Tag Archives : Build House

Want affordable health care? Make hospitals comply with posting prices online

The Biden administration and Congress are addressing spiraling costs of health care and health insurance by extending expanded pandemic-era Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet simply transferring rising costs to taxpayers does nothing to address the underlying health care unaffordability crisis. In fact, increasing subsidies makes it easier for health insurers to further raise premiums and pad their record profits. Major insurers have already announced plans to raise ACA exchange premiums by up to 15 to 20 percent next year.

A better way to bend the health care cost curve and make care and coverage affordable is through systemwide health care price transparency. Actual, upfront prices allow consumers to choose the highest quality care at the lowest possible price. Real prices empower patients to avoid rampant hospital overcharging and get the care they need at prices they can afford, expanding access and equity. Price transparency exposes wide price variations for the same care, even at the same hospitals. 

A hospital price transparency rule that took effect Jan. 1, 2021 and a health insurance price transparency rule that took effect July 1 of this year can usher in this competitive, pro-consumer health care marketplace. Unfortunately, a new study by PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA) finds that only 16 percent of American hospitals are complying with the rule that requires them to post online, in a single file, their discounted cash and health insurance rates by procedure and plan.

The Biden administration can make this rule a reality for consumers and unleash a health care affordability revolution by boosting compliance through robust and timely enforcement.

The PRA study finds that most of the 2,000 hospitals examined do not publish all payer-specific negotiated charges “clearly associated with the names of each third-party payer and plan” as required. America’s largest hospital system, HCA Healthcare, which made $59 billion in revenues and $7 billion in profits in 2021, has a zero compliance rate.

This obfuscation prevents consumer choice. It blocks tech developers from aggregating prices in consumer-friendly web applications similar to Kayak or Expedia. And it impedes competition that makes goods and services affordable in almost every other economic sector.

Hospitals and insurers blind consumers from actual prices, and then blindside them with massive bills they never would have agreed to, weeks and months after care. This opaque dynamic allows American hospitals to charge an average of seven times their cost of care. Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported on leaked hospital pricing practices, revealing automatic 675 percent markups. Health care expenditures have increased at more than double the rate of inflation each year over the past couple of decades.  

As a result, 64 percent of patients delay care for fear of financial ruin, and 100 million Americans carry medical debt. A new mini-documentary published by the New York Times profiles ordinary patients bankrupted by this predatory health care system. “I had these procedures done, and now I’m getting the prices?” says one patient. “It just seems like the opposite way of doing things. It should have been prices first.”

The Biden administration can boost hospital compliance through strong and expedient enforcement of the rule. So far, it has fined only two hospitals out of thousands that aren’t complying. Yet these two hospitals quickly became compliant and posted exemplary price files, demonstrating the power of enforcement. The administration can replicate this success by immediately fining other noncompliant hospitals, starting with the 101 that the PRA report finds didn’t even bother to post a price list.

When all hospitals post their actual prices, consumers can enjoy peace of mind that their care won’t result in bankruptcy. They can choose to pay $300 for an MRI, rather than $3,000, or $6,000 for a C-section, rather than $60,000.

Employers, who provide coverage to most Americans, can steer their employees to quality, less expensive care and share the ensuing savings in the form of higher pay, helping workers to contend with historic inflation. When prices are known, no employer will tolerate paying 10 times more than their competitors for the same care, even at the same hospital.

Policymakers looking to make health care affordable should take note: Systemwide price transparency can actually reverse runaway costs for health care and health insurance, rather than merely transferring these costs to taxpayers. The Biden administration should be applauded for its efforts to increase access to health care. But now it must address affordability. Robust and timely enforcement of the hospital price transparency rule can significantly lower costs through choice and competition and put the “affordable” back in the Affordable Care Act. 

Cynthia A. Fisher is a life sciences entrepreneur, founder and chair of PatientRightsAdvocate.org, and the founder and former CEO of ViaCord.

Source: TEST FEED1

Can antitrust reform legislation get to 60 votes?

