Young Alabama woman Hannah Barron, who loves hunting and fishing, slammed over thick southern accent and ‘masculine’ attributes.
A self-sufficient country girl from Alabama who enjoys hunting and fishing unexpectedly became the target of vicious criticism over the weekend, with social media users slamming the cute girl’s pastimes as masculine.
The issue began when former RT reporter Samirah Khan issued an X post slamming influencer Hannah Barron over her heavy southern country accent amid a tour of the construction of Barron’s dream home.
“This accent needs to be illegal and women should be banned from doing manual labour like this,” Khan wrote, adding, “There is NOTHING feminine about American women… American women are literally men.”
This accent needs to be illegal and women should be banned from doing manual labour like this.
Tweeting a video of Barron wearing a bathing suit in a river after noodling a massive catfish, Khan went on to say, “High-value American men should become passport bros,” adding, “Don’t they deserve better than the filth they are limited to in their own country…?”
Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 40% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!
At the same time, Khan propped up Lebanese women as “literally perfect.”
High-value American men should become passport bros.
Don’t they deserve better than the filth they are limited to in their own country…?
Khan’s hot take that American men don’t prefer women like Barron was blasted on social media, with many saying she’s the epitome of a powerful woman and represents peak Americana.
They are not “masculine” woman. They are self sufficient and powerful and like to have fun. The modern domesticated left cannot find their asses with both hands. They think anything natural is strange. When a woman is strong she is not a man, she is feminine. Men with their heads… https://t.co/KSmPPLnc8l
Just spoke to Hannah Barron this morning. She has been a friend for a long time! She is getting hate from idiots because she is one of the good ones and authentic! Always remember winners focus on winning, and losers focus on winners! Keep being YOU Hannah! pic.twitter.com/KP8jB5qOK3
I’m sorry but if you think this isn’t peak femininity than you might just hate women being independent, capable, strong, and confident!
If this emasculates you, do us a favor and stay above the Mason Dixon line because you might find yourself at the tail end of a catfish slap.… pic.twitter.com/5slkfy3MEj
— kuriositykills PAX East (@Kuriosityki11s) March 10, 2024
I am seeing the conservative side starting to use Ms Hannah Barron as a tool against leftist anger. Even though she’s not political, she’s been getting hate for more than a couple years now because she’s down home, patriotic country girl.
Barron issued a scathing response on Instagram (despite trending on X, where she was banned for an unknown reason), replying she’s always been the black sheep and has no intentions of stopping now.
Hannah Barron is about to hit that Rich men north of Richmond superstar status
“Some girl said that my accent should be illegal, women shouldn’t do manual labor. Oh, what else did she say? American women are basically men, and she just said that I was not feminine. And I would tell you all this girl’s name, but I can’t remember it because I don’t have a clue who she is. So that should tell you how relevant this person is,” Barron laughed.
She went on to encourage fellow women to “embrace your own individuality, just be yourself and don’t worry about what anybody else said, because these folks talk about me and think they’re going to offend me, that ship sailed a long time ago.”
“I’ve been getting picked on my whole life,” Barron stated, adding, “I grew up around men. Oh well.”
She continued: “Well, so don’t be scared to build your own box and don’t try to fit in anybody else’s. Be your own person and you’ll be happier in the long run because of that. And don’t worry about what anybody else has to say.”
Barron evidently created a new X account on Monday following the incident:
Since she’s trending for unwarranted hate, just a reminder that Hannah Barron is a badass in a male dominated industry, & everyone can kick rocks. pic.twitter.com/JIKIBgax4M
The Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, has threatened to revoke the licenses of Power Distribution Companies that reject electricity allocated to them by the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN).
Adelabu lamented the epileptic power supply across the country despite subsidizing 65 per cent of consumers’ electricity bills.
He warned the DisCos not to reject power loads while assuring that in the next three to six months, the government would ramp up power generation and supply to between 6,000 and 6,500 megawatts.
According to him, “We must address the issues of distribution, and I’ve said before now that the non-performance of Discos in terms of epileptic power supply qualifies as a basis for the revocation of licence.
