Wednesday, December 25, 2013

More Advice To College Grads - Corner Office: Jonathan Klein of Getty Images

More advice - from Jonathan Klein of Getty Images -

Q. What advice would you give to college seniors?
A. Be open to anything. And I don’t say “follow your passion,” because you usually don’t know what your passion is when you’re that age. You can’t. So I’ve always told people you’ve just got to be open to stuff. Expect the unexpected, and then prepare for it. 






Advice To College Grads: Daniel Lubetzky

Advice to college grads - from Corner Office: Daniel Lubetzky -


Q. What career advice would you give to a class of graduating seniors?
A. The most important is to make sure that you talk to yourself, that you think hard about what’s important to you and gives you meaning. When I was 19 and walking between classes, I didn’t have a phone, so my brain would take me in different directions. And it’s so healthy and important to be thinking, “Oh, I could have done that better.” Or, “What about this idea?” But nowadays, we’re on our iPhones all the time, and you don’t have time to talk with yourself, to analyze.
It’s very important for people to know what gives them meaning. But it’s hard for people to figure out if you’re not connecting with yourself and taking the time to just be introspective and daydream. 

2012 - At The Tipping Point For Legalazation

  From 2012 - so where will be going with the 2014 elections...... if we are at the tipping point, where we tipping to? Lots of regulation? Lots of excise taxes? Bringing the price down or letting it stay where it is?

Supporting marijuana legalization and winning elections

By Jill Harris, Published: June 2, 2012

Jill Harris is managing director of strategic initiatives for Drug Policy Action, the political arm of the Drug Policy Alliance.
Two candidates ran for Congress in El Paso, a city that shares a border with Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. El Paso’s Mexican counterpart is the murder capital of the world: More than 10,000 people have died there since Mexican President Felipe Calderon militarized the drug war in 2006.
One candidate, a former city councilman and first-time congressional candidate, supports marijuana legalization and health-centered alternatives to the war on drugs. The other, a respected eight-term incumbent endorsed by Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton, opposes legalizing marijuana and is against any serious solution to the drug war. The incumbent ran ads against the newcomer decrying his support of marijuana legalization and promising to keep drugs out of the hands of El Paso’s children. The newcomer, labeled “pro-pot,” “soft on crime” and lacking the “character” for the office, was likely to go down in flames.
Except it didn’t work out like that. On Tuesday, challenger Beto O’Rourke defeated incumbent Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic Party primary, garnering more than 50 percent of the vote in a multi-candidate race to avoid a runoff. O’Rourke is all but certain to be the next U.S. representative from the safely Democratic 16th District.
O’Rourke joins Oregon’s Ellen Rosenblum, who last month upset the establishment favorite for state attorney general in a Democratic primary that hinged on drug policy reform and was widely viewed as a referendum on medical marijuana. A former state appeals court judge, Rosenblum does not have a Republican opponent in the general election. Rosenblum strongly supported legal access by patients to medical marijuana, while her opponent Dwight Holton, a former federal prosecutor who had conducted raids on medical marijuana providers, sharply criticized Oregon’s law, referring to it as a “train wreck.” Holton also tried to use Rosenblum’s stand against her, accusing her of trying to buy the attorney general’s office with money from drug legalizers.
In the fall of 2010, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, who opposed California’s medical marijuana law and vowed to shut down dispensaries, was defeated by a razor-thin margin in a race for state attorney general by Kamala Harris, who supports legalized marijuana for patients. Many observers speculated that voters’ overwhelming support for medical marijuana may have been the deciding factor.
These three races represent a sea change in American politics. Explicit opposition to failed drug war policies does not mean certain defeat and under certain circumstances may actually be a boon. A new Rasmussen poll showed that 56 percent of Americans support the legalization of marijuana and only 36 percent oppose it. A Mason–Dixon poll conducted in May found that 74 percent of Democrats, 79 percent of Independents and 67 percent of Republicans believe that the federal government should respect state medical marijuana laws and not prosecute individuals who are in compliance with these laws.
Politicians typically lag behind the voters on social issues, at least publicly. Many elected officials will say in private that they personally support marijuana legalization but fear political repercussions if they “come out” about their support for reform. That dynamic may be shifting. In blue Oregon and California and red Texas, candidates have just succeeded with a pro-reform message. As the momentum builds for marijuana legalization across the country, politicians will have no choice but to get in step with the public. And then we’ll really start to see things change.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/drug-policy-no-longer-a-political-third-rail/2012/06/02/gJQA6uJr9U_story.html

Clemency To War On Drug Prisoners

  While I clip often from The Washington Post, I don't see it everyday and do miss things.... having said that, this editorial goes beyond anything I have read in the Post that admits the war on drugs is a failure. The Post has documented the failure of the war on drugs but I have previously not read  an editorial that admits it's failures like this editorial. Like any war, there are prisoners in this war on drugs. Many have no place being in jail when their offenses are examined - crazy mandatory sentences, not just for life, weed convictions for things that are now legal in Washington and Colorado. The end of the war on drugs has to include the freeing of many prisoners based on evaluation of individual cases (non-violent? no gun?) and the real possibility of records being expunged.

Trapped behind bars for too long

By , Published: December 23

LAST WEEK, President Obama granted clemency to eight people serving long sentences on crack-cocaine convictions. It was long past time the president acted — and it remains long past time for many others enduring excessive sentences in federal prison.
One person on Mr. Obama’s list, Clarence Aaron, was serving three life sentences for participating in a drug deal. Another, Stephanie George, was handed a life sentence for stashing her boyfriend’s drugs. These are just a couple of the nearly 9,000 people convicted under harsh anti-crack policies that Congress established in 1986 and then revised in 2010. By that point, the old standards were widely considered unfair as well as needlessly expensive.
“Because of a disparity in the law that is now recognized as unjust,” Mr. Obama said last week, “they remain in prison, separated from their families and their communities, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.”
Congress and the president agree that the old rules were unwise, yet many others sitting in prison deserve a chance to show that their sentences did not fit their crimes. The fairest and most comprehensive way to give them that chance would come from Congress, which could impose a broad solution and enlist federal judges to apply it. Lawmakers are considering various ways to ease sentences — and the strain on the prison system — by applying new sentencing standards to old convictions. A bill sponsored by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) would require inmates seeking relaxed punishments to apply to federal judges, who would have leeway to reduce sentences — or leave them in place, if appropriate.
But the president has the unrestricted authority to grant clemency to federal convicts. Thousands of people were sentenced under an unjust system the president has condemned. Why should he stop with granting clemency to only eight of them? If it makes sense for lawmakers to establish a new pathway for relief, it makes sense for the executive branch to apply the same logic with the powers and resources it already has.
A couple of decades ago, when urban crime was a raging issue, letting even eight crack offenders out of prison would have been politically treacherous. It is a sign of how much attitudes have changed — for the saner — that a budding criminal justice reform effort has not been met with popular concern or even much notice. Politicians should embrace the opportunity to rebalance, in a measured way, how the country punishes criminals. Mr. Obama’s latest move is welcome. We hope it is not his last.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-time-for-clemency-on-crack-cocaine-sentences/2013/12/23/bbae0aec-6b6c-11e3-aecc-85cb037b7236_story.html?hpid=z6