With the August recess underway, it is time to take stock of Congress’ remaining agenda. One big item that is still on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) public to-do list is the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA). After promising a floor vote on the bill earlier this summer, the majority leader has shifted the deadline to later this fall. This delay raises the question of whether Senate leadership really intends to bring AICOA to a vote and, more importantly, whether it could pass through the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is the result of a years-long, bicameral push to reform antitrust law to rein in Big Tech firms. It would prohibit large online platforms from preferencing their own products and services over those of third parties and grant the Federal Trade Commission new authority to levy heavy fines for violation. Led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), AICOA has bipartisan support in both chambers and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year. But disagreement about what the bill does and what it should do have also resulted in bipartisan opposition.

The key difference of opinion about AICOA, split along party lines, centers around whether the bill would impact content moderation. One provision of AICOA would prohibit large online platforms from discriminating “in the application or enforcement of the terms of service.” Klobuchar maintains that this provision will not impact content moderation decisions by large online platforms. But this assurance is not enough for some Democrats who want platforms to counter misinformation through more stringent content moderation.

An open letter from Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) expressed concern that this provision of AICOA would “hinder content moderation practices, such as the application of community guidelines and policies, which are used to remove hate speech and fight misinformation online.” The group proposed that Klobuchar amend the bill to clarify that AICOA would not inhibit the ability of platforms to moderate content in accordance with their community guidelines. Klobuchar reportedly rejected this amendment, maintaining that AICOA as drafted “is not focused on content” and will not impede content moderation. 

Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and Senate believe that this provision of AICOA will promote free expression online by reining in Big Tech’s content moderation practices. They see the terms of service provision as an essential component of the law. For example, Grassley reportedly threatened to walk away from the bill should Klobuchar accept the Democrat’s amendment or make any other changes to clarify the content moderation issue. If Grassley were to abandon AICOA, the remaining Republicans would almost certainly follow suit.

This state of play puts Klobuchar between a rock and a hard place. She can either placate Democrats or Republicans, but not both. Passing AICOA will require a 60-vote majority. But it is unclear that such strong, bipartisan support exists, especially given the growing divide on the issue of content moderation. 

With Democrats expressing serious reservations both in public and in private, it is likely that Klobuchar would need to address the content moderation question to shore up Democratic support. Doing so might be enough to get 50 votes, but it would risk losing the Republican votes necessary to overcome the filibuster. This is probably why Klobuchar has thus far rebuffed Democrats’ amendments.

Klobuchar’s other option is to ignore her Democratic colleagues and consolidate Republican support. But this scenario also holds a fair amount of risk. It is unclear whether there are enough Republican votes to make up for the potential of losing some Democrat support.

Schumer surely understands this dynamic and sees the obstacles to garnering 60 votes. Forcing his party to take a tough vote only to see the bill fail on the floor would be the worst outcome politically for Democrats in a contentious election year. If there is even a slim chance that AICOA would not pass a floor vote, then Schumer would presumably not call the vote. 

There remains a vigorous debate about whether AICOA will solve either side’s concerns about content moderation. Unless there is a major political shift between now and the November elections, it appears improbable that Klobuchar will garner the 60 votes needed to pass AICOA. Instead of continuing to focus on AICOA, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle should look towards the next Congress and prepare for a continued debate over regulating Big Tech.

Luke Hogg is policy manager at Lincoln Network.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pentagon chief tests positive for COVID for second time

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Monday morning tested positive for COVID-19, the second time the Pentagon chief is known to have contracted the virus. 

Austin, 69, said in a statement he is experiencing “mild symptoms” and will quarantine at home for the next five days, in accordance with the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

“I will retain all authorities and plan to maintain my normal work schedule virtually from home,” Austin added. 

Austin said he was last in contact in person with President Biden on July 29, more than two weeks ago.  

Biden first tested positive for the coronavirus on July 21, tested negative a week later and then had another positive test on July 30.   

Austin, meanwhile, last tested positive for the virus in early January. He also experienced mild symptoms at the time. 