“If we ramp up generation to 6,000MW as planned in three to six months, and ramp up our infrastructure in transmission to get power to the Discos within the next couple of days, if the Discos are not picking this power, it amounts to nothing.
“So the refusal to take up and supply power by the Discos is a qualified basis for the revocation of licence. Therefore, the Discos should not frustrate our efforts in generation and transmission.”
The minister said it had mandated the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) to come up with adequate performance measurement standards for Discos, to ascertain performance information and enable sanctions.
“We should not be toothless bulldogs, barking and barking without biting. We should bite, for by the time we sanction two, three Discos heavily, others will sit up, and it will serve as a deterrent to others that we mean business”, Adelabu warned.
The minister declared that the rejection of electricity would no longer be allowed in the sector, stressing that “they must take up a minimum of 90 to 95 per cent of power supplied to their jurisdiction.”
Don’t Frustrate Our Efforts In Power Generation, Transmission, FG Warns Electricity Companies is first published on The Whistler Newspaper
SAN ANTONIO — In front of the Warriors’ bench, Lester Quinones crossed his arms over his chest and collapsed backward. The Golden State bench guard, for a moment, was a thespian playing the role of a bystander to a shocking, violent crime.
The misdemeanor that caused Quinones to pantomime fainting: Trayce Jackson-Davis adding Victor Wembanyama to his growing dunk body count.
“Man, that was just a natural reaction, he dunked on someone nine feet tall,” Quinones said from his locker postgame.
To dunk over Wembanyama, the 7-foot-4 rookie phenom with a 9-foot-7 standing reach, Jackson-Davis needed to keep the French center on his hip as he drove left, lift off as high as he could, and spike the ball into the cylinder through a mid-air collision. When he peeled himself off the hardwood in front of Golden State’s bench, he chest-bumped Draymond Green and hyped up his hysterical teammates.
“He challenged (Wembanyama) at the rim, obviously one of the great shot blockers in the game,” Green said. “Incredible shot-blocker. Trayce isn’t backing down. His athleticism, taking it right through his chest. Incredible play. And to own it, to get up like he meant it. I think that was a huge, huge play for us to keep the momentum and close out the game.”
The impossible poster stamped Golden State’s 112-102 win over the Spurs, their first of the year without Steph Curry. In it, Jackson-Davis continued his rookie breakout, notching his fifth double-double — sixth-most among rookies — and baking some French toast.
“That’s two guys about as high as humanly possible,” Steve Kerr said postgame. “That’s what NBA fans come to see, feats like that. It just doesn’t seem human.”
Roughly an hour before Jackson-Davis induced Quinones into a fake coma, the two were chatting on the bench. Jackson-Davis had just forced Wembanyama to miss at the rim.
The Warriors center wanted more.
“He’s like, ‘Imma get him,’” Quinones said. “I was like alright, we’re gonna see. Then he did it.”
At the time, Quinones had “a little faith” in him. Jackson-Davis has been a sky-walking revelation for Golden State, routinely finishing alley-oop and putback dunks. In early February, the 57th overall pick caught a body in Atlanta when he dunked over center Onyeka Okongwu — his favorite flush of the year, at least until Monday.
But Wembanyama? That’s a different beast.
As a rookie, the former first overall pick is leading the NBA in blocks per game. On shots he contests within six feet of the hoop, Wembanyama allows a 54.3% field goal percentage — on par with Giannis Antetokounmpo and Brook Lopez.
But Jackson-Davis always knew he could rise up with Wembanyama. Even before the game, he already knew he was up for the challenge. This is the same guy who blocked Antetokounmpo twice last week, after all.
“I told Loon before the game that if I got the chance to try him, I would,” Jackson-Davis said. “At the end of the day, sometimes you dunk on people, sometimes you get dunked on. It’s just a basketball play.”
At the time he revealed that interaction postgame, Jackson-Davis hadn’t yet seen the replay, which instantly went viral. If he had, he’d surely know that was much more than just a basketball play.
“It was insane,” Looney said. “Incredible play like that, just put a punctuation on the game. Close it out. It was a dope play. It’s going to be on his career tape for a long time.”