Leahy and Paul plan on mandatory sentencing makes sense

By , Published: June 5, 2013

Libertarians believe government should have a compelling reason before it restricts an individual’s liberty. Today’s liberals believe almost any reason will do, because liberty is less important than equality, fraternity, fighting obesity and many other aspirations. Now, however, one of the most senior and liberal U.S. senators and one of the most junior and libertarian have a proposal that could slow and even repair some of the fraying of society.
Seven-term Democrat Pat Leahy’s 38 Senate years have made him Judiciary Committee chairman. Republican Rand Paul is in his third Senate year. They hope to reduce the cruelty, irrationality and cost of the current regime of mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes.
Such crimes are multiplying at a rate of more than 500 a decade, even though the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities that are national in nature (e.g., counterfeiting, treason, crimes on the high seas). The federal government, having failed at core functions, such as fairly administering a rational revenue system, acts like a sheriff with attention-deficit disorder, haphazardly criminalizing this and that behavior in order to express righteous alarm about various wrongs that excite attention.
Approximately 80,000 people are sentenced in federal courts each year. There are an estimated 4,500 federal criminal statutes and tens of thousands of regulations backed by criminal penalties, including incarceration. There can be felony penalties for violating arcane regulations that do not give clear notice of behavior that is prescribed or proscribed. This violates the mens rea requirement — people deserve criminal punishment only if they intentionally engage in conduct that is inherently wrong or that they know to be illegal. No wonder that the federal prison population — currently approximately 219,000, about half serving drug sentences — has expanded 51 percent since 2000 and federal prisons are at 138 percent of their supposed capacity.
The Leahy-Paul measure would expand to all federal crimes the discretion federal judges have in many drug cases to impose sentences less than the mandatory minimums. This would, as Leahy says, allow judges — most of whom oppose mandatory minimums — to judge. Paul says mandatory minimum sentences, in the context of the proliferation of federal crimes, undermine federalism, the separation of powers and “the bedrock principle that people should be treated as individuals.”
Almost everyone who enters the desensitizing world of U.S. prisons is going to return to society, and many will have been socially handicapped by the experience. Until the 1970s, about 100 per 100,000 Americans were in prison. Today 700 per 100,000 are. America has nearly 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of its prisoners. African Americans are 13 percent of the nation’s population but 37 percent of the prison population, and one in three African American men spends time incarcerated. All this takes a staggering toll on shattered families and disordered neighborhoods.
The House Judiciary Committee has created an Over-Criminalization Task Force. Its members should read “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” by Harvey Silverglate, a libertarian lawyer whose book argues that prosecutors could indict most of us for three felonies a day. And the task force should read the short essay “Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. Given the axiom that a competent prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and given the reality of prosecutorial abuse — particularly, compelling plea bargains by overcharging with “kitchen sink” indictments — Reynolds believes “the decision to charge a person criminally should itself undergo some degree of due process scrutiny.”
He also suggests banning plea bargains: “An understanding that every criminal charge filed would have to be either backed up in open court or ignominiously dropped would significantly reduce the incentive to overcharge. . . . Our criminal justice system, as presently practiced, is basically a plea-bargain system with actual trials of guilt or innocence a bit of showy froth floating on top.”
U.S. prosecutors win more than 90 percent of their cases, 97 percent of those without complete trials. British and Canadian prosecutors win significantly less, and for many offenses, the sentences in those nations are less severe.
Making mandatory minimums less severe would lessen the power of prosecutors to pressure defendants by overcharging them in order to expose them to draconian penalties. The Leahy-Paul measure is a way to begin reforming a criminal justice system in which justice is a diminishing component.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-leahy-and-paul-plan-on-prison-sentences-makes-sense/2013/06/05/9731afba-cdfc-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html




Time to end the war on drugs

By , Published: November 20, 2012

With his final election behind him, and the final attack ads safely off the air, President Obama now returns to his regularly scheduled programming — governing. Yet, the chatter about his second term agenda, from deficit reduction to immigration reform, ignores one critical issue: ending our nation’s inhumane, irrational — and ineffective — war on drugs.
Since its launch in 1971, when President Nixon successfully branded drug addicts as criminals, the war on drugs has resulted in 45 million arrests and destroyed countless families. The result of this trillion dollar crusade? Americans aren’t drug free — we’re just the world’s most incarcerated population. We make China look like Woodstock. We’re also, according to the old definition, insane; despite overwhelming evidence of its failure, our elected officials steadfastly refuse to change course.
But on November 6, citizens in Colorado and Washington became the first to approve ballot initiatives legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Their success illustrates growing tolerance and, indeed, support for a smarter approach that could change, and even save, countless lives.
Now, the question is how the federal government will respond to these new state laws, since they directly conflict with existing federal restrictions on drugs. Recreational use might be legal in the eyes of Colorado and Washington, but Uncle Sam can still put the boot down.
President Obama has a choice. He could direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to crack down and prevent the two states from moving forward. Or he could finally, fully embrace sensible drug laws.
There are reasons to be encouraged. During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to leave state medical marijuana laws alone. He seemed to sympathize with the African American and Latino communities, disproportionate casualties of the drug war. Surely, Obama knew that one chance run-in between his youthful “choom gang” and the police years ago would have deprived him of the office he holds today.
In October 2009, the DOJ declared that the federal government would not prosecute individuals, including distributors and cultivators, found in possession of marijuana, as long as they were complying with state medical marijuana laws.
The following year, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which dropped the five-year mandatory minimum sentencing for simple possession of crack cocaine. The law also reduced the unjust disparity in federal sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.
But in October 2011, the DOJ began large-scale raids on medical marijuana cultivators and distributors, state law be damned. Federal authorities have since raided and shut down 600 dispensaries in California alone. A fine use of law enforcement resources in these austere times.
Enough is enough. The president should instruct the DOJ to de-prioritize marijuana-related cases in states that allow for medical marijuana, and to allow Colorado and Washington to move ahead with implementation of their new laws. He should ensure that federal appointees dealing with the issue, including U.S. Attorneys, are fair-minded.
And he should take the fight to Congress, where members of both parties might be able to find common ground. Obama can lead across party lines by seeking out libertarian members of the GOP to join him in crafting better drug policies. In fact, in May, Democratic Reps. Sam Farr (Calif.) and Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.) joined with Republican Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) on a bill that would have cut federal funding for the Justice Department’s marijuana busts. And Senator Rand Paul recently indicated he might work with Democrat Pat Leahy to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession.
Meanwhile, if left free of federal intrusion, Colorado and Washington might become a model for legalizing and taxing marijuana. If successful, the experiment could yield millions in tax revenues and drastically decrease incarceration rates, while giving members of Congress more incentive to change federal law. It could even help improve U.S. relations with Latin America, and help demilitarize our hemispheric policies with our closest neighbors, particularly Mexico.
If Congress fails and, four years from now, a new president instructs the DOJ to crack down again, any such reforms would be at risk. But if Colorado and Washington show positive results, the public, which already believes the drug war has failed, might support wider implementation, and perhaps force a federal solution.
To be sure, Colorado and Washington are not the final battlefields of the war on drugs. Marijuana is not the sole drug behind our astounding incarceration rate for nonviolent drug-related crimes. We’re a long way from a just system that addresses drug use with treatment rather than punishment. Still, we might be one step closer to ending our failed attempt at marijuana prohibition, much as, in 1933, public opinion finally brought an end to alcohol prohibition.
In the first proclamation of Thanksgiving, President Lincoln acknowledged the many gifts bestowed by a god who, “while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.” This holiday, as President Obama pardons the traditional turkey, let’s hope he also considers the millions of Americans trapped in a cruel, senseless system. May he heed Lincoln’s words and offer them forgiveness and, above all, hope.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-time-to-end-the-war-on-drugs/2012/11/19/2ef5099e-326e-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html




Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Asthma and Big Pharma - Guess Who Wins?

More details of pharmaceutical companies shenanigans.