“Now, as in January, my doctor told me that my fully vaccinated status, including two booster shots, is why my symptoms are less severe than would otherwise be the case,” Austin noted.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Which sunscreen is best for you? Tips after spray sunscreen recalled for cancer-causing chemical

Spray sunscreens have increased in popularity in recent years, although there may be some health risks associated with them.  

A third-party study of 69 brands found that 27 percent of batches contained detectable levels of a known carcinogen called benzene.

Recently, Edgewell Personal Care, the company that makes Banana Boat sunscreens, put out a voluntary recall for three batches of spray sunscreen. The sunscreen, called Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Sunscreen Spray SPF 30, was found to be contaminated with benzene, thought not all bottles may have benzene in them. The specific batches that may be affected are listed on the company’s website according to their batch numbers and consumers can get reimbursed. 

Benzene is not included as an ingredient but can be a byproduct of petroleum products that go into spray sunscreens, like thickening agents, spray propellants and antifungal preservatives. Edgewell does not report the concentrations of benzene found in their products.  

The study found that many brands had sunscreens that contained benzene levels over the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended maximum of 2 parts per million (ppm). 

The potential link between benzene from sunscreens and cancer risk has not been thoroughly studied yet. Although specific testing by brands and batches is not publicly available information, keeping the concentration under 2 ppm is an important part of risk calculation.  

“Contamination, which seems to be relatively widespread and ongoing, is incredibly frustrating from a consumer perspective — that this issue has been known for many months,” says chemist David Andrews, who is a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group (EWG). 

Spray sunscreens may be more convenient, but you may also end up with less effective coverage than traditional cream sunscreens. A study based in Australia found that users lost 28 to 93 percent of sunscreen when applied during 20 kilometers-per-hour wind, or about 12 miles per hour, and lost 32 to 79 percent of sunscreen when applied in 10 kilometers-per-hour wind, approximately 6 miles per hour.  

In these light and moderate wind conditions, researchers estimated that someone may need to use a whole bottle of spray sunscreen in order to get enough coverage. 

Spray sunscreen may be a health risk if it is inhaled as well.  

“We have particular concerns about mineral-based ingredients that may have much smaller particle sizes that could also be inhaled,” says Andrews.  

Smaller particles may be able to penetrate through lung tissue and get lodged into cells, which then may eventually cause cancer and other health issues. 

This is also a concern for another category of sunscreens that are increasing in popularity: powder sunscreens. Andrews says he’s concerned about the risk to health if powder sunscreens are inhaled, especially if they are mineral-based sunscreens. There currently isn’t enough testing in place to know which brands use ingredients with particle sizes that are too small. 

The new FDA rules for sunscreen that are set to go into effect this fall would require more market testing of sunscreen products. These new rules will add a number of new UVA protection and will add testing requirements for particle size. Companies will also be required to add additional tests for ingredients to ensure safety and effectiveness. 

If you have any bottles of sunscreen that are from the recalled batches, you should stop using those immediately. It might be difficult especially with young children but if possible, use stick and lotion sunscreens, wear protective layers of clothing and hats, and regularly reapply sunscreen if spending several hours outside. Andrews recommends that if you need to use spray sunscreen, spray it into your hands first and rub it in. 

You can find more information about sunscreen safety at EWG’s website. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch: Weekend stories you might have missed

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has maintained a 7-point lead over Democratic nominee Beto O’Rourke in the Lone Star State’s governor’s race, new polling shows.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is accusing Russia of “blackmail” after recent shelling near Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

The likelihood of a “megaflood” occurring in California has doubled due to climate change, according to a new study published on Friday.

Find out more in the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Celebrate climate action — but do not let your guard down

Now that the most consequential climate legislation of this century has passed the Senate, the House of Representatives and has been sent to President Biden for the well-deserved honor of his signing, it is time to take stock.

The images of climate impacts around the country and the world are snapshots of how climate change has altered the natural, economic and human environments up to a particular point in time — like today. These are snapshots that have been influenced not only by the climate system and the social science of climate action, but also the personal health and geopolitical circumstances that dominate our daily lives.

Moving forward from this momentous moment, American scientists need to recommit themselves to communicating the nuances and imperatives of climate risk and climate action based on what we know, what we are striving to know, and how humans, their governments and their businesses might respond. The United States is taking an aggressive step, but there is more to do.