Jackson-Davis’ jam came with 1:13 left in the game and put Golden State up an insurmountable 11 points. It sucked the life out of Frost Bank Center, Podziemski said, and put Jackson-Davis in front of a national audience on social media.
Wembanyama is only 20 years old, but in terms of dunk victims, he’s already somewhat of a final boss. If Jackson-Davis can put Wembanyama on a poster, is there be anyone he couldn’t dunk on?
A few lockers down from Looney, Podziemski threw out Manute Bol, the 7-foot-7 center who played in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Looney went a different direction.
“The only one he ain’t gonna dunk on is Draymond,” Looney said.
Yet even Green, one of the best defenders of this generation who has been teaching an advanced course on NBA defense to Jackson-Davis, isn’t safe.
“He ain’t got me yet, but it’s just a matter of time,” Green said. “You know, it’s a matter of opportunity, but I don’t doubt that he can.”
As sleek dashboards adorned with gleaming touchscreens become the norm, a crucial question arises: Are these technological marvels making our roads safer or transforming them into digital danger zones? While the allure of convenience and connectivity is undeniable, concerns about distracted driving and its impact on insurance rates loom large. Follow along as Cheap Insurance explores the complex relationship between in-vehicle touchscreens, driver focus, and the potential consequences for both your safety and your chances to find cheaper car insurance.
Key takeaways
Touchscreens can be distracting, but their impact goes beyond glances. Visual overload, cognitive load, and temptation traps can impair focus and reaction times.
In-vehicle tech can influence insurance premiums, both positively and negatively. Explore telematics programs for potential discounts, but be aware of potential risks.
The future of safe driving involves balancing convenience and safety. Embrace voice control, demand safer screen design, and prioritize responsible tech usage.
Choose physical controls when possible to minimize distraction. They offer fast, intuitive interaction without taking eyes off the road.
Harness technology for good. Explore ADAS features, driver monitoring systems, and V2X communication for a safer, more connected driving experience.
Do touchscreens increase distracted driving accidents?
The short answer is yes, in-vehicle touchscreens can significantly increase the risk of distracted driving accidents. Studies consistently show that using touchscreens while driving takes your eyes off the road for longer periods and impairs critical cognitive functions like reaction time and spatial awareness.
A 2017 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that looking at a touchscreen or other electronic devices while driving took drivers’ eyes off the road for an average of 40 seconds when sending a text message or programming navigation – long enough to cover the length of four football fields at 25 mph.
Another study by the University of Utah, researchers found drivers using features such as voice-based and touch-screen technology took their hands, eyes and mind off the road for more than 24 seconds to complete tasks.
These findings align with real-world data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that distracted driving contributed to 3,522 fatalities during 2021, or 8% of all traffic fatalities. While smartphones often take the blame, research indicates that in-vehicle technology is increasingly contributing to this alarming trend.
Insurance claims and touchscreen use: The data speaks
The link between touchscreen use and insurance claims is becoming increasingly clear. Several major insurance companies are starting to collect data on how in-vehicle technology correlates with accident rates and claim frequency. While conclusive evidence is still emerging, early indications are concerning.
State Farm reported a 45% increase in distracted driving claims involving vehicles equipped with advanced infotainment systems compared to those without.
Progressive Insurance found that drivers using a touchscreen while driving were nearly three times more likely to file a collision claim than those who weren’t.
These trends suggest that insurance companies may start factoring in touchscreen usage into their risk assessments and premium calculations in the future. This could mean higher insurance costs for drivers with vehicles equipped with complex infotainment systems or who demonstrate frequent touchscreen interaction while driving.
Can safe technology design reduce driver distraction?
Not all hope is lost. The automotive industry is aware of the growing concern about distracted driving and is actively developing ways to mitigate the risks associated with in-vehicle touchscreens. Some promising approaches include:
Voice-activated controls: Reducing the need for manual touchscreen interaction can significantly improve driver focus.
Multimodal feedback: Utilizing haptic feedback and audio cues to supplement visual information can help drivers keep their eyes on the road.