October 12, 2013

The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath

OAKLAND, Calif. — The kitchen counter in the home of the Hayes family is scattered with the inhalers, sprays and bottles of pills that have allowed Hannah, 13, and her sister, Abby, 10, to excel at dance and gymnastics despite a horrific pollen season that has set off asthma attacks, leaving the girls struggling to breathe.
Asthma — the most common chronic disease that affects Americans of all ages, about 40 million people — can usually be well controlled with drugs. But being able to afford prescription medications in the United States often requires top-notch insurance or plenty of disposable income, and time to hunt for deals and bargains.
The arsenal of medicines in the Hayeses’ kitchen helps explain why. Pulmicort, a steroid inhaler, generally retails for over $175 in the United States, while pharmacists in Britain buy the identical product for about $20 and dispense it free of charge to asthma patients. Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.
“The one that really blew my mind was the nasal spray,” said Robin Levi, Hannah and Abby’s mother, referring to her $80 co-payment for Rhinocort Aqua, a prescription drug that was selling for more than $250 a month in Oakland pharmacies last year but costs under $7 in Europe, where it is available over the counter.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the annual cost of asthma in the United States at more than $56 billion, including millions of potentially avoidable hospital visits and more than 3,300 deaths, many involving patients who skimped on medicines or did without.
“The thing is that asthma is so fixable,” said Dr. Elaine Davenport, who works in Oakland’s Breathmobile, a mobile asthma clinic whose patients often cannot afford high prescription costs. “All people need is medicine and education.”
With its high prescription prices, the United States spends far more per capita on medicines than other developed countries. Drugs account for 10 percent of the country’s $2.7 trillion annual health bill, even though the average American takes fewer prescription medicines than people in France or Canada, said Gerard Anderson, who studies medical pricing at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.
Americans also use more generic medications than patients in any other developed country. The growth of generics has led to cheap pharmacy specials — under $7 a month — for some treatments for high cholesterol and high blood pressure, as well as the popular sleeping pill Ambien.
But many generics are still expensive, even if insurers are paying the bulk of the bill. Generic Augmentin, one of the most common antibiotics, retails for $80 to $120 for a 10-day prescription ($400 for the brand-name version). Generic Concerta, a mainstay of treating attention deficit disorder, retails for $75 to $150 per month, even with pharmacy discount coupons. For some conditions, including asthma, there are few generics available.
While the United States is famous for break-the-bank cancer drugs, the high price of many commonly used medications contributes heavily to health care costs and certainly causes more widespread anguish, since many insurance policies offer only partial coverage for medicines.
In 2012, generics increased in price an average of 5.3 percent, and brand-name medicines by more than 25 percent, according to a recent study by the Health Care Cost Institute, reflecting the sky-high prices of some newer drugs for cancer and immune diseases.
While prescription drug spending fell slightly last year, in part because of the recession, it is expected to rise sharply as the economy recovers and as millions of Americans become insured under the Affordable Care Act, said Murray Aitken, the executive director of IMS Health, a leading tracker of pharmaceutical trends.
Unlike other countries, where the government directly or indirectly sets an allowed national wholesale price for each drug, the United States leaves prices to market competition among pharmaceutical companies, including generic drug makers. But competition is often a mirage in today’s health care arena — a surprising number of lifesaving drugs are made by only one manufacturer — and businesses often successfully blunt market forces.
Asthma inhalers, for example, are protected by strings of patents — for pumps, delivery systems and production processes — that are hard to skirt to make generic alternatives, even when the medicines they contain are old, as they almost all are.
The repatenting of older drugs like some birth control pills, insulin and colchicine, the primary treatment for gout, has rendered medicines that once cost pennies many times more expensive.
“The increases are stunning, and it’s very injurious to patients,” said Dr. Robert Morrow, a family practitioner in the Bronx. “Colchicine is a drug you could find in Egyptian mummies.”
Pharmaceutical companies also buttress high prices by choosing to sell a medicine by prescription, rather than over the counter, so that insurers cover a price tag that would be unacceptable to consumers paying full freight. They even pay generic drug makers not to produce cut-rate competitors in a controversial scheme called pay for delay.
Thanks in part to the $250 million last year spent on lobbying for pharmaceutical and health products — more than even the defense industry — the government allows such practices. Lawmakers in Washington have forbidden Medicare, the largest government purchaser of health care, to negotiate drug prices. Unlike its counterparts in other countries, the United States Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which evaluates treatments for coverage by federal programs, is not allowed to consider cost comparisons or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations. And importation of prescription medicines from abroad is illegal, even personal purchases from mail-order pharmacies.
“Our regulatory and approval system seems constructed to achieve high-priced outcomes,” said Dr. Peter Bach, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “We don’t give any reason for drug makers to charge less.”
And taxpayers and patients bear the consequences.
California’s Medicaid program spent $61 million on asthma medicines last year, paying more than $200 — not far from full retail price — for many inhalers. At the Breathmobile clinic in Oakland, the parents of Bella Buyanurt, 7, fretted about how they would buy her medications since the family lost Medicaid coverage. Barbara Wolf, 73, a retired Oakland school administrator covered by Medicare, said she used her inhaler sparingly, adding, “I minimize puffs to minimize cost.”
‘A Frustrating Saga’
Hannah and Abby Hayes were admitted to the hospital on separate occasions in 2005 with severe shortness of breath. Oakland, a city subject to pollution from its freeways and a busy seaport, has four times the hospital admission rate for asthma as elsewhere in California.
The asthma rate nationwide among African-Americans and people of mixed racial backgrounds is about 20 percent higher than the average.
Robin Levi, a Stanford-trained lawyer who works for Students Rising Above, a group that helps low-income students attend college, is black. Her husband, John Hayes, an economist, is white. Their daughters have allergic asthma that is set off by animals, grass and weeds, but they also get wheezy when they have a cold.
“That first year, I had to take a lot of time from my job to deal with the asthma drugs, the prices, arguing with insurers — it was a frustrating saga,” Ms. Levi said.
For decades, the backbone of treatment for asthma has centered on inhaled medicines. The first step is a bronchodilator, which relaxes the muscles surrounding small airways to open them. For people who use this type of rescue inhaler frequently, doctors add an inhaled steroid as a maintenance drug to prevent inflammation and ward off attacks. The two medicines are often mixed in a single combination inhaler for adults, and these products are especially pricey. In addition, many patients, particularly children, take pills as well as nasal sprays that calm allergies that set off the condition.
While on medication, neither Hayes girl has been in the hospital since her initial diagnosis. Their mother tweaks dosing, adding extra medicine if they have a cold or plan to ride horses.
For most patients, asthma medicines are life-changing. In economic terms, that means demand for the medicines is inelastic. Unlike a treatment for acne that a patient might drop if the price became too high, asthma patients will go to great lengths to obtain their drugs.
For pharmaceutical companies, that has made these respiratory medicines blockbusters: the two best-selling combination inhalers, Advair and Symbicort, had global sales of $8 billion and $3 billion last year. Each inhaler, typically lasting a month, retails for $250 to $350 in the United States.
Asked to explain the high price of inhalers, the two major manufacturers say the calculus is complicated.
“Our pricing is competitive with other asthma treatments currently on the market,” Michele Meixell, the United States spokeswoman for AstraZeneca, which makes Symbicort and other asthma drugs, said in an e-mail. She added that low-income patients without insurance could apply for free drugs from the company.
Juan Carlos Molina, the director of external communication for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Advair, said in an e-mail that the price of medicines was “closely linked to this country’s model for delivery of care,” which assumes that health insurance will pick up a significant part of the cost. An average co-payment for Advair for commercially insured patients is $30 to $45 a month, he added.
Even with good insurance, the Hayeses expect to spend nearly $1,000 this year on their daughters’ asthma medicines; their insurer spent much more than that. The total would have been more than $4,000 if the insurer had paid retail prices in Oakland, but the final tally is not clear because the insurer contracts with Medco, a prescription benefits company that negotiates with drug makers for undisclosed discounts.
Patent Plays
Dr. Dana Goldman, the director of the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California, said: “Producing these drugs is cheap. And yet we are paying very high prices.” He added that because inhalers were so effective at keeping patients out of hospitals, most national health systems made sure they were free or inexpensive.
But in the United States, even people with insurance coverage struggle. Lisa Solod, 57, a freelance writer in Georgia, uses her inhaler once a day, instead of twice, as usually prescribed, since her insurance does not cover her asthma medicines. John Aravosis, 49, a political blogger in Washington, buys a few Advair inhalers at $45 each during vacations in Paris, since his insurance caps prescription coverage at $1,500 per year. Sharon Bondroff, 68, an antiques dealer in Maine on Medicare, scrounges samples of Advair from local doctors. Ms. Bondroff remembers a time, not so long ago, when inhalers “were really cheap.” The sticker shock for asthma patients began several years back when the federal government announced that it would require manufacturers of spray products to remove chlorofluorocarbon propellants because they harmed the environment. That meant new inhaler designs. And new patents. And skyrocketing prices.