In this regard, scientists’ success in protecting humanity has always depended on growing its stature as reliable and honest sources of the science and downstream analysis. Ultimate success depends, however, on individuals growing their personal capacities to receive and process complicated messages even as they strive to live in an increasingly complex world.

The best way that experts and influence makers can help move us forward is to suggest a way to organize our collective thoughts. A simple simile (remember 10th grade English) comes to mind: Climate is to weather as history is to headlines.

These are instructive words, more so than the much more common: In climate, history is no longer a precursor to either the present or the future. 

Both are true, but the first really speaks to context that can be foreseen with respect to the next years and decades.

Scientific snapshots of climate impacts are like historians’ snapshots of humanity’s evolution. They are contingent on specific climatic, social and political-economic circumstances. They depend on underlying trends that can be deciphered from backward-looking analyses, but they need not be harbingers of what the future might hold. The future bears the burden of unpredictable and enormous consequential breaks in climatic, social or political-economic systems that would mean that “all bets are off.” We cannot project when or where, but climate science can work on how and why. 

In the meantime, as the planet moves forward, society needs to continue to accept not only honest analyses of historical trends. It must also be informed by lessons learned from Europe in 1939 or Ukraine in 2022 — and elsewhere. Humanity must now suspect that something might break and cause enormous harm around the world, and it must prepare for the contingencies.

Much studied historical episodes are examples of so called “tipping points,” and they are the historical analogs of not-implausible climate futures that could define critical and comparable hazards for humanity as the planet moves forward along measurable trendlines with which we cannot become comfortable. Examples of risk include the rapid and collapse of the Thwaites ice sheet in Antarctica or the discontinuous collapse of rainforest ecosystems in the Amazon. But science has already identified 15 or so other possibilities. To be sure, these events are now low likelihood possibilities for any particular year. But they can have enormous and cascading consequences whose likelihoods approach certainty as the century progresses. They are, in other words, sources of high risk that cannot be ignored. 

There you have it. The Inflation Reduction Act is not a solution. If the truth be told, there are no solutions. But society has been taught by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to organize its thoughts around likelihood and consequence. Abating greenhouse gas emissions affects likelihoods (not without cost). Adaptation can affect consequence (also not without cost). With any combination, residual damages will remain and could explode.

As we move forward together knowing that there is more work to be done, societies must begin to accept that the climate system, just like the geo-political global system, holds the potential to blow our world in very short order.

So, be careful and attentive, but also be very cautious. 

Gary Yohe, Ph.D., is the Huffington Foundation professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus at Wesleyan University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Here are Trump’s shifting defenses for taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago

Former President Trump has shifted his defenses for taking classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago residence in the wake of the FBI search of the estate last week, when agents seized 33 items including nearly a dozen sets of classified items.

Trump has ripped the FBI and Department of Justice while giving varying explanations for why he did nothing wrong.

On Monday, in an interview with Fox News he said the “temperature has to be brought down” but then added his supporters would not “stand for another scam,” repeating his criticisms. Those statements came amid worries that law enforcement could come under attack given the fierce criticism of the FBI coming from some voices on the right.

An unsealed warrant shows the FBI executed the warrant while investigating whether the Espionage Act had been violated. Agents seized 11 sets of classified documents from the estate. The warrant was approved by a federal judge.

Here’s what Trump has said about the FBI’s actions and his shifting explanations about the documents.

FBI search was unnecessary and inappropriate

Trump told the world that the FBI had executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago home, calling it “not necessary or appropriate.”

He said at the time he had been “working and cooperating with the relevant government agencies” and described his home as “under siege” by FBI agents.

Investigators had provided Trump’s attorneys with their own copy of the search warrant and a receipt that would have itemized the materials seized during the search, which follows standard practice.

Trump at the time also decried the search as “political persecution” and included a link for donations to his political action committee in his statement. The investigation comes amid growing speculation over how soon the former president might announce he’s running again in 2024.

