Trump is reportedly giving Saudi Arabia access to secretive US technology that the Kingdom could use to build smart bombs
Friday, June 07, 2019
One of the main organizers of the Google Walkout has left the company over fears of 'public flogging, shunning, and stress' if she stayed
One of the main leaders of last year's Google Walkout, Claire Stapleton, has decided to leave the company, citing fears of retaliation if she stayed.
The announcement of her departure was made public in a Medium post on Friday, which was a copy of the note Stapleton sent internally this week to employees.
"If I stayed, I didn't just worry that there'd be more public flogging, shunning, and stress, I expected it," Stapleton said in the letter.
Read Stapleton's full letter here.
One of the main leaders of last year's Google Walkout, Claire Stapleton, has decided to leave the company after saying she faced retaliation for her organizing efforts.
"I made the choice after the heads of my department branded me with a kind of scarlet letter that makes it difficult to do my job or find another one," Stapleton said. "If I stayed, I didn't just worry that there'd be more public flogging, shunning, and stress, I expected it."
The announcement of her departure was made public in a Medium post on Friday, which republished a copy of the note Stapleton says she sent internally this week to employees.
In the note, Stapleton said she had "simple, pure nostalgia" for her early days at Google, circa 2007.
"Google's lore, its leadership, its promise — the whole thing lit me up, filled me with a sense of purpose, of inspiration, of privilege to be here," Stapleton said.
But over time, the former YouTube marketing manager said, things changed. She especially noticed around 2017, leadership's response over the "hard things" had taken on a different tone.
"Google's always had controversies and internal debates, but the 'hard things' had intensified," Stapleton said. "And the way leadership was addressing them suddenly felt different, cagier, less satisfying."
Read more: Google could be banned from San Francisco Pride after its response to a YouTuber who used homophobic slurs
Stapleton said in the note that she was inspired to call for the walkout by Google leadership's "lack of accountability" — specifically, in regards to its response to reports that the company had paid out a $90 million exit package to Android creator Andy Rubin while he was under investigation for sexual misconduct.
In the wake of the Google Walkout, Stapleton alleged that Google had retaliated against her, and that she had been demoted and lost half of her reports. After hiring a lawyer and an internal investigation was conducted, her role was restored, but "the environment remains hostile," she reportedly wrote in an internal email in April. Google denied any retaliation was taken against Stapleton or other organizers.
Fellow Google organizer Meredith Whittaker spoke out regarding Stapleton's departure on Friday, saying that her departure wouldn't "stop a movement."
—Meredith Whittaker (@mer__edith) June 7, 2019
Read Stapleton's full letter here.
CLASS WAR IN ALBERTA
We are in Hour 24 of bill debate. We’re standing up for people’s overtime and for young people’s minimum wage.
Your NDP team will work as long as it takes to stand up for working people. We’re not going to let Jason Kenney pick your pocket or scoop your overtime pay without a fight. #ableg
SEE CLASS WAR
- CLASS WAR IN ALBERTAOpinion: Two-tier minimum wa...
- CLASS WAR IN ALBERTA AUPE FIGHTS BACK Have you
eve...
Military doctors are doing fewer amputations, and there's a risk they could forget how to treat them
- The number of service members with combat-related amputations has declined sharply since 2011, when the number of amputations was at a peak of 260. There were three in 2018.
- The decline has raised concern that military medical professionals may forget how to treat patients with such injuries.
THE CONTINUING SAGA OF THE F-35 BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE
OOPS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
The Navy's newest supercarriers can't carry its new F-35 stealth fighters, and Congress is not happy about it
Ryan Pickrell
The future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is seen underway on its own power for the first time on April 8, 2017 in Newport News, Virginia. Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ridge Leoni/U.S. Navy via Getty Images
The Navy has been accepting new aircraft carriers batteries not included — unfinished and missing key capabilities — to skirt cost caps.
The USS Gerald R. Ford and the future USS John F. Kennedy do not and will not have the ability to deploy with fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters until post-delivery modifications have been completed.
Lawmakers have decided to change things up with new legislation that will require the Navy to give the Kennedy this capability before it takes delivery of the carrier.