Simplified interfaces: Minimizing the number of menus and functions readily accessible on the touchscreen can decrease cognitive load and prevent attention overload.
Driver monitoring systems: Implementing technology that detects when a driver’s eyes are off the road and automatically disables distracting features can be a powerful deterrent.
These advancements offer hope for a future where in-vehicle technology enhances our driving experience without compromising safety. However, it’s crucial for drivers to remain vigilant and prioritize their attention on the road, regardless of the technological capabilities at their fingertips.
Multitasking mayhem: Touchscreens and cognitive load
The human brain, while adept at multitasking, has limitations. Touchscreens, with their plethora of functions and information, overload our cognitive capacity. Juggling music selection, navigation adjustments, and phone calls while driving consumes the mental resources needed for essential driving tasks like judging speed and maintaining lane position.
Research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicates that performing any secondary task while driving increases the risk of a crash by three times.
A 2019 study suggested that 1) locking out tasks such as in vehicle text messaging, dialing a ten digit phone number, or displaying more than 30 characters on the vehicle touchscreen at a time while the vehicle is in motion, or 2) shortening task interaction time while the vehicle is in motion, would be two wise methods that would reduce overall interaction times with in-vehicle information systems, and reduce potential distractions.
This evidence highlights how touchscreens can overwhelm our cognitive abilities, leading to impaired decision-making and reduced situational awareness behind the wheel.
The temptation trap: Notifications, calls, and navigation
Touchscreens act like digital sirens, beckoning us with notifications, calls, and navigation prompts. These constant interruptions, while seemingly harmless, can be incredibly seductive, drawing our attention away from the road for a split second that can have disastrous consequences.
A study by the National Library of Medicine found that crash risk increases when the duration of eye glances greater than 2 seconds away from the roadway while engaged in a secondary task. They also reported that drivers using a cell phone (operating, talking, and listening) had eyes-off-road times as long as 4 seconds, with slower responses to hazards than drivers not engaged in potentially distracting behaviors.
Research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety indicates that drivers who take their eyes off the road for even 2.3 seconds to check a phone double the risk of a crash.
These findings underscore how the seemingly innocuous notifications and prompts on touchscreens can create a powerful temptation trap, leading to momentary lapses in focus with potentially fatal outcomes.
In conclusion, the hidden dangers of in-vehicle touchscreens lie not just in their visual demands but also in their ability to overload our cognitive capacity and trap us in a web of distractions. Recognizing these subtle threats is the first step towards driving with awareness and prioritizing the safety of ourselves and others on the road.
Beyond safety: How in-vehicle tech impacts your auto insurance premiums
As technology transforms our cars into rolling tech hubs, the question arises: how does this newfound connectivity impact our auto insurance rates? While the safety implications of touchscreens and other in-vehicle tech are crucial, the financial consequences can’t be ignored. Let’s delve into this complex relationship, exploring the potential for both penalties and rewards hidden within these digital dashboards.
Will your insurance company penalize you for a high-tech dashboard?
The jury’s still out on whether owning a car with a high-tech infotainment system will directly lead to higher insurance premiums. While concerns exist, insurers are cautiously approaching this new frontier.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) hasn’t yet incorporated in-vehicle technology into its rating system, which influences many insurance rates.
Some insurance companies are exploring pilot programs using telematics data from connected cars to tailor premiums based on individual driving behavior, but this is still in its early stages.
However, it’s important to remember that insurance companies consider various factors when setting premiums, including the car’s model, safety features, and driver demographics. While a high-tech dashboard might not be a direct penalty factor yet, it could be considered alongside other elements influencing your risk profile.
Telematics and touchscreens: The potential for lower premiums
While the potential for higher premiums exists, the flip side of the coin presents exciting possibilities for responsible drivers. Telematics, the technology that collects driving data through connected cars, holds the key to personalized auto insurance rates based on actual driving habits.
In the future, advancements in telematics and driver monitoring systems could further incentivize safe driving habits and reward responsible drivers with lower insurance costs. Imagine a world where your in-vehicle technology, instead of distracting you, becomes your advocate, earning you discounts for being a safe and focused driver.