Trump and his supporters also in the days that followed floated a conspiracy theory that the FBI had planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s initial reaction led to a flurry of finger-pointing from his supporters, including Republican lawmakers who blamed President Biden and claimed the president had used the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) to go after his political opponent.

On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland made his first public appearance since the search to say he personally made the decision to seek a warrant and that it was not done “lightly.” He announced at the time that the DOJ would move to unseal the warrant authorizing the search.

Documents were declassified under a standing order

After initially suggesting evidence had been planted, Trump’s argument evolved as he and his team said the president had declassified the documents that were at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump on his social media platform Truth Social argued that the FBI didn’t need to seize anything because they could have had these documents anytime.

Court records unsealed on Friday indicated the FBI seized 33 items, including 11 sets of classified items and some marked as top secret. The Justice Department on Friday disclosed the search was a part of the agency’s investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act and other federal statutes.

The Trump camp put out a statement later, saying “everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time” and that Trump would take documents, including classified documents, to his residence to “prepare for work the next day.”

“He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them,” the statement said.

The 33 items that were seized from the property included the executive order of clemency for longtime Trump ally Roger Stone, information regarding the “President of France,” binders of photographs, and a handwritten note. The FBI reportedly sought documents containing information about nuclear weapons in the search, but it’s unclear if such records were seized.

The documents seized are protected by attorney-client and executive privileges

In his latest defense, Trump claims the documents are protected by attorney-client and executive privileges and called on the FBI to return them on Sunday. Trump said on his social media platform that the FBI “knowingly should not have taken” these privileged documents.

Attorney-client privilege enables communications between an attorney and their client to remain private during an investigation and executive privilege allows the president to keep some communications private from the other two branches of government.

Trump tried to use the executive privilege defense before in an effort to block records from being turned over to the House Jan. 6 committee for the probe into the Capitol riot. A federal appeals court in December denied his claims of such privilege.

Source: TEST FEED1

Texas attorney general locked in close race with Democratic challenger: poll

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Democratic challenger Rochelle Garza are almost tied ahead of this year’s midterms, a poll released Monday shows.

The Dallas Morning News-University of Texas at Tyler poll found Paxton leading Garza 34 to 32 percent among Texas voters, within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Paxton and Garza both garnered the bulk of their support from their own party, with 68 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans saying they’d back their party’s nominee in the race. 

Slightly more Democrats would support Paxton (9 percent) than Republicans would support Garza (7 percent). Garza had a 5-point lead among independents.

Among those who support Garza, a former ACLU attorney, 13 percent reported what they most like about her is that she’s “not Paxton,” the second most popular reason after her party affiliation. The next-highest cited reason for supporting Garza was “honesty/trust,” at 12 percent, which was cited less often as a reason for supporting Paxton, at 6 percent.

The most-cited reason for supporting Paxton was his Republican affiliation, followed by “Good AG” and “conservative.” 

Forty-one percent of Texas voters said they “approved” or “strongly approved” of Paxton’s job performance, while 40 percent said they “disapproved” or “strongly disapproved.” Paxton has been embroiled in legal trouble.

He was sued by the Texas State Bar earlier this year for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. A district attorney in the state also said Paxton violated Texas open records law by not releasing certain communications related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Paxton and his wife reportedly attended a Jan. 6 rally.

Paxton was also indicted for securities fraud shortly after taking office, and investigated by the FBI over whether he abused is office to help a campaign donor. He’s denied the accusations.

Respondents were evenly split on whether they agreed or disagreed that, “in light of recent headline news” about Paxton, “he has the integrity to serve as attorney general,” at 34 percent each. Thirty-two percent of respondents reported being unsure.

Conducted Aug. 1 to Aug. 7, the poll surveyed 1,384 registered voters, of which 33 percent reported being Democrats and 40 percent reported being Republicans. Twenty-seven percent said they were affiliated with neither party.

Source: TEST FEED1

Could Democrats’ bold legislation bring a repeat of the 1934 midterms?