The new Ford-class supercarriers are being delivered to the US Navy without the ability to carry the service's new stealth fighters, and lawmakers have decided to put a stop to it.
It's very difficult to get something like an aircraft carrier cheaply and quickly and have it work well. In the case of the Ford-class carriers, the Navy program is facing cost overruns, delivery delays, and missing capabilities.
The Navy has been accepting unfinished aircraft carriers that are lacking critical capabilities, such as the ability to launch and recover F-35s.
The service has been planning to complete the necessary work after delivery to skirt the caps imposed by Congress to keep costs from soaring, USNI News reported this week. The workaround ultimately results in higher costs in the long run.
The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which should be delivered back to the fleet this fall, currently lacks the ability to deploy with F-35s, and the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), which is still in the works, will not be able to deploy with F-35s either, at least not upon initial delivery.
That's a big problem for Congress.
"CVN-79 will not be able to deploy with F-35s when it's delivered to the Navy," a congressional staffer said this week, telling reporters that it's "unacceptable to our members that the newest carriers can't deploy with the newest aircraft."
The Navy argues that while the newest carriers may not be ready to carry F-35s upon delivery due to the need for additional modifications, none of which require significant redesigns to the ship, they will be ready to go by the time the air wing is stood up and the carrier-based F-35Cs are ready for operational deployment aboard the Navy's new flattops.
The "F-35C modifications for CVN-78 and CVN-79 are currently scheduled for a future post-delivery modernization maintenance period that will occur prior to the planned F-35C operations on those carriers," Captain Daniel Hernandez, a spokesman for the Navy acquisitions chief, told Business Insider.
The two follow-on Ford-class carriers, CVN-80 and 81, "will be constructed with those modifications made during construction and will not require a post-delivery modification," he further explained.
Congress isn't having it
Lawmakers, however, are not satisfied with the Navy's plans.
The House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces has included a line in the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which is still ongoing legislation, requiring that the USS John F. Kennedy be capable of deploying with F-35s before the Navy takes delivery of the new carrier.
Experts agree that it's time for action.
"I think it's a good idea to drive the Navy to make the ship more complete when it's delivered because that's a problem that's getting worse, not better," Bryan Clark, a defense expert and former Navy officer, told Business Insider, explaining that Congress will need to provide financial relief as changes to the service's current approach to aircraft carrier development will likely result in higher upfront costs.
Lawmakers have proposed amending the cost caps on the new supercarriers, a change the Navy welcomes.
"The Navy supports the lifting of cost caps on CVN78 - CVN81 so that it can take full advantage of opportunities to deliver capability earlier and more rapidly incorporate new requirements into the ship baseline," Hernandez told Business Insider.
The new legislative measures could address a serious problem for the Navy that truthfully extends well beyond the ability of its new carriers to carry F-35s.
With the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy has faced challenges with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system and the arresting gear for recovering planes, the propulsion system, and the advanced weapons elevators, basically everything required for an effective next-generation aircraft carrier.
Read more: Trump's Navy secretary bet his job on getting a critical supercarrier weapon system to work. The Navy says it won't be ready in time.
The Navy's newest supercarriers can't carry its new F-35 stealth fighters, and Congress is not happy about it
Ryan Pickrell
The future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is seen underway on its own power for the first time on April 8, 2017 in Newport News, Virginia. Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ridge Leoni/U.S. Navy via Getty Images
The Navy has been accepting new aircraft carriers batteries not included — unfinished and missing key capabilities — to skirt cost caps.
The USS Gerald R. Ford and the future USS John F. Kennedy do not and will not have the ability to deploy with fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters until post-delivery modifications have been completed.
Lawmakers have decided to change things up with new legislation that will require the Navy to give the Kennedy this capability before it takes delivery of the carrier.
The new Ford-class supercarriers are being delivered to the US Navy without the ability to carry the service's new stealth fighters, and lawmakers have decided to put a stop to it.
It's very difficult to get something like an aircraft carrier cheaply and quickly and have it work well. In the case of the Ford-class carriers, the Navy program is facing cost overruns, delivery delays, and missing capabilities.
The Navy has been accepting unfinished aircraft carriers that are lacking critical capabilities, such as the ability to launch and recover F-35s.
