Report examines cancer care access for Native patients

University of Oklahoma

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Grace Fox, tribal healthcare policy analyst at the University of Oklahoma’s Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research. 

view more 

Credit: Photo by Travis Caperton

NORMAN, OKLA. – The University of Oklahoma’s Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research recently released a new Sovereign Report titled “Purchased/Referred Care and Cancer: Overview and Options for Tribal Consideration.”

Authored by Grace Fox (Seminole), tribal health care policy analyst at the center, the report examines how the Indian Health Service’s Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program intersects with cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up for eligible tribal citizens.

PRC is the program through which the Indian Health Service (IHS) authorizes and pays for eligible care delivered by non-IHS or non-tribal providers when services are unavailable or inaccessible locally. The report provides an overview of PRC structure, eligibility requirements, notification timelines, medical-priority levels, alternate-resource coordination and funding constraints.

“Our work at the Native Nations Center is first and foremost for tribal leaders and their communities,” Fox said. “This report is designed to provide clear, accessible information about how the Indian Health Service’s Purchased/Referred Care program works in practice and where, particularly in cancer care, delays or gaps are most likely to occur.”

The report emphasizes that cancer is an increasingly urgent public health priority in Indian Country. American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience later-stage diagnoses, lower screening participation and higher mortality than the U.S. population overall.

“When someone is facing a cancer diagnosis, timing matters,” Fox said. “The Purchased/Referred Care program often serves as the bridge to specialty oncology services that aren’t available locally. Understanding that process – from referral to authorization to payment – can make a meaningful difference for patients and for tribal health systems.”

While the report draws on national data and federal regulations, it also includes Oklahoma-specific information. Oklahoma is home to more than 39 Tribal Nations, 38 of which are federally recognized tribes. All 77 counties in the state are designated purchased and referred care delivery areas under federal Indian Health Service guidelines. Even with a statewide purchased and referred care delivery area status, individuals must still meet all eligibility, documentation and funding requirements for program authorization.

Fox said the report’s final section outlines policy options tribes may consider under the current system, including self-determination and self-governance authorities, regional collaborations and service-delivery models such as mobile screening and teleoncology. Teleoncology uses telemedicine technology to deliver cancer care services. The section also addresses care coordination and navigation, as well as avenues for sovereignty-driven federal engagement.

Fox’s position as tribal health care policy analyst at the Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research was created as a collaborative effort between the center and the Native American Center for Cancer Health Equity at the Stephenson Cancer Center. It was funded by the Improving Cancer Outcomes in Native American Communities (ICON) grant as part of a larger effort to transform health-related research and policy for tribal communities. The report was developed in consideration of the grant’s initiatives and reflects ongoing discussions among researchers, clinicians and community partners working to address cancer disparities in tribal communities. The rigorous review process by the Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research sought to incorporate the multidisciplinary expertise of several members of the cancer health equity team.

Fox said the report has already reached beyond its initial audience of tribal leaders, drawing interest from clinicians, researchers and health partners across Oklahoma and nationally. She said the ICON grant, supported in Congress by U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, helped make the work possible and has opened conversations with health leaders and policymakers in Washington, D.C., about how PRC policies affect access to cancer care in tribal communities.

While the work is nonpartisan research and policy analysis to support tribal decision-making, it is also shaped by personal experience.

“I think of my mom, who had cancer this time last year,” Fox said. “Seeing her lived experience and her struggles, and knowing that time was of the essence, she didn’t have time to go through Indian Health Service because of how long it would have taken.

“That, on its own, shines a light upon the challenges that exist,” Fox said. “It shows why tribes and tribal citizens could benefit from having more information and improved pathways to care.”

Fox noted the report is not prescriptive, however. “We are not telling tribes what to do. We are providing research-driven analysis and options for consideration that tribes can evaluate within their own governance structures and priorities.”

In addition to Fox, the Native Nations Center is comprised of Evelyn Cox (CHamoru), research project manager, Tana Fitzpatrick, J.D. (Lakota/Crow/Ponca/Chickasaw), associate vice president of Tribal Relations, and Quanah Yazzie (Navajo), office manager. They continuously work to provide research products to tribal leaders, citizens and partners through reports and briefings. To learn more about the Office of Tribal Relations in the Office of the President, visit here.