“That decision bumped out the generics,” said Dr. Peter Norman, a pharmaceutical consultant based in Britain who specializes in respiratory drugs. “Suddenly sales of the branded products went right back up, and since then it has not been a very competitive market.”
The chlorofluorocarbon ban even eliminated Primatene Mist inhalers, a cheap over-the-counter spray of epinephrine that had many unpleasant side effects but was at least an effective remedy for those who could not afford prescription treatments.
As drugs age and lose patent protection, the costs of treatment can fall significantly because of generic competition — particularly if a pill has only one active ingredient and is simple to replicate. When Singulair, a pill the Hayes girls take daily to block allergic reactions in the lungs, lost its patent protection last year, generics rapidly entered the market. The price of the drug has already dropped from $180 per month to as low as $15 to $20 with pharmacy coupons.
But sprays, creams, patches, gels and combination medicines are more difficult to copy exactly to make a generic that meets Food and Drug Administration standards. Each time a molecule is put in a new inhaler or combined with another medicine, the amount delivered into the lungs or through the skin may change, even though that often has an imperceptible effect on patients.
“Drug companies can switch devices and use different combinations, and it becomes quite difficult to demonstrate equivalence,” Dr. Norman said, adding that inhaler makers have exploited such barriers to increase sales of medicines long after the scientific novelty has passed.
Obstacles for Generics
A result is that there are no generic asthma inhalers available in the United States. But they are available in Europe, where health regulators have been more flexible about mixing drugs and devices and where courts have been quicker to overturn drug patent protection.
“The high prices in the U.S. are because the F.D.A. has set the bar so high that there is no clear pathway for generics,” said Lisa Urquhart of EvaluatePharma, a consulting firm based in London that provides drug and biotech analysis. “I’m sure the brands are thrilled.”
The F.D.A. acknowledges that the lack of inhaled generic medicines, as well as topical creams, has been costly for patients, but it attributes that to “difficult, longstanding scientific challenges,” since measuring drug activity deep into the lung is complicated, said Sandy Walsh, a spokeswoman for the agency. Dr. Robert Lionberger, the agency’s acting deputy director in the office of generic drugs, said that research into the development of generic inhaled medicines was the agency’s highest priority but that the effort had been stalled because of budget cuts imposed by Congress.
Even so, experts say, a significant problem is that none of the agencies that determine whether medicines come to market in the United States are required to consider patient access, affordability or need.
The Food and Drug Administration has handed out patents to reward drug makers for conducting formal safety and efficacy studies on old drugs that had not been so scrutinized. That transformed cheap mainstays of treatment like colchicine for gout and intravenous hydroxyprogesterone for preterm labor into high-priced branded products, costing $5 a pill and $1,500 per dose.
For its part, the United States patent office grants new protections for tweaks to drugs without weighing the financial impact on patients.
For example, with the patent for the older oral contraceptive Loestrin 24Fe about to expire, the company Warner Chilcott stopped making the pill this year and introduced a chewable version — with a new patent and an expensive promotional campaign urging patients and doctors to switch. While many insurance plans covered the popular older drug with little or no co-payment, they often exclude the new pills, leaving patients covering the full monthly cost of about $100. Patients complained that the new pills tasted awful and were confused about whether they could just be swallowed.
“Drug patents are easy to get, and the patent office is deluged,” said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a pharmaceutical policy expert at Harvard Medical School. “The F.D.A. approves based on safety and efficacy. It doesn’t see its role as policing this process.”
For asthma patients in the United States, the best the market has yielded are a few faux generics that are often only marginally cheaper than the brand-name versions. AstraZeneca, for example, has an agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals, a generic manufacturer, to make an approved generic version of its Pulmicort Respules, an asthma medicine for home inhalation treatments. Teva paid AstraZeneca more than $250 million last year in royalties to make a generic, which sells for about $200 for a typical monthly dose, compared with close to $300 for the branded product.
Research vs. Marketing
There are good reasons drug companies are feeling threatened. In the last several years, some best-selling medicines, like Lipitor for high cholesterol and Plavix for blood thinning, have been largely replaced by cheap generics in a very competitive market. In 2012, that led to $29 billion in savings for patients, said Mr. Aitken of IMS, or $29 billion in lost revenues for drug makers. Eighty-four percent of prescriptions dispensed last year were for generic medications.
While drug companies generally remain highly profitable, recent trends have meant tough times for some companies, including Merck, whose profits crashed 50 percent this year primarily because the patent expired on its best-selling asthma pill, Singulair.
So AstraZeneca has recently spent millions of dollars in court pursuing several small drug companies for patent infringement after they announced a plan to make a true cheap generic version of Pulmicort Respules. Though a New Jersey judge sided with the generic manufacturers this spring, legal appeals by AstraZeneca will keep the generics off the market for the near future.
As insurance policies require patients to contribute more out of pocket for medicines, public pressure to curb prices has grown. This year, more than 100 top cancer specialists protested the rising prices of cancer treatments.
Drug companies have long argued that pharmaceutical pricing reflects the cost of developing and testing innovative new drugs, many of which do not pan out or make it to market.
“When there’s a really innovative product, you might be able to justify the price,” Dr. Kesselheim said. “But this is not generally the case.”
Critics counter that drug companies spend far more on marketing and sales than the 15 percent and 20 percent of their revenues that they devote to research and development.
In the United States, one of the few Western countries that allows advertising of prescription drugs to consumers, GlaxoSmithKline spent $99 million in advertising for Advair in 2012. Despite its financial woes, Merck spent $46.3 million to advertise its steroid spray, Nasonex, according to fiercepharma.com, a Web site that tracks the industry’s advertising.
Also, the focus of much pharmaceutical research in recent years has shifted from simple drugs for common diseases that would have widespread use to complicated molecules that would most likely benefit fewer patients but carry far higher price tags, in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars.
The newest offering for asthma is Novartis’s Xolair, which is given by injection in a doctor’s office every two weeks at a cost of up to $1,500, depending on the dose. Because the drug is so expensive and was deemed to have little or no benefit over inhalers for a vast majority of patients, the British government last year announced that it would not make it available through the National Health Service. It relented this year, agreeing to stock it for limited use, after the manufacturer offered a confidential discount.
In all other developed countries, governments similarly use a variety of tools to make sure that drug manufacturers sell their products at affordable prices. In Germany, regulators set drug wholesale and retail prices. Across Europe, national health authorities refuse to pay more than their neighbors for any drug. In Japan, the price of a drug must go down every two years.
Drug prices in the United States are instead set in hundreds of negotiations by hospitals, insurers and pharmacies with drug manufacturers, with deals often brokered by powerful middlemen called group purchasing organizations and pharmacy benefit managers, who leverage their huge size to demand discounts. The process can get nasty; if mediators offer too little for a given product, manufacturers may decide not to produce it or permanently drop out of the market, reducing competition.
With such jockeying determining supply, products can simply disappear and prices for vital medicines can fluctuate far more than they do for a carton of milk. After the price of Abby Hayes’s Rhinocort Aqua nasal spray rose abruptly, it was unavailable for many months. That sent her family scrambling to find other prescription sprays, each with a price tag over $150.
This year the price of Advair dropped 10 percent in France, but in pharmacies in the Bronx, it has doubled in the last two years.
In Georgia, Ms. Solod, the freelance writer, found the same thing. “Every time I get Advair, the price is different,” she said. “And the price always goes up. It never comes down.”
Twenty years ago, drugs that could safely be sold directly to patients typically moved off the prescription model as their patent life ended. That brought valuable medicines like nondrowsy antihistamines and acid reducers to drugstore shelves. But with profitable prescription products now selling for $100 per tiny bottle, there is little incentive to make the switch, since over-the-counter drugs rarely succeed if they cost more than $20.
As a result, a number of products that are sold directly to patients in other countries remain available only by prescription in the United States. That includes a version of the popular but expensive steroid nasal spray used by Abby Hayes, which is available over the counter in London for under $15 at the Boots pharmacy chain.
“Not only is the cost cheaper, but it doesn’t require a doctor’s visit to get it,” said Dr. Jan Lotvall, a professor of allergy and immunology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, where steroid nasal sprays are also available over the counter.
During this high pollen season, Abby had to cut short a gymnastics practice, and her sister, Hannah, missed one day of school because of breathing problems, the first time in many years. But with parents who can afford to get the medicine they require, both are now doing fine.
That is not true of two other sisters from Oakland whom their mother mentors. With treatment hard to access and drug prices high, Kemonni and Donzahnya Pitre, 19 and 17, simply suffer and struggle to breathe.
As Donzahnya, a high school senior, looked through the Fiske Guide to Colleges at the Hayeses’ kitchen table one day, she had an unusual selection criterion: “I worry about going to a college that’s surrounded by a lot of grass.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html?_r=2&