The service has been planning to complete the necessary work after delivery to skirt the caps imposed by Congress to keep costs from soaring, USNI News reported this week. The workaround ultimately results in higher costs in the long run.
The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which should be delivered back to the fleet this fall, currently lacks the ability to deploy with F-35s, and the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), which is still in the works, will not be able to deploy with F-35s either, at least not upon initial delivery.
That's a big problem for Congress.
"CVN-79 will not be able to deploy with F-35s when it's delivered to the Navy," a congressional staffer said this week, telling reporters that it's "unacceptable to our members that the newest carriers can't deploy with the newest aircraft."
The Navy argues that while the newest carriers may not be ready to carry F-35s upon delivery due to the need for additional modifications, none of which require significant redesigns to the ship, they will be ready to go by the time the air wing is stood up and the carrier-based F-35Cs are ready for operational deployment aboard the Navy's new flattops.
The "F-35C modifications for CVN-78 and CVN-79 are currently scheduled for a future post-delivery modernization maintenance period that will occur prior to the planned F-35C operations on those carriers," Captain Daniel Hernandez, a spokesman for the Navy acquisitions chief, told Business Insider.
The two follow-on Ford-class carriers, CVN-80 and 81, "will be constructed with those modifications made during construction and will not require a post-delivery modification," he further explained.
Congress isn't having it
Lawmakers, however, are not satisfied with the Navy's plans.
The House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces has included a line in the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which is still ongoing legislation, requiring that the USS John F. Kennedy be capable of deploying with F-35s before the Navy takes delivery of the new carrier.
Experts agree that it's time for action.
"I think it's a good idea to drive the Navy to make the ship more complete when it's delivered because that's a problem that's getting worse, not better," Bryan Clark, a defense expert and former Navy officer, told Business Insider, explaining that Congress will need to provide financial relief as changes to the service's current approach to aircraft carrier development will likely result in higher upfront costs.
Lawmakers have proposed amending the cost caps on the new supercarriers, a change the Navy welcomes.
"The Navy supports the lifting of cost caps on CVN78 - CVN81 so that it can take full advantage of opportunities to deliver capability earlier and more rapidly incorporate new requirements into the ship baseline," Hernandez told Business Insider.
The new legislative measures could address a serious problem for the Navy that truthfully extends well beyond the ability of its new carriers to carry F-35s.
With the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy has faced challenges with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system and the arresting gear for recovering planes, the propulsion system, and the advanced weapons elevators, basically everything required for an effective next-generation aircraft carrier.
Read more: Trump's Navy secretary bet his job on getting a critical supercarrier weapon system to work. The Navy says it won't be ready in time.
The US just quietly challenged China on something Beijing promised to go to war over
Alex Lockie
Jon Woo/Reuters
The US military recently called Taiwan a country, something that China routinely threatens to go to war over.
China thinks of Taiwan as a renegade province with a democratic government that's an existential threat to the Communist party.
No US president for decades has been so supportive of Taiwan, and the US and China now find themselves in uncharted territory.
President Donald Trump has engaged China in a trade war that has global markets holding their breath, but his administration recently challenged Beijing on an issue Chinese officials have promised to go to war over.
The US military's recent Indo-Pacific Strategy paper, published on June 1, goes further than perhaps any US document ever issued in potentially provoking China's rage over what it sees as the most sensitive issue.
Buried in the paper, which charts China's efforts to build up a military fortress in the South China Sea and use its growing naval might to coerce its neighbors, is a reference to Taiwan as a "country."
"As democracies in the Indo-Pacific, Singapore, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Mongolia are reliable, capable, and natural partners of the United States. All four countries contribute to US missions around the world and are actively taking steps to uphold a free and open international order," the strategy reads.
China views Taiwan as a breakaway island province that has its own, democratic government. Beijing sees this as an existential threat and the factor most likely to upset the Communist Party's absolute hold on power in the mainland.
In July 2018, China threatened to blacklist airlines that referred to Taiwan as a country. US airlines fell in line, but the White House protested the strong-arm tactic as " Orwellian nonsense."
But now the US itself has clearly said it: Taiwan is a country, and the US will treat it as such.
"The Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs"
Alex Lockie
Jon Woo/Reuters
The US military recently called Taiwan a country, something that China routinely threatens to go to war over.