About the University of Oklahoma: Founded in 1890, the University of Oklahoma is a public research university in Norman, Oklahoma. As the state’s flagship university, OU serves the educational, cultural, economic and health care needs of the state, region and nation. For more information, visit www.ou.edu.

 

Spanish Authorities Chase Tug That Attempted to Sneak Away from Detention

Tug that attempted to depart while under detention is now facing hefty fines (Ministry of Transport)

Published Mar 5, 2026 4:34 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

The captain of the port of Las Palmas and the Maritime Authority in the Canary Islands reported that they had to chase down a tugboat, which was towing an offshore supply boat, when the tug decided to depart despite being under a detention order since December. The tug named Sylvia M ended up breaking down once again and having to be towed back to port, and is now facing the potential of a hefty fine.

The Maritime Authority reports the tug and its tow were detected on Monday, March 2, at 1915 local time outbound leaving through the mouth of the harbor. They did not have a pilot aboard, and the vessel had not yet completed an inspection to lift the prior detention order. Further, it was attempting to go to sea in what the officials termed a severe storm.

The port’s control center contacted the tug and ordered it to return to port, but the order was ignored. They said the tug refused to cooperate. At that point, the patrol boat Rio Ara and a tug were sent to chase after the departing tug and tow.

The Sylvia M had caused a previous incident on December 3 when it requested assistance while it was about three miles offshore. The 149 gross ton tug registeredi n Tanzania was towing the offshore service vessel K-Marine IV. The tug reported that one of its engines was not working and that its other engine was at half capacity. Further, it said it did not have enough fuel.

A rescue boat was able to secure a new towline to the K-Marine IV and ordered the tug to cut its towline. The Sylvia M was escorted to a berth in Las Palmas. A port state inspection identified issues, including that its towing winch was inoperative. A detention order was imposed. Recently, the Spanish authorities said the flag representative had informed them that repairs were completed and the vessel was properly certified. However, it had not yet been inspected, and the detention remained in place.

After sneaking away on March 2, the tug soon began experiencing propulsion and steering problems. The authorities reported the rescue tug they dispatched was able to bring the ship back to port at around 0330 on March 3.

A sanction case has now been opened against the wayward tugboat. The Maritime Authority reports they are facing potential fines of up to €180,000 (US$209,000). The tug, of course, is also under a detention order, again.

Glamox to Light US Navy’s Latest Towing, Salvage, and Rescue Ship

Astist’s impression of a Navajo-class T-ATS vessel. Photo Credit: Austal USA

Published Mar 5, 2026 9:58 PM by The Maritime Executive

[By: Glamox]

Glamox has secured a contract from Austal USA to supply exterior and interior LED marine lighting for the future USNS James D Fairbanks (T-ATS 13), the latest Navajo-Class (T-ATS) Towing, Salvage, and Rescue ship being constructed for the US Navy (USN). This new contract brings the total to three T-ATS ships that Glamox is lighting for Austal USA. Previously, Glamox was awarded contracts to light five T-ATS vessels from Bollinger Houma Shipyards.

For the future USNS James D Fairbanks, Glamox will supply 914 lights. They include navigation lights, floodlights, explosion-proof lighting, deck lighting, and lights for the interior of the vessel – from rooms, corridors and stairwells to crew quarters. The lighting will be delivered in Spring 2026 and fitted by Austal USA at its shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.

“We are proud to be supplying lighting for this workhorse of the seas, which will enter service in 2028. This latest order, along with orders from navies worldwide, highlights Glamox’s marine defence lighting capabilities, which range from lights for inshore rescue boats to large aircraft carriers,” said John O’Driscoll, General Manager of Glamox in North America.

T-ATS vessels will provide ocean-going towing, salvage and rescue capabilities to support fleet operations. They have a multi-mission common-hull platform capable of towing USN ships and will combine the capabilities of the retiring Rescue and Salvage Ship (T-ARS 50) and the Fleet Ocean Tug (T-ATF 166) vessels. The T-ATS series will be able to support current missions, including towing, salvage, rescue, oil spill response, humanitarian assistance, and wide-area search and surveillance.