Reconsidering The Ends Justify The Means

Reconsidering -

From The New York Times -

October 12, 2013

Behind Flurry of Killing, Potency of Hate

LONDON — From a comfortable couch in his London living room, Sean O’Callaghan had been watching the shaky televised images of terrified people running from militants in an upscale mall in Kenya. Some of those inside had been asked their religion. Muslims were spared, non-Muslims executed.
“God, this is one tough lot of jihadis,” said a friend, a fellow Irishman, shaking his head.
“But we used to do the same thing,” Mr. O’Callaghan replied.
There was the 1976 Kingsmill massacre. Catholic gunmen stopped a van with 12 workmen in County Armagh, Northern Ireland, freed the one Catholic among them and lined up the 11 Protestants and shot them one by one.
Mr. O’Callaghan, a former paramilitary with the Irish Republican Army, has particular insight into such coldblooded killing.
On a sunny August day in 1974, he walked into a bar in Omagh, Northern Ireland, drew a short-barreled pistol and shot a man bent over the racing pages at the end of the counter, a man he had been told was a notorious traitor to the Irish Catholic cause.
Historical parallels are inevitably flawed. But a recent flurry of horrific bloodletting — the attack in Nairobi that left 60 dead, the execution by Syrian jihadis of bound and blindfolded prisoners, an Egyptian soldier peering through his rifle sight and firing on the teenage daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood leader — raises a question as old as Cain and Abel: Do we all have it in us?
Many experts think we do. For Mr. O’Callaghan, it was a matter of focus.
“What you’re seeing in that moment,” he said in an interview last week, “is not a human being.”
It is dangerous to assume that it takes a monster to commit a monstrosity, said Herbert Kelman, professor emeritus of social ethics at Harvard.
“We are all capable of such things,” said Mr. Kelman, 86, whose family fled Vienna under the Nazis in 1939. “It doesn’t excuse anything, it doesn’t justify anything and it is by no means a full explanation. But it’s something that is worth remembering: We are dealing in a sense with human behavior responding to certain circumstances.”
Overcoming a deep-seated proscription against killing is not easy. In his book “Ordinary Men,” Christopher R. Browning described how a German police battalion staffed with fathers, businessmen and plumbers struggled as they executed thousands of Jews in Poland. How many among them missed at point-blank range. How they vomited and cried in the forest after massacring mothers and their children. How hard they had to work at becoming killers.
A culture of authority and obedience that supplants individual moral responsibility with loyalty to a larger mission helps loosen the moral inhibition against murder, social psychologists say. So does a routinization of violence, as well as injustice or economic hardship that allows the killer to see himself as the true victim.
But perhaps the most important ingredient is the dehumanization of the victims, said David Livingstone Smith, professor of philosophy at the University of New England and author of “Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.”
“Thinking about your enemies in subhuman categories is a way of creating a mental distance, of excluding them from the human family,” he said. “It makes murder not just permissive but obligatory. We should kill vermin or predators.”
The Hutus in Rwanda called the Tutsis cockroaches, the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats. Japanese invaders used the contemptuous term “chankuro” to refer to their Chinese victims during the Nanjing massacre. American soldiers fought barbarian “Huns” in World War I and godless “gooks” in Vietnam.
In Northern Ireland, “taig” was a popular slur for Catholics. Where Mr. O’Callaghan grew up in Tralee, County Kerry, they called Protestants “sassanagh,” Gaelic for “foreigner.”
Later, after The Troubles had started in 1968 and images of Catholics being bombed out of their houses in Belfast flooded the news, creating an army of angry young Catholic men, Protestants, too, became “Huns.”
Such labels help, said John Horgan, director of the Center for Terrorism and Security Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, and author of “Walking Away From Terrorism,” a book on experiences of former militants. Still, he said, “They wrestle with their conscience. They don’t sleep well at night.” It is no coincidence, he said, that terrorist executions often involve hooding the victim or slitting the throat from behind. “Watching the face when you kill someone is a very difficult thing to do,” he said.
Mr. O’Callaghan never dared look into the face of the man he killed that day in 1974. When he closes his eyes and searches for it, all that comes back is a grainy photograph from the next day’s newspaper.
He had joined the Irish Republican Army at 15. A country boy seething at the injustice he saw in the Belfast refugees streaming into his southern Ireland county, he became an explosives and firearms instructor, training young men in mountain camps near his home. “We felt that we were part of something,” he said.
The older men taught the younger ones about the 1916 uprising, an event elevated to a near-mystical status because it fell on Easter Monday. He fell hard for the Irish republicans’ emotional blend of Catholic religion and Irish nationalism.
A six-month jail term after he was caught with explosives only made him angrier. In May 1974, he was sent to Northern Ireland and took part in bombings and robberies. One night he got a call from Harry White, a Welshman who worked for the I.R.A., with a tip that Peter Flanagan, legendary in the I.R.A. as a Catholic turncoat and “torture chief” for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, often ate lunch at the Broderick bar. “He drives a blue Volkswagen,” Mr. White told Mr. O’Callaghan, and said to look for the car outside the bar.
Mr. O’Callaghan was 19. He found his quarry, and trained his eyes and his gun on a faceless torso in a blue shirt. The newspaper dropped to the floor. The torso followed, a blue mass rolling off the bar stool in slow motion. A voice pleaded, “Don’t.”
He recalled what his grandmother had told him when he was only 9: “When you shoot a British policeman, dig him up and shoot him again because you can never trust them.”
He fired eight times. It took perhaps 10 or 15 seconds.
Years later he learned that Peter Flanagan was not the monster that the I.R.A. had made him out to be. Mr. Flanagan had been unarmed, had testified against British police officers at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and had probably never tortured a soul.
Mr. O’Callaghan eventually became an informer for the Irish police and later turned himself in, pleading guilty to 42 crimes including this one, a journey he partly chronicled in a memoir called “The Informer.” He was sentenced to 539 years in prison. After eight years he was pardoned, and in 1996 he walked free. He turned down an offer for witness protection — to take responsibility and to make peace. “But of course you never really do,” he said.
He had killed many times, ambushing shadows in the dark on army barracks, firing a mortar, but never like this, up close. The torso still comes back to him, in dreams and sometimes in the middle of the day.
But what haunts him most was a comment his driver made that day. She was a Belfast woman with a worn face who went by the nom de guerre Lulu. On the way to the bar, she had been so nervous she drove the wrong way up a one-way street and had gotten them lost.
Later, after they sped off, dumped the stolen car, and made it to a safe house, Lulu finally caught her breath.
“I feel sorry for his mother,” she said.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 31, 2013
An article on Oct. 13 about the potency of hate and other factors that have characterized many mass killings throughout history misspelled the contemptuous term used by Japanese invaders to refer to their Chinese victims during the Nanjing massacre. It is chankuro, not chancorro.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/world/europe/behind-flurry-of-killing-potency-of-hate.html?pagewanted=all