As the landscape of in-vehicle technology and its impact on insurance evolves, it’s crucial for drivers to stay informed and make conscious choices. Here are some tips:
Research telematics programs: Explore the offerings of different insurance companies and understand how their telematics programs work to see if they could benefit your driving habits.
Prioritize safety features: Choose in-vehicle tech with features like voice-activated controls and driver monitoring systems that minimize distractions and promote safe driving.
Ask your insurance agent: Talk to your insurance agent about how your specific car model and its technology features might impact your premium.
By understanding the potential rewards and risks associated with in-vehicle technology, you can make informed choices that enhance your driving experience, secure your financial well-being, and contribute to a safer road for everyone.
The insurance impact: How much does a high-tech car cost you?
While the exact impact of in-vehicle tech on auto insurance rates is still evolving, it’s important to consider the potential cost. Here’s how your high-tech dashboard might influence your premiums:
The “luxury tax”: Cars with advanced infotainment systems are often perceived as luxury vehicles, potentially leading to higher insurance costs.
Telematics programs: While some programs offer car insurance discounts for safe driving, they collect data on your driving habits, which could impact your rates if deemed risky.
Future trends: As insurance companies gather more data on in-vehicle tech and its correlation with accidents, they may factor it more heavily into premium calculations.
It’s important to talk to your insurance agent and understand how your specific vehicle and its technology features might affect your rates. By staying informed, you can make conscious choices when purchasing a car and potentially avoid unwelcome surprises on your next insurance bill.
Can technology save lives? The future of in-vehicle safety and driver assistance
Despite the challenges, in-vehicle technology also holds immense potential for safeguarding lives and improving driving experiences. Here’s a glimpse into the future of safety innovations:
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS): Features like lane departure warning, automatic emergency braking, and adaptive cruise control can significantly reduce the risk of accidents.
Driver monitoring systems: Sensors and cameras can detect drowsiness, distraction, and even potential medical issues, prompting warnings or taking corrective actions.
Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication: Cars communicating with each other and infrastructure can anticipate hazards and prevent collisions.
These advancements, coupled with responsible driver behavior and responsible design of in-vehicle technologies, can pave the way for a future where our cars become proactive partners in road safety. By embracing the good while mitigating the risks, we can harness the power of in-vehicle technology to safeguard ourselves and everyone else on the road, and just maybe provide avenues for cheaper auto insurance.
This story was produced by Cheap Insurance and reviewed and distributed by Stacker Media.
This story was produced by Cheap Insurance and reviewed and distributed by Stacker Media.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said Monday that she will not be going on ABC again after a heated exchange with host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
“I won’t be going back on ABC anytime soon. I told him as I was walking out, ‘Good effing luck getting me back on,’” she told NewsNation’s Leland Vittert on “On Balance.”
She added, “I cursed on my way out. I didn’t do it on air, but I was upset.”
Mace and Stephanopoulos engaged in a testy debate on Sunday’s episode of “This Week” when he asked her how she could endorse Trump after he was found liable for sexual battery in a defamation lawsuit with E. Jean Carroll last year.
He had opened the interview by playing a clip of her delivering testimony about being a victim of rape shortly before she announced her bid for Congress in 2019. Mace criticized Stephanopoulos for “shaming” her by asking why she supported Trump throughout her appearance on ABC.
Stephanopoulos argued that his question was not meant to “shame” her and, at one point, called her “courageous” for coming forward as he continued to press her on the question.
She told Vittert that she thought she was going to talk about the 2024 elections, not about her testimony about being raped.
“So I was all ready to talk about Donald Trump versus Joe Biden and the 2024 race for the general election; the President had just given his State of the Union, you know, all of that I would imagine would have come into a conversation about 2024. But the guy literally led with me being raped. And you can see the pain on my face,” she said, adding that it is “painful” to watch the testimony.
She said “every woman in this country should be offended by the interview and then by the reaction.” She said on Fox News’s “The Faulker Focus” on Monday that Stephanopoulos “tried to bully” her during the interview.