The T-ATS vessels may also enable future rapid capability initiatives, such as supporting modular payloads with hotel services and appropriate interfaces. Their large, unobstructed 6,000 square feet (557 square metres) of deck space allows for the embarkation of a variety of stand-alone and interchangeable systems.

In addition to the T-ATS series, Glamox worked with Austal USA to supply lights for the auxiliary floating dry dock medium (AFDM) and navigation lights for the USN’s Landing Craft Utility (LCU) 1700-class vessels.

The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.

Make Year-Long Standard Time The Nationwide Standard Again – OpEd

March 5, 2026 

By William F. Shughart II


I’m one of the many Americans who hate being forced to time-shift twice a year. After only four months on standard time, daylight saving time returns with a vengeance on Sunday, March 8, when 2 a.m. abruptly becomes 3 a.m.

Only residents of Arizona (with the exception of those living on the land reserved for the Navajo Nation, which is compelled to follow Washington’s timekeeping edicts), Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other outlying U.S. territories will not have their body clocks jolted by time suddenly “springing forward” one hour.

Public opinion has been slowly turning against the twice-yearly ritual of moving the clock hands forward and backward. The main question nowadays is, what is to be done, policy-wise?

Most people don’t realize that standard time, as its name implies, was the year-round custom in the United States (and most of the world) until 1918, when—during World War I—the practice of springing forward was introduced as an alleged energy-saving measure. That ended shortly after the war but was temporarily reinstated during World War II and then codified as an annual ritual when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act of 1966.

The false belief in DST-related energy savings has led some state and federal lawmakers to propose making DST permanent. That would be a serious blunder, experience shows.


More than five decades ago, on January 6, 1974, Washington launched what was meant to be a two-year-long experiment with permanent DST. While the change initially was favored by 79 percent of the public, it quickly lost favor after predawn accidents killed or injured several schoolchildren.

Many started calling it daylight disaster time, permanent DST’s popularity tumbled to 42%, and the experiment ended for good in October 1974, after just 10 months.

Fans of permanent DST are relentless, however. The latest effort is called the Sunshine Protection Act, introduced last year by Florida Republicans Vern Buchanan in the House and Rick Scott in the Senate. Political memories are short: It was Florida schoolchildren who became DST’s casualties in 1974.

The reason clock settings are a hotly debated political issue is that the Uniform Time Act allows states and U.S. territories to lock in standard time for 12 months, but it doesn’t allow them to adopt DST permanently. For that to happen, the 1966 statute would have to be amended or repealed.

A “compromise” introduced by another Florida politician would “split the baby” by setting clocks ahead by 30 minutes for good. Although plausibly less troublesome, “half-DST” would put U.S. time zones out of sync with the rest of the world. And it would still misalign our human body clocks with morning sunlight, thereby disrupting circadian rhythms and causing the spikes in heart attacks, strokes, depression and other health problems observed in the days following the one-hour spring and fall time shifts.

Changing clocks twice every year is disruptive and costly. On-the-job productivity sinks until employees adjust physiologically to springing forward and falling back. Retailers are major supporters of DST because they think that sales rise when more people can shop after work. The owners of golf courses, tennis courts and other outdoor sports venues likewise plausibly benefit from DST.

DST’s supporters may be confusing seasonal changes in day lengths with clock changes. Shifting between daylight saving time and standard time has no effect on the rising and setting of the sun at any location on the planet. They are determined by latitude (distance from the equator) and changes in the Earth’s polar tilt as it revolves around the sun.


During a radio interview several years ago, I was amused by the host’s remark that he likes DST because losing an hour of sleep in March signals that winter is ending and spring is on the way. Guess what? Except at the equator, days lengthen and shorten over the calendar year, no matter where the hands of clocks are pointing.

Stop the stupid ritual. Standard time now runs for just four months (early November through early March). It’s time to make it the year-round nationwide standard again.