God's Army Twins Say Killing Must Stop




November 2, 2013

Briefly, Myanmar’s ‘God’s Army’ Twins Reunite

SANGKHLABURI, Thailand — As children, the twins Johnny and Luther Htoo were bulletproof and invulnerable to land mines — or so went the story that briefly made them famous as hundreds of guerrillas followed and even worshiped them in the jungles of southeastern Myanmar. Today, more than a decade later, their “God’s Army” is no more, and the twins’ greatest accomplishment may be that both are still alive.
Luther lives in Sweden. Johnny remains at an unofficial refugee camp in Thailand, not far from where the brothers were sent after they surrendered to Thai authorities in 2001. Now 25, Johnny hopes to reunite with relatives in New Zealand, and Luther worries about their former comrades.
Members of their Karen ethnic group have long sought autonomy in Myanmar, formerly Burma, but they have laid down their arms since a military dictatorship gave way to a nominally civilian government in 2011. Last month, during his first trip back to Thailand since leaving for Sweden in 2009, Luther said he would fight only if his people were hurt again.
“It’s not fun to fight anymore, now that I’m afraid to die,” Luther said. “No one wants to fight unless they have to, you know.”
The legend of the twins began to form in 1997, when Burmese troops entered their village during a sweep of Karen territory. At the time, the rebel Karen National Union was in decline.
“We had to defend ourselves because we didn’t like anyone to hurt us,” Luther said. “We love our motherland, so we chose to fight. We got seven rifles from the K.N.U. and there were seven of us. We used them to fight against the Burmese Army. We prayed before we fought, and then we won.”
They called themselves God’s Army. The boys were rambunctious, but strict discipline and a rigorous Christian routine were maintained. There was no liquor in their village, and church services were held at least once a day.
Journalists who traveled to the small village, Ka Mar Pa Law, saw the twins living what looked like a child’s pirate fantasy, shooting tropical fruit off the trees and being worshiped by adult followers who carried them around on their shoulders.
Probably the most famous image of the twins was taken by an Associated Press photographer, Apichart Weerawong, when they were 12. It shows Luther with shaved forelocks and raised brows, puffing on a cigarette. Johnny stands behind his brother with a sad, soulful gaze.
A joint interview last month highlighted the very different lives the Htoo brothers have led since then.
Luther now lives in Götene, a town about 200 miles west of Stockholm, where he studied economics, history and other liberal arts subjects and has had several jobs, including as a caregiver for the elderly, he said. He married a Karen woman and they had a child, but they later divorced, and the child stayed with the mother.
“I like Sweden, but it’s very cold,” Luther said. “Cold and snow, but I like it there because the country is peaceful. There’s no one shooting at each other and no one hurting each other.”
Johnny settled down to work as a rice farmer, but he returned less than a year ago to the refugee camp in Thailand where he had stayed with Luther.
In Thailand last month, Luther tried to learn more about what had happened to dozens of comrades who disappeared after surrendering. “Their wives and children have been waiting,” he said. “It’s been 13 years. I think all of them are dead.”
The God’s Army’s fortunes took a calamitous turn after it became enmeshed with an even more fringe group that led attacks on Myanmar’s embassy in Thailand in 1999 and a Thai hospital in 2000.
Under pressure from Myanmar and Thailand, the God’s Army quickly fell, and the boys surrendered at their village. Luther and Johnny stayed together at a refugee camp in Thailand but were later separated. In 2006, Myanmar state television reported that Johnny and eight of his God’s Army comrades had turned themselves in. Luther said the truth was that Johnny had been lured back to Myanmar by false promises of work.
Luther is helping Johnny reunite with their mother and sister, who now live in New Zealand. “But I will have to talk to a lot of people to make that happen,” he said. Their father lives in another Thai refugee camp.
The interview was the last time Luther and Johnny would see each other before Luther returned to Sweden. As they parted, Johnny’s eyes appeared to well with tears.
“Come on, real men don’t cry,” Luther told his brother. He promised he would see him next year.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/asia/briefly-myanmars-gods-army-twins-reunite.html?_r=0

Stay At Home Dads Are Hip

  So called "stay at home" Dads are nothing new to me - eventually I will be completely mainstream.


