomplicated bronchitis and common colds, prescribing rates tend to be highest in the South, “suggesting that there is more inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in that region than in other regions of the country.”

Hawaii doesn’t just have lower rates of prescribing for drugs that carry extra risks. Our analysis shows that among Medicare enrollees who filled at least one prescription, patients in Hawaii filled fewer overall than residents of any other state – an average of 25.7 per person in 2015, compared to 37.2 per person for the country as a whole.

Physicians and health policy experts in Hawaii offer a variety of possible reasons.

For one, Hawaii is ranked as the healthiest state in a recent America’s Health Rankings report by the United Health Foundation. It has a low rate of obesity, a low rate of people without health insurance and fewer preventable hospitalizations than other states, according to the report.

Along the same lines, the state’s Medicare population has a smaller percentage of younger enrollees who qualify for coverage based on their disabilities than in any other state, 10 percent compared to 17 percent for the country as a whole. Disabled younger enrollees tend to take more drugs – particularly opioids – than older patients.

Hawaii’s demographics may also play a role.

With a large Asian population, its residents are more likely to embrace alternative medicine therapies including acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation, said Claudio Nigg, professor and director of the health behavior change research workgroup at the University of Hawaii’s office of public health studies. And they rely on their families and extended families for help rather than seek medications. “The tendency is more towards social wellness and family taking care of family,” Nigg said.

Prior work has shown that Asian patients are less likely to be prescribed opioid painkillers than patients in other demographic groups.

Medicare Part D Totals by the Numbers, 2015

38.9M Beneficiaries with Part D Claims
1.4B Prescriptions (Including Refills)
$137.4B Retail Price of All Prescriptions
1.38M Number of Prescribers
37 Average Prescriptions Per Beneficiary
$94.84 Average Retail Price of a Prescription
45.1% Portion of Claims to Patients Receiving Low-Income Subsidy
78.5% Portion of Claims for Generic Drugs
Notes: Counts include initial prescriptions and refills dispensed. Retail price includes patients’ out-of-pocket costs but does not reflect drugmaker rebates.

Dr. Scott Miscovich, a family physician in Hawaii who heads a narcotic policy working group for the state, said that while his state has not seen the same opioid epidemic that has been striking the mainland, it is taking steps to prevent it, including rewriting laws to parallel those of other states.

“I wish I could say that I thought it was because we had this magic formula for educating our doctors or educating our public,” he said. “It really isn’t the case. ... We still have pockets of doctors that are probably significantly overprescribing all of these classes of medicine, but I think it’s a far more limited number compared to bigger areas across the United States.”

All of this is not to say that Hawaii has no health concerns. The state is struggling with a persistent methamphetamine problem, far worse than it faces with opioids, Miscovich said. And it has the highest homelessness rate of any state. (Washington, D.C., has a higher rate.) “If you roll the statistics back, it’s not all rosy,” Miscovich said.

States that come closest to matching Hawaii’s low rates of prescribing for risky and misused drugs include New Mexico, Vermont, California, Minnesota and Wyoming.

Our analysis of Medicare’s data also reveals other interesting national trends:

  • The number of opioid prescriptions has finally started to decline. After peaking at 81.7 million in 2014, the figure dropped to 80.2 million in 2015. The drop is even more pronounced when you consider that enrollment in Medicare’s prescription drug program continued to grow during that time.
  • The number of antibiotics dispensed kept going up, to 57.3 million in 2015, from 54.2 million in 2014 and 52.4 million in 2013.
  • The average cost per prescription continues to increase, to $94.84 in 2015 from $85.82 in 2014 and $75.73 in 2013. However, those figures do not include confidential rebates the government receives from drug manufacturers.
Viewing all 7816 articles
Browse latest View live