This article was also published in The Miami Herald

William F. Shughart II

William F. Shughart II is Research Director and Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, the J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University, and past President of the Southern Economic Association. A former economist at the Federal Trade Commission, Professor Shughart received his Ph.D. in economics from Texas A & M University, and he has taught at George Mason University, Clemson University, University of Mississippi, and the University of Arizona.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for TYRANT TIME

 

At AAAS, professor Krystal Tsosie argues the future of science must be Indigenous-led

Arizona State University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Krystal Tsosie, an expert in Indigenous genomics, bioethics, and data governance, will deliver a talk titled The Future of Science Is Indigenous at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting.

view more 

Credit: ASU

Krystal Tsosie, an expert in Indigenous genomics, bioethics, and data governance, will deliver a talk titled The Future of Science Is Indigenous at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting. One of the world’s largest cross-disciplinary science gatherings, the AAAS meeting is a key venue for debate about how emerging technologies should be governed. Tsosie’s presentation examines how Indigenous science offers frameworks for equity, accountability, and stewardship as genomics, artificial intelligence, and precision health reshape research and society.

 

Her talk comes at a moment of rapid expansion in genomics, artificial intelligence, and high-energy data infrastructure, raising urgent questions about data governance, environmental responsibility, and scientific accountability. Tsosie argues that genomics is not only about generating genetic sequences, but about governance, consent, and long-term stewardship of both DNA and associated digital data. Decisions made now about data use and accountability, she emphasizes, will shape health outcomes far into the future.

 

Drawing on Indigenous science as a framework rather than a perspective, Tsosie highlights governance models that have guided decision-making for generations. These models, she argues, are increasingly vital for building trustworthy health and data systems that are accountable to communities and responsive to future needs. Centering Indigenous science offers both a correction to extractive power dynamics of the past and a blueprint for more just and sustainable scientific futures.

 

Tsosie grounds her talk in the legacy of uranium mining on Arizona tribal nations, including her own Navajo community. She discusses how harmful health outcomes linked to environmental exposure were historically interpreted primarily through genetic explanations, often sidelining environmental pathways and questions of accountability. This history, she notes, reflects failures of data governance, scientific responsibility and justice, with impacts that persist across generations.

 

She connects these lessons to current debates over renewed genetics research in Indigenous populations, expansion of data centers in water-scarce regions such as Arizona, and the growing energy demands of artificial intelligence systems. Her talk asks whether emerging science infrastructure will repeat extractive patterns or adopt more accountable and reciprocal models.

 

“Science has always claimed to study the future. Indigenous peoples have always planned for it,” Tsosie says. “We are at a turning point in genomics, AI and precision health. The question is not what we can build, but who science is built for.”

 

The AAAS Annual Meeting brings together scientists, policymakers and the public, making it a critical venue for conversations about how science infrastructure is designed and who benefits from it. Tsosie emphasizes that Indigenous science is not new. What is new is whether institutions are willing to recognize Indigenous ways of knowing and include them in advancing science responsibly.

 

Tsosie is an assistant professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University and an internationally recognized leader in ethical genomic data practice. Her work advances equity and accountability in genomics research involving Indigenous communities across health, biomedicine, conservation biology and ancient DNA, at the intersection of genomics, Indigenous data sovereignty, artificial intelligence governance and environmental justice."

Trump’s Climate Policy Rollback Plan Relies on EPA Rescinding its 2009 Endangerment Finding, But Will Courts Allow It?

Gary W. Yohe

 February 5, 2026

THE CONVERSATION

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Navajo Generating Station, near Page, Arizona. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.

The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.

But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding. Now, a Washington Post report suggests, action on it may be delayed over concerns that the move wouldn’t withstand legal challenges.

Cracks in the administration’s plan are already evident. On Jan. 30, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.

There’s no question that if the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding that the move would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.

Several legal issues have the potential to stop the EPA’s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review.

To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.

The Supreme Court started it

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.

The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.

Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.

This latest challenge is different.

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s dismissive perspective on climate risk.

Trump’s burden of proof

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.

That’s a tough task.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.

Many locations around the world had record or near-record warm years in 2025. Places with local record warmth in 2025 are home to approximately 770 million people, according to data from Berkeley Earth.
Berkeley Earth, CC BY-NC

For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.

The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”

Summer temperatures have climbed in much of the U.S. and the world as greenhouse gas emissions have risen.
Fifth National Climate Assessment

In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.

In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”

What happens if EPA does drop the endangerment finding

As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of faulty scientific assessment would lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.

It would also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.

Cases typically take years to wind through the courts. Unless a judge issued an injunction, I would expect to see a continuing retreat from efforts to reduce climate change while the court process plays out.

I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gary W. Yohe is Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University.