Democrats are on the verge of a huge legislative accomplishment, to significantly reduce energy and health care costs and tax inequality. This moment reminds us of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the historic 1934 midterm elections. There, the Democrats saw electoral gains instead of losses — generally a rare occurrence for the party in power.  

We, the descendants of FDR and his New Deal cabinet, believe FDR and Democrats in Congress saw gains in 1934 in large part because they weren’t afraid to propose and pass ambitious pieces of legislation known collectively as the New Deal. In 1933 and 1934, FDR and the 73rd Congress enacted a slew of historic legislation that stabilized the economy by providing jobs for millions of unemployed, rescued the banking system, held major corporations and the wealthiest more accountable, and invested heavily in basic infrastructure and the sustainability of our natural resources.    

Nearly a century later, Americans are once again yearning for action to help what FDR called the “forgotten man.” With this new legislative package, the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress is poised to deliver FDR-style results. We are saddened that the legislation did not attract a single Republican vote in the closely divided Senate, forcing Democrats to resort to the process of “reconciliation” to avoid death by filibuster.  

This new bill caps off a remarkable record for the 117th Congress. Less than a month after taking unified control of the White House and Congress, Democrats similarly used the reconciliation process to enact the American Rescue Plan, which produced a far bigger and faster recovery than any governmental response to an economic crisis in more than eight decades. It tamed the pandemic, reduced unemployment and cut child poverty by some 40 percent. 

A string of bipartisan achievements followed, starting with a historic investment in infrastructure — both traditional (roads, bridges, schools) and modern (like broadband internet, lead-free drinking water and electric vehicle charging). To that has been added the first major gun safety legislation in 30 years, and bills to compete with China in domestic chip production and to deliver health care to veterans exposed to toxic burn pits in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. Schools are reopened, job creation is soaring and unemployment is historically low. It’s been a year and a half of bold accomplishments unrivaled since FDR’s first term. 

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed by both houses of Congress and now on its way to the president’s desk, adds to this legacy. It aims to help struggling families by lowering drug prices, taming health care costs under the Affordable Care Act and reducing energy costs by investing in American-made renewable energy — in fact, the most sweeping program in the world to fight the climate crisis. 

And it’s fiscally responsible. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices and placing a cap on drug price inflation will reduce federal spending by some $300 billion. More tax enforcement on the super-rich, and imposing an un-dodgeable minimum tax on corporations, will not only pay for the bill’s programs but will also reduce the deficit by about $300 billion. 

FDR, like Biden, didn’t always get things right and failed on more than one occasion. As FDR famously said, “It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Throughout his presidency, FDR was both ambitious and laser-focused on the interests of ordinary people rather than the privileged class of what he called “economic royalists.”  

In this new legislation, as in the previous American Rescue Plan and Bipartisan Infrastructure Package, Biden is following in FDR’s footsteps in directing help where it is needed most — not to corporations and rich people, but to ordinary struggling families.   

FDR and Congress took risks throughout the Great Depression in order to deliver for the American people. They took risks because the stakes were too high not to. Countries across the globe were falling to the empty promises of budding authoritarians throughout the 1930s. The great American experiment was on the line, as it is again now.  

We are frankly amazed that Democrats have accomplished so much for the common good with such slender congressional majorities. We think FDR would be mightily impressed — but also hyper-vigilant about the risks still lying ahead — from the health of our economy to our basic freedoms to our democracy.  

James Roosevelt, Jr. , grandson of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, is a former associate commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Henry Scott Wallace, grandson of Henry A. Wallace, FDR’s vice president and secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, is co-chair of the Wallace Global Fund. Tomlin Perkins Coggeshall is the grandson of Frances Perkins, FDR’s labor secretary,  and founder of the Frances Perkins Center. June Hopkins, granddaughter of Harry Hopkins, FDR’s secretary of Commerce and a leading architect of the New Deal, is a professor of History Emerita, Georgia Southern University, Armstrong Campus. Harold Ickes, the son of Harold L. Ickes, FDR’s secretary of the Interior, was White House deputy chief of staff for political affairs and policy and assistant to President Bill Clinton. 

Source: TEST FEED1