China thinks of Taiwan as a renegade province with a democratic government that's an existential threat to the Communist party.
No US president for decades has been so supportive of Taiwan, and the US and China now find themselves in uncharted territory.
President Donald Trump has engaged China in a trade war that has global markets holding their breath, but his administration recently challenged Beijing on an issue Chinese officials have promised to go to war over.
The US military's recent Indo-Pacific Strategy paper, published on June 1, goes further than perhaps any US document ever issued in potentially provoking China's rage over what it sees as the most sensitive issue.
Buried in the paper, which charts China's efforts to build up a military fortress in the South China Sea and use its growing naval might to coerce its neighbors, is a reference to Taiwan as a "country."
"As democracies in the Indo-Pacific, Singapore, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Mongolia are reliable, capable, and natural partners of the United States. All four countries contribute to US missions around the world and are actively taking steps to uphold a free and open international order," the strategy reads.
China views Taiwan as a breakaway island province that has its own, democratic government. Beijing sees this as an existential threat and the factor most likely to upset the Communist Party's absolute hold on power in the mainland.
In July 2018, China threatened to blacklist airlines that referred to Taiwan as a country. US airlines fell in line, but the White House protested the strong-arm tactic as " Orwellian nonsense."
But now the US itself has clearly said it: Taiwan is a country, and the US will treat it as such.
"The Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs"
US President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with senior military leaders at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2018.
NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images
In another unprecedented step, a high-ranking Taiwanese minister was allowed to meet with Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, in May. This move predictably enraged China.
At the Shangri La Dialogue, the top defense summit in Asia, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe made clear the stakes of China's Taiwan problem.
"Any interference in the Taiwan question is doomed to failure. If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs," Wei said, according to Channel Asia News.
Taiwan is "the hot-button issue" in US-China relations, John Hemmings, the director of the Asia Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society, told Business Insider.
China has always maintained that it would prefer to reunify with Taiwan peacefully but will do so by force if needed. Additionally, China's navy has increasingly patrolled the waters around the island and flown nuclear-capable bombers nearby.
But the US has also sailed warships through the narrow strait separating China and Taiwan and has gotten allies to pitch in.
The arms are already movingA US Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tank from 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, during Arrow 2019 at the Pohjankangas Training Area near Niinisalo, Finland, May 12, 2019. US Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins
The US's rhetorical escalation follows the Trump administration normalizing arms sales to Taiwan and the news that it will sell $2 billion in tanks, anti-tank weapons, and air defenses to the island.
According to Hemmings, these weapons have a clear purpose: To fight back against a Chinese invasion of the island.
Bonnie Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Business Insider that the US had now entered "uncharted territory" by acknowledging Taiwan.
The US under Trump has been the most pro-Taiwan administration in decades, Hemmings said. Trump demonstrated this when he had a call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen before Trump even took office.
Women soldiers from an artillery unit during the live-fire Han Kuang military exercise, which simulates China's People's Liberation Army invading the island, in Pingtung, Taiwan, May 30, 2019. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
For years, China has slowly stepped up pressure on the US in areas like forcing companies to transfer technology, building up military sites on artificial islands in the South China Sea, and naval challenges.
Hemmings referenced a popular anecdote in China, where a frog is cooked by putting it in a pot of cold water and then slowly turning up the heat. The frog doesn't realize it's getting cooked until it's too late. China's gradual pressure campaign against the US has been compared to this practice.
With the US now quietly acknowledging Taiwan in a strategy document, it may have found its own small way to turn up the heat on Beijing.
Trading intel with rivals and searching for 'dirt': Inside the secret communications that allegedly show how big drug companies plotted for years to increase the price of your medicines
Emma Court
Generic drugs make up 90 percent of prescriptions dispensed in the US, and are supposed to be lower cost alternatives to brand-name medications. Getty
Attorneys general for 44 states recently brought a new lawsuitagainst the world's largest generic drugmaker, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and 19 other generic drugmakers, alleging that they coordinated to hike the prices of more than 100 different generic drugs.
The lawsuit is the second to be brought as part of an investigation by the states into generic drugs, which are typically thought of as low-cost treatment options. The complaints have brought new scrutiny to the medications' prices and to the business practices of generic drug companies.