Mace also described how she left things with Stephanopoulos after the interview as “very awkward,” saying that the ABC host was “angry.”
“But you know, just giving me the side eye and being very ugly. Just his whole demeanor was nasty. But that’s what these people do. That’s what the far left does,” she said.
A spokesperson for ABC News stood by Stephanopoulos’s interview when reached for comment by The Hill.
“George did his job by asking meaningful questions that are relevant to our viewers,” the spokesperson said.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The notice explained the new owners are going to keep the operation running under a new team “more in line with their editorial vision for the brand.”
Several X users accurately pointed out the outlet didn’t last long after a scandal where Deadspin writer Carron J. Phillips incorrectly labeled a child Kansas City Chiefs fan a “racist” who attended a game wearing “black face.”
In his article, Phillips posted a misleading image of the boy with black face paint on one side of his face and didn’t reveal the other side of his face was painted red.
Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 40% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!
The family of the 9-year-old kid falsely accused by Deadspin of wearing “blackface” filed a lawsuit against the outlet last month, potentially contributing to the recent sale.
Barstool Sports CEO Dave Portnoy posted a celebratory video to social media Monday as he’s been feuding with the far-left outlet for years.
Drinking a bottle of champagne while floating in a pool, Portnoy gave a “cheers” to the camera and said, “To Deadspin! Everybody getting fired again. Those motherfuckers just don’t get it. Being miserable, hating life, never laughing… it’s never gonna pay the bills. See you motherfuckers on the employment line again.”
Nollywood actor Yul Edochie has reportedly denied being married to Judith Austin despite having two children with her.
He described their union as a mere ‘skit’ amidst an ongoing divorce case with his estranged wife, May Edochie.
According to May’s legal team, led by Emeka Ugwuonye, Yul’s defence strategy is to claim his relationship with Judith was merely for ‘skit making’.
Ugwuonye said in Yul’s court filings, the actor claimed that rumours of his marriage to Judith were propagated by an Instagram blog, Gistlover, in pursuit of financial gain through false information.
The lawyer quoted Yul as saying, “…since the news of the birth of Star in June 2021, Gistlover, as a negative blog that thrives in fake and manipulated information for financial gains, has been negatively exploiting every movie or skit featuring me and Judy and generating social media traffic for financial gains.”
According to Ugwuonye, May’s legal team plans to counter Edochie and Judy’s anticipated argument that their public display of affection on social media was part of ‘skit making’.
The legal team further shared details of May’s petition and responses from Yul and Judith refuting claims of a traditional marriage ceremony between the latter.
Initially considering bigamy charges against Yul, May’s focus was said to have shifted to pursuing divorce on grounds of adultery and seeking damages from Judith.
According to Ugwuonye, May is not interested in seeing Yul imprisoned but seeks justice due to alleged threats and aggressive behaviour from her estranged husband.
Contrary to social media speculations, May’s legal representatives clarified that bigamy charges were not filed; instead, the case is proceeding on divorce grounds of adultery and seeking damages against Judith.
He said: ‘‘Each time bigamy was mentioned, she asked, “Will they arrest him?” And we would say: “Most likely yes.” She would refuse to approve it. You can understand that. Despite what Yul did to her, she didn’t want him arrested.
“The only option left was for May to file for divorce and to sue Judy for damages for adultery. Even at that, she didn’t want to rush it. It took until after the death of her child and Yul’s subsequent behaviours for her to file for divorce. As I have stated earlier, once May discovered the relationship between Yul and Judy, May refused to allow Yul access to her. She refused to allow him to have any intimacy with her.’’
The lawyer, as reported by Premium Times, noted that May maintained that Yul and Judy’s sworn statements admitting to their child together constitute conclusive evidence of adultery, forming the basis of her petition.
“May Yul-Edochie has nothing further to prove. Yul and Judy admitted in their sworn statements that they had a child together. That is conclusive evidence of adultery, which is the basis of May’s petition. The law does not require a person to prove what the other party has admitted or conceded,’’ her lawyers said.
Despite Fathering Her Kids, Yul Edochie Denies Judith Austin In Wife’s Infidelity Lawsuit, Says They’re