NYT -


December 7, 2013

Wall Street Mothers, Stay-Home Fathers

As Husbands Do Domestic Duty, These Women Are Free to Achieve
Marielle Jan de Beur often catches the 6:27 a.m. train to Grand Central Terminal, waiting on the Westchester platform with a swarm of dark-suited men, and then walks 10 blocks to a Park Avenue office fronted by the fountain where Audrey Hepburn cavorted in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” playing a woman scheming to marry a wealthy man.
But when the elevator lets her off at Wells Fargo, she enters another zone, where the gender dynamic that has long underpinned the financial industry is quietly being challenged. Ms. Jan de Beur and some of her colleagues rely on support that growing numbers of women on Wall Street say is enabling them to compete with new intensity: a stay-at-home husband.
In an industry still dominated by men with only a smattering of women in its highest ranks, these bankers make up a small but rapidly expanding group, benefiting from what they call a direct link between their ability to achieve and their husbands’ willingness to handle domestic duties. The number of women in finance with stay-at-home spouses has climbed nearly tenfold since 1980, according to an analysis of census data, and some of the most successful women in the field are among them.
When Ms. Jan de Beur flew to Hong Kong last spring to persuade Asian investors to re-enter the bond market, her husband took their daughter to try on confirmation dresses. Her colleagues Allison Poliniak and Gina Martin Adams share a running commentary on their husbands’ efforts in the kitchen. Nicole Black recently texted her husband, Drew Skinner, as she headed home after a long day of earnings calls. “You want to hit the gym? Go for it,” he replied, agreeing to spend another hour with their two small sons.
“While I was dating Drew and getting married and having kids, I’ve gone from vice president to director to managing director,” Ms. Black said.
These marriages are Wall Street-specific experiments in money, work, family and power. In interviews, dozens of couples provided field notes on their findings.
Many discovered that even with babysitting and household help, the demands of working in finance made a two-career marriage impossible. The arrangement can be socially isolating, they said, leaving both partners out of a child-rearing world still full of “Mommy and Me” classes. The couples told of new questions of marital etiquette, like who makes the big financial decisions or buys the wife’s jewelry when she makes upward of a million dollars a year and the husband earns little or nothing.
It is not clear, however, if these couples are leaders in the march toward gender equality or examples of how little is shifting on Wall Street. The banks say they want to hire and retain more women.
But the solution that turns out to work so well for these women is an inaccessible option for many others, since it requires one spouse to give up a career and the other to earn enough money to support the family. Rather than changing the culture of the banks, which promote policies on flexible hours and work life balance, these women say that to succeed they must give in to its sometimes brutal terms, from 4:45 a.m. wake-ups onward through days of ceaseless competition.
Along the way, the couples have come to question just what is male behavior and female behavior, noting how quickly their preconceived notions dissolve once they depart from assigned roles. The men echo generations of housewives, voicing concern over a loss of earning power and car pool-induced torpor but also pride in their nurturing roles. The women describe themselves as competitive, tough and proud of every dollar they bring in.
“We’re almost like an opposite ’50s couple,” said Mr. Skinner, Nicole Black’s husband. “I’m staying at home, I do the dishes, I do the laundry, I do everything the housewife does. I’m just a dude.”
Not every marriage proceeds as smoothly. One female banker told colleagues that she recently became irritated with her husband, who works part time, telling him, “I wish I had a wife.”
“You can get one when I can get one,” he replied.
Role Reversals
Rye, N.Y., is not an obvious place to mount a stand against established social roles. The town, on the moneyed coast of Long Island Sound, has long been populated by bankers, including John J. Mack, the former chief executive of Morgan Stanley. The clubs at the end of Stuyvesant Avenue have dress codes and sports like lawn bowling, and despite high property taxes, the town has no school buses, a special torture for working parents.
But even Rye has a set of bankers with stay-at-home husbands, among them Ms. Jan de Beur, an executive in Wells Fargo’s research department, and her architect-turned-artist husband, Jim Langley.
When they married 13 years ago, some of Ms. Jan de Beur’s male colleagues scoffed, suggesting that she would become useless in the workplace. Marriage turned out to be one of her better career moves. By the time she became pregnant, her husband was working extremely long hours for an architecture firm that was pressuring him to relocate, and he made less than half of what she did. The solution seemed obvious.
Ten years later, the life they have put together feels comfortable and well ordered: two bright, talkative children, 10 and 7 years old; a white-clapboard house that feels more cozy than imposing; and time in a sunny third-floor studio for Mr. Langley, who keeps books of work by Andrew Wyeth and Winslow Homer on his shelves. He has moments of wonder with his children, like playing kickball during a summer rainfall and making anatomical sculptures from tree branches.
In interviews, Ms. Jan de Beur, driven and precise, praised her husband’s nurturing skills. Mr. Langley sounded proud if a bit taken aback by his wife’s success. “I’m aware of how lucky I am,” he said.
Still, his wife, along with other women in the same situation, suspects that the arrangement is harder on the men. Some of Mr. Langley’s peers say the chatter at backyard gatherings about bonuses can make them wince: If a half-million-dollar salary is considered unimpressive in some Wall Street circles, where does that leave them?
When people ask what he does, Mr. Langley could say artist — he gives the buildings and landscapes he paints expressive personalities of their own — but he has just begun trying to sell his work. Other fathers in similar situations say they often tell white lies: They are retired, they are consultants, they work at home.
Mr. Langley generally goes with “stay-at-home dad.”
“That’s what I call myself,” he said over lunch at a restaurant in Rye, the other tables filled with groups of women. “I wouldn’t say I like it.”
What response does he get?
“There’s usually a long pause,” he said.
Feeling Excluded
Half a century ago, Betty Friedan wrote “The Feminine Mystique” not far from where some of the female bankers live today. Even though their husbands have had far different experiences and options than Ms. Friedan’s frustrated 1960s housewives, they sometimes express similar sentiments.
Some wonder what has come of their education, confess that they do not know how to make their way back to work after what they had hoped would be a temporary break, or admit that they do not quite understand their wives’ work. Others have turned themselves into eager helpmates, booking their spouses’ massages and mastering complicated cooking techniques.
But many of the wives say their husbands approach parenthood differently than women do. The stay-at-home mothers in Rye often congregate at spinning or yoga classes, but their male counterparts all seem to have a hobby involving a boat: sailing, building wood kayaks and, in Mr. Langley’s case, depicting fishing dinghies and half-finished hulls in his paintings. Despite their wealth, the men seem largely resistant to relying on nannies and babysitters, facing down screaming toddlers and constant meal preparation with go-it-alone stoicism.
Brandee McHale, a managing director of Citigroup’s charitable foundation, says her husband, a former Marine, does not multitask, noting that for him, “Laundry is an activity.” But she also appreciates that he will focus just as intently on tossing a football with their children.
A few women said that they resented the fact that their husbands did not cook or clean up, but that they had trouble telling them so, for fear that they would sound as if they were treating them like employees.
When Kristine Braden, also of Citigroup, was stationed in the Philippines, she knew that her husband was never going to devote himself to hosting parties for her clients or setting a perfect table, the way some wives of male bankers did. (The couple entertained at restaurants or at home together on weekends.) Few of the men are willing to take on corporate spouse duties, like attending or hosting Wall Street dinners with the alpha men who work at the banks.
The husbands often feel excluded from the social infrastructure that women have built up over generations to make stay-at-home life more manageable and fun. (“You want awkward? Try a swim play date,” one father said.) Every man interviewed said that many school notices, invitations and Girl Scout troop updates were still sent to their wives, a river they are constantly trying to divert.
When Ed Fassler, married to Marcie Fassler, a vice president of operations at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh, was helping out with a school wrapping paper sale, the mothers gathered to go over the order — and excluded him. “My husband wouldn’t be happy if you’re in my house with us,” the organizer told him.
In March, Mr. Langley is renting space to mount a show of his paintings, and his home studio is cluttered with canvases and taped-together snapshots of the local landscape. In a test run in September, he offered two paintings for sale at an art auction in town. It was a community charity event, the buyers friends from the neighborhood. When both pieces sold, the larger fetching $1,400, husband and wife both felt relief.
Maintaining Focus
In search of remedies, four of JP Morgan Chase’s top women decided to fan out across the country last summer to find out why too many women at the nation’s largest bank, and across the industry, still seemed somewhat stuck in their ascent.
For years, JP Morgan and other banks have tried recruitment and retention efforts aimed at women, including “speed mentoring” (Wells Fargo), wine tastings to get to know management (Morgan Stanley), efforts at hiring women who had taken time off to raise children (Goldman Sachs) and clubs for female bankers (Citigroup alone has 60).
When Diane Schumaker-Krieg, Ms. Black’s and Ms. Jan de Beur’s boss, worked at Credit Suisse years ago, the chief executive at the time, Mr. Mack, even flew her and other promising women to his home for a golf tutorial to help them network on the greens.
Still, women make up just 16 percent of bank executives, according to the consulting firm Catalyst, and only a tiny number run the huge revenue-generating businesses like investment banking and trading, barely a change from a generation before.
In their meetings with 2,500 women at seven JP Morgan offices, the four executives — including Mary Callahan Erdoes, the chief executive of the bank’s asset management division, and Marianne Lake, the chief financial officer — heard the same messages again and again.
Flex time allowing employees to work from home one or more days a week carried stigma, the women felt. Some said they were reluctant to chase promotions that could require moves upending their families. Many female bankers still quit after having children.
One morning last month, around the time Ms. Lake was departing for a similar round of meetings in Asia, Ms. Black arrived at her cluttered desk at Wells Fargo’s office in Charlotte, N.C., and slid on her headset to hear the latest Viacom earnings.
She tapped out a message for institutional investors, dropped in on a morning meeting to brief salespeople and traders, wrote a memo to clients about why she was downgrading Cisco’s debt, and gave a talk to the sales force on a new bond, all before the clock struck 9:30. During that sprint, she was focused entirely on her work.
Ms. Black and others say that is the real gift of a stay-at-home spouse: avoiding domestic distractions and competing better against other bankers, many of them men with stay-at-home wives.
If Ms. Black gets a call on Tuesday afternoon asking her to attend an out-of-town dinner the next night, she can go. Ms. Jan de Beur took two trips a week on average last spring. Candida P. Wolff, the head of global government affairs for Citigroup, often travels about one and a half weeks each month.
Being the breadwinner often means being taken more seriously in the workplace, they have learned. When one former banker was interviewing at a private equity firm, she said her prospective employers wanted to know what her husband did and seemed pleased that he had a low-paying but flexible job and handled more parenting duties. It dawned on her that the presumption men had often benefited from — that they would not be diverted by household demands — was finally applying to her too.
On the home front, the women cast the deciding votes on major financial decisions. “It’s not like when you and I were growing up and Dad made all the decisions, but I still control the purse strings,” Ms. Black said.
At Wells Fargo’s modernist tower on Park Avenue, Ms. Schumaker-Krieg, the global head of research, economics and strategy for the bank, is making new recommendations on how to retain and advance female employees. She has spent decades persuading women on her team not to quit, even when they are put on bed rest during pregnancy or give birth to a child with special needs. And she would like others in the industry to follow suit.
She acknowledges that part of the problem is the fundamental nature of the business: the ceaseless race to score the big deals and anticipate market moves. Soon she will complete year-end tallies, ranking the research analysts, including Ms. Black and Ms. Jan de Beur, against their competitors and each other.
Some of the women with stay-at-home husbands are her top performers. When she calls those men “the wind beneath our wings,” she sounds both kind and calculating; the more domestic responsibility the men are willing to assume, the more their wives can help the bank make money.
“It’s easy to slide into irrelevance by backing off just a little,” she warned.
Hannah Fairfield contributed research.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/us/wall-street-mothers-stay-home-fathers.html?emc=eta1

Fox In The Hen House - Banks Gone Wild!

What do we expect when we let the fox guard the hen house?