Attorneys general for 44 states recently brought a new lawsuitagainst the world's largest generic drugmaker, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and 19 other generic drugmakers, alleging that they coordinated to hike the prices of more than 100 different generic drugs.
The lawsuit is the second to be brought as part of an investigation by the states into generic drugs, which are typically thought of as low-cost treatment options. The complaints have brought new scrutiny to the medications' prices and to the business practices of generic drug companies.
Business Insider obtained an unredacted copy of the complaint, which recounts alleged communications between employees of rival companies by way of email, Facebook message, and spreadsheets. The goal was to coordinate on drug pricing and deals with customers, the complaint alleges.
Teva has denied any criminal or civil liability and said it will defend itself vigorously. Mylan also said the complaint contains "unproven allegations" and that it plans to defend itself.
In April 2014, after the drugmaker Mylan hiked prices on more than seven of its drugs, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the world's largest generic drugmaker and one of Mylan's biggest rivals, allegedly wanted to increase its prices, too.
Just four days later, Teva employees were sharing detailed breakdowns of those Mylan price increases internally, according to a new lawsuit being brought by 44 states against Teva, Mylan, and 18 other generic drugmakers.
A Teva director, Nisha Patel, wanted even more of what she referred to as "intel," and kept asking as the month dragged on, according to the states' lawsuit.
Patel would only get it in the middle of May 2014, when a Teva employee sent her an email with the subject line "Dirt," according to the lawsuit. The attached spreadsheet had been originally created by a Mylan employee, according to the 44-state complaint.
"Great. More idiots in the market..."
iStock; Samantha Lee/Business Insider
The messages and emails cited by the lawsuit paint a picture of an industry in cahoots, working to avoid competition and maintain a careful equilibrium.
For instance, in 2013, retail giant Walmart allegedly emailed Teva asking for a more competitive price on a generic arthritis drug. Walmart was at the time buying the drug, oxaprozin, from Teva, and a competitor, Pfizer's Greenstone unit, had just started making it.
In the drug industry, companies like Walmart are customers that buy drugs from manufacturers like Teva. The idea is that drugmakers compete to secure the business, resulting in lower prices.
When a colleague forwarded the email request, David Rekenthaler — at the time Teva's vice president of sales for US generics — allegedly responded: "Great. More idiots in the market…" Rekenthaler is also named as an individual defendant in the case, and did not return Business Insider's request for comment.
Teva had cooperated with Pfizer's Greenstone unit to divvy up customers, including ceding business at drug distributor Cardinal Health and pharmacy chain CVS Health to Greenstone, the lawsuit alleges. But Pfizer's Greenstone had allegedly overstepped by approaching Walmart.
"I am pissed," Rekenthaler's Teva colleague allegedly emailed back.
After many calls between the two companies and internally at each one, Greenstone eventually withdrew its Walmart bid, the lawsuit says.
Walmart then came back to Teva, asking for a price proposal, according to the suit. A Teva employee allegedly forwarded that internally, writing just one word, "FUNNY."
Pfizer said in a statement that it denied any wrongdoing, and does not believe it or Pfizer colleagues "participated in unlawful conduct."
"'Polite f-u' letters"
The complaint alleges that the coordination between rivals extended into the fall of 2014, when federal lawmakers started aninquiry into generic drug pricing.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland sent letters to 14 drugmakers, asking about the soaring prices of generic drugs, including a more than 8,000%increase for an antibiotic and a 4,000% percent increase on an asthma medication.
By the next day, outside counsel for one of the drugmakers, New Jersey-based Heritage Pharmaceuticals, reported in an email that he had been in touch with lawyers for Mylan and Teva, and that industry group GPhA had also been looped in, according to the complaint.
Based on that, "the consensus at this point is that the responses will be 'polite f-u' letters," the lawyer for Heritage allegedly wrote in an email.
Heritage said it "responded to the inquiry from Senator Sanders and Representative Cummings multiple times with substantive information" in a statement to Business Insider.
Heritage has separately admitted to price fixing for a diabetes medication and agreed to pay more than $7 million in a criminal penalty and civil damages, the Department of Justice announced late last month. Heritage isn't a named defendant in the states' new lawsuit.
GPhA is today called the Association for Accessible Medicines. The group said in a statement that it "is not aware of this letter, and we seek to be a resource for all members of Congress. Current leadership of AAM would consider such a tone to be unprofessional and inappropriate."
There was a congressional hearing later that fall, to which three companies, including Teva, had been invited. None came, Sanders said at the time.
The states' first lawsuit was filed in 2016, and prices of many generic drugs remain "artificially inflated," according to the May lawsuit.
Teva allegedly emailed internally a spreadsheet listing its rival's pricing information, with the subject line "Dirt."44-state unredacted complaint
Teva would incorporate that information into its internal planning about drug price hikes, the complaint says. A Teva list excerpted in the lawsuit shows that internally at Teva, drugs were marked in a spreadsheet as "follow Mylan increase," with the notation "Urgent."
Using this type of "intel" from rival drug companies, lots of spreadsheets, and inflated "fluff" bids to customers, Teva and major competitors worked together to hike the prices of more than 100 different generic drugs, the lawsuit claims.
Teva has previously denied any criminal or civil liability and said it plans to "vigorously" defend itself. It did not return Business Insider's most recent request for comment.
Mylan said in a statement that the complaint "consists of unproven allegations pertaining to Mylan and we continue to remain confident, as we have for years, that the claims will prove meritless when examined in the court of law." Mylan also said it had investigated thoroughly and did not find evidence of price fixing, and that it plans to defend the case vigorously.
The 524-page suit was filed under seal in Connecticut district court last month, with the public version containing many redacted portions. Business Insider obtained an unredacted copy of the complaint which had not previously been made public. It reveals for the first time the Facebook messages, emails and spreadsheets allegedly shared between rival drugmakers and internally at big pharmaceutical companies.
You can read the full complaint here.
Much of the lawsuit focuses on Teva's alleged activity, but it also features other big manufacturers like Novartis's Sandoz unit, Mylan and Pfizer's Greenstone division. Patel is one of 15 individual defendants also named in the complaint. Patel did not return Business Insider's request for comment. Sandoz said in a statement that it believes the claims are without merit and will contest them.
This complaint and another, prior lawsuit first filed in 2016 both came out of a years long investigation by the state attorneys general into spikes in the prices of many common generic drugs.
The latest complaint has a similar focus on generic drugs and names a similar group of generic drugmaker defendants, but has an expanded scope. It describes what Connecticut Attorney General William Tong calls a "multi-billion dollar fraud on the American people." The states are asking for damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief to make the generic drug market more competitive. The Department of Justice is also conducting an ongoing criminal investigation.
The investigation and subsequent lawsuits have also brought new scrutiny to generic drugs, which are inexpensive versions of brand name medicines that become available once their patents have expired.
Generic drugs make up 90 percent of prescriptions dispensed in the US, and the overwhelming majority are picked up for $20 or less, according to industry group the Association for Accessible Medicines.
They've been touted as part of the solution for the US's high healthcare costs, rooted in free-market competition. But the lawsuits allege that drugmakers worked together to increase their cost, instead, to the detriment of patients and taxpayers.
Read more: A huge lawsuit accuses nearly 20 big drug companies, a billionaire, and 2 brothers-in-law of cozying up to hike drug prices. Here's the inside story.
Teva would incorporate that information into its internal planning about drug price hikes, the complaint says. A Teva list excerpted in the lawsuit shows that internally at Teva, drugs were marked in a spreadsheet as "follow Mylan increase," with the notation "Urgent."
Using this type of "intel" from rival drug companies, lots of spreadsheets, and inflated "fluff" bids to customers, Teva and major competitors worked together to hike the prices of more than 100 different generic drugs, the lawsuit claims.
Teva has previously denied any criminal or civil liability and said it plans to "vigorously" defend itself. It did not return Business Insider's most recent request for comment.
Mylan said in a statement that the complaint "consists of unproven allegations pertaining to Mylan and we continue to remain confident, as we have for years, that the claims will prove meritless when examined in the court of law." Mylan also said it had investigated thoroughly and did not find evidence of price fixing, and that it plans to defend the case vigorously.