From The New York Times  -

December 21, 2013

Off Limits, but Blessed by the Fed

The good news arrived in a confidential letter from the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. The nation’s biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase, had won the right to expand its reach in a lucrative business that has nothing to do with banking: electricity.
Areas like electricity are generally off limits to banks because of the risks involved. But with its June 2010 letter, the Fed let JPMorgan take an even bigger role selling electricity in California and the Midwest, saying the push would “reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public that outweigh any potential adverse effects.”
Three months later, JPMorgan traders began a scheme to manipulate electricity prices, ultimately forcing consumers in those regions to pay more every time they flicked on a light switch or an air-conditioner, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission subsequently contended.
The story of how the Fed cleared the way for JPMorgan — a decision that brought many millions in profits to the bank — illuminates how the Fed has allowed the bank into a variety of markets for basic goods. Since 1956, a federal law has limited banks’ involvement in physical commodities. But confidential documents, many obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that since 2005 the Fed has granted three special exemptions to JPMorgan Chase alone.
In 1999, Congress permitted Wall Street investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to keep their commodity operations. Since then, other banks have been allowed to expand into commodities, but in recent years no bank has gotten more leeway from the Fed than JPMorgan, experts in the field contend. In California and the Midwest, JPMorgan’s subsequent dealings in electricity echoed actions of Enron a decade earlier. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission contended that JPMorgan engaged in price manipulation that generated $125 million in “unjust profits.” Last July, JPMorgan agreed to pay $410 million in penalties and restitution; it neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.
Maneuvering in markets for electricity, metals, oil and more added billions to the bottom line at banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley in recent years. But their involvement in commodities has now come under intense scrutiny. Industrial users of aluminum and other metals contend that questionable activities by major banks have increased their costs. Regulators like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have been investigating the issue, and congressional hearings have also explored potential problems.
Amid this heightened scrutiny, the Fed said last July that it would review its recent decisions to let banks expand their commodities operations. A ruling is expected early next year. A Fed spokeswoman declined earlier this month to comment further. JPMorgan, for its part, has scaled back its activities in the electricity market and, last summer, said it was putting its entire commodities unit up for sale. The decision comes as prices — and profits — have fallen in the commodities arena.
The opposite held true in 2005, when banks began asking the Fed for the right to expand into commodities trading. The banks argued that this business was complementary to their financing operations and thus should be allowed. The Fed agreed.
In these rulings, the Fed consulted the Bank Holding Company Act, a 1956 law designed to protect banks and the financial system from risks associated with nonfinancial activities. The basic idea is that for banks, some businesses are simply too risky. An institution that owned oil tankers, for example, might be threatened by the costs associated with a large oil spill.
And so, between 2005 and 2008, the Fed allowed seven banks, most of them foreign, to expand their commodities activities, but in a limited way. They could trade commodities contracts and could also take delivery of physical goods — such as natural gas and crude oil — to satisfy those arrangements. Previously, taking such deliveries had been disallowed.
But in these rulings, the Fed barred the banks from owning or operating physical commodities businesses, like storage warehouses, pipelines or other transportation facilities. United States banks subject to the restrictions were JPMorgan Chase, Citibank and Bank of America.
Privately, however, eight confidential letters between the Fed and JPMorgan show the regulator taking a more accommodative approach. The letters, which were obtained by The New York Times, show how the Fed gave the bank free rein to push into commodities time and again. It has let JPMorgan expand in areas like electricity tolling agreements, where the bank essentially took over a power plant, providing its fuel and selling its output. And since 2010, the Fed has also allowed the bank to own and operate Henry Bath & Son, a big metals storage company, the type of operation it had barred the bank from owning in 2005.
Since 2012, the letters show, JPMorgan has twice appealed to the Fed to let it keep Henry Bath, succeeding both times. As recently as last July, the Fed granted the bank an extension — until July 2014 — to meet banking law requirements or sell the company. In the three years that JPMorgan has owned Henry Bath, it has generated $161 million in profit for the bank.
“With the big banks, everything is negotiated,” said Edward J. Kane, a professor of finance at Boston College and an authority on regulatory failure. “The rule provides a constraint on the negotiation, but ultimately the Fed and these banks are married. They are, day after day, dealing with each other and as in a marriage you almost never issue an ultimatum.”
Back in 2005, when the Fed prohibited JPMorgan from owning storage and transportation facilities, it did so to “minimize the exposure of JPMChase to additional risks, including storage risk, transportation risk, and legal and environmental risks,” it said in a Fed order published that November.
But then, in 2008, when Bear Stearns collapsed into the arms of JPMorgan during the financial crisis, JPMorgan inherited the investment bank’s commodities business. Two years later, JPMorgan acquired Sempra Commodities, a global giant in oil, metals, coal and power, from another troubled bank — Royal Bank of Scotland.
“This acquisition extensively expands our global commodities capabilities, enabling us to extend our reach in the commodities space dramatically,” said James E. Staley, then the head of JPMorgan’s investment bank, said at the time. “This addition is a great fit for our business as it helps us further serve our clients.”
As part of that $1.6 billion deal, JPMorgan acquired Henry Bath. Headquartered in Liverpool, England, Henry Bath stores copper, aluminum, nickel, tin and zinc at warehouses in Italy, the Netherlands, Singapore, Turkey and the United States.
Just a few years earlier, the Fed objected to the ownership of Henry Bath by Royal Bank of Scotland and ordered it to sell. But the Fed allowed JPMorgan to buy Bath and fold it into its operations.
Josh Rosner, a financial services analyst at Graham Fisher who provided The Times with one of the Fed’s approval letters, questioned the Fed’s flip-flop in which it disallowed Royal Bank from owning Henry Bath but let the bank sell it to JPMorgan. “The Fed seems to have been picking winners and losers,” he said.
In the summer of 2010, commodities markets were hot, and JPMorgan wanted a bigger piece of the action in this highly profitable arena. Unlike investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, whose commodity operations had been deemed permissible by Congress in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, JPMorgan Chase had to get approval from the Fed to go deeper into commodities.
Such Fed decisions are usually kept confidential, and it is unclear why the Fed allowed the bank to expand.
A JPMorgan spokesman declined to comment on private communications with the Fed. But according to letters received under the Freedom of Information Act, the Fed cited a section of the Bank Holding Company Act that allows the purchase of operations if they are largely financial — and not physical — in nature. The approval came with a condition: If JPMorgan did not restructure Henry Bath to meet certain requirements of the banking law within two years, the bank would have to sell the storage facilities.
JPMorgan neither reduced Henry Bath’s physical commodities focus, nor divested it. In April 2012, two top bank executives, Blythe Masters, the head of JPMorgan’s commodities unit, and Francis Dunleavy, head of its principal investing group, joined Henry Bath as directors. (Mr. Dunleavy was identified in the FERC manipulation case and has resigned from JPMorgan and Henry Bath’s board.)
Then, just two days before the two-year grace period was up, JPMorgan wrote a letter asking the Fed for another year to meet the requirements of the law. The letter, sent to Ivan J. Hurwitz, a vice president for bank applications at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said JPMorgan was requesting the extension so it could “complete the necessary steps to conform its holding in Henry Bath to the requirements of merchant banking.”
Merchant banks are not subject to the same commodities prohibitions as commercial banks.
Four months later, the Fed granted JPMorgan’s request, letting the bank hold the company until July 1, 2013. The Fed required that the bank provide it with quarterly reports outlining actions it was taking to divest or restructure the business.
In March 2013, a letter from JPMorgan to the Fed noted that discussions with potential buyers of Henry Bath were continuing. The bank also said it had discussed shifting the storage of metals held in Henry Bath warehouses to reduce the percentage of metals owned by the bank itself and held in its own facility. Such a reduction would help JPMorgan conform to banking laws that restrict the size of a bank’s holdings in physical commodities.
“We are working actively to achieve the results stated in the letter and will keep you apprised of our progress,” the bank said in the letter.
But on May 1, the bank wrote a letter requesting a second yearlong extension.
“This extension will provide time for JPMC to continue efforts to divest its interest in Henry Bath,” the bank said.
The Fed granted the second extension in a letter dated July 11, 2013. JPMorgan had “taken substantial measures during the extension period to conform or divest the remaining activities of Henry Bath,” the Fed said. Another extension “is appropriate in view of these good faith efforts.”
The nature of those efforts is not clear from the documents.
The timing of the communications between JPMorgan and the Fed suggests that the bank viewed the regulatory approval on both its proposed electricity expansion and the Henry Bath purchase as a fait accompli. For example, its request to enlarge its electricity business was made to the Fed on Dec. 30, 2009 — after it had already contracted to add two power plants to its operations.
The plants figured in the manipulation case that FERC filed against JPMorgan last summer. Investigators for the commission found that from September 2010 to November 2012, bank officials engaged in a dozen electricity bidding strategies aimed at wringing profits from the high-cost and inefficient power plants it controlled. The bank’s bids created artificial market pricing, forcing customers to pay premium rates, the regulator said.
Saule T. Omarova, a professor of law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is critical of banks’ expansion into commodities, which the Fed has blessed.
“By allowing this expansion into tolling and energy contracts, it really expands the power of JPMorgan to influence markets and market prices,” Ms. Omarova said. “The Fed seems to be completely incapable of embracing the concerns over market power and potential market manipulation and systemic and concentration issues.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/business/off-limits-but-blessed-by-the-fed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0