The 524-page suit was filed under seal in Connecticut district court last month, with the public version containing many redacted portions. Business Insider obtained an unredacted copy of the complaint which had not previously been made public. It reveals for the first time the Facebook messages, emails and spreadsheets allegedly shared between rival drugmakers and internally at big pharmaceutical companies.
You can read the full complaint here.
Much of the lawsuit focuses on Teva's alleged activity, but it also features other big manufacturers like Novartis's Sandoz unit, Mylan and Pfizer's Greenstone division. Patel is one of 15 individual defendants also named in the complaint. Patel did not return Business Insider's request for comment. Sandoz said in a statement that it believes the claims are without merit and will contest them.
This complaint and another, prior lawsuit first filed in 2016 both came out of a years long investigation by the state attorneys general into spikes in the prices of many common generic drugs.
The latest complaint has a similar focus on generic drugs and names a similar group of generic drugmaker defendants, but has an expanded scope. It describes what Connecticut Attorney General William Tong calls a "multi-billion dollar fraud on the American people." The states are asking for damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief to make the generic drug market more competitive. The Department of Justice is also conducting an ongoing criminal investigation.
The investigation and subsequent lawsuits have also brought new scrutiny to generic drugs, which are inexpensive versions of brand name medicines that become available once their patents have expired.
Generic drugs make up 90 percent of prescriptions dispensed in the US, and the overwhelming majority are picked up for $20 or less, according to industry group the Association for Accessible Medicines.
They've been touted as part of the solution for the US's high healthcare costs, rooted in free-market competition. But the lawsuits allege that drugmakers worked together to increase their cost, instead, to the detriment of patients and taxpayers.
Read more: A huge lawsuit accuses nearly 20 big drug companies, a billionaire, and 2 brothers-in-law of cozying up to hike drug prices. Here's the inside story.
20% of New York drivers for apps like Uber have had to rely on food stamps
Shana Lebowitz
Uber has a flawed business model, one industry expert writes. Ints Kalnins/Reuters
Uber improved margins by cutting driver pay, writes an industry expert in American Affairs.
Uber improved margins by cutting driver pay, writes an industry expert in American Affairs.
Drivers for ride-sharing services have reportedly required food stamps and slept in their cars.
One study found average monthly pay from ride-sharing apps declined by half between 2013 and 2018.
A lengthy article by transportation industry consultant Hubert Horan in the journal American Affairs outlines a series of perceived flaws in Uber's business model.
One of the most startling findings is that most of Uber's margin improvements since 2015 can be explained by cuts in driver take-home pay — not by increased efficiency.
Horan writes that 20% of New York City app-based drivers required public-income supplements such as food stamps in 2016, citing data from The Center for New York City Affairs. That's double the share of the overall New York City population that relies on public income supplements.
Ride-share drivers have taken drastic measures to save time and money: There have been multiple reports of workers sleeping in their cars to avoid commuting home.
Horan includes data that illustrates how ride-sharing services like Uber have made it harder for drivers to earn a livable wage. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Uber reduced US driver pay to between $9 and $11 per hour in 2018. But before Uber entered the market, taxi drivers in big cities made between $12 and $17 an hour.
Read more: Gig-economy workers like Uber and Lyft drivers may be skewing low unemployment numbers
The American Affairs article isn't the first to call out the pay practices at ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft.
Business Insiders' Andy Kiersz and Allana Akhtar reported on research from JP Morgan Chase, which found that average monthly pay from ride-sharing apps declined by half between 2013 and 2018.
Even in San Francisco, where drivers earn the most, average pay is $1,508 a month. In Dallas, it's just $543 a month.
Frustration with low wages and minimal job security came to a head in May 2019, around the time of Lyft and Uber's initial public offerings, when ride-share drivers planned strikes across the US. The strikes only highlighted the disparity between underpaid drivers and employees growing wealthy from the IPOs.
In American Affairs, Horan explains how Uber "deceived" drivers, for example by misrepresenting take-home pay (not deducting vehicle costs) during recruitment. Horan writes that cuts in driver compensation since 2015 cost drivers over $3 billion at Uber. At Lyft, similar cuts cost drivers $1 billion.
We have reached out to Uber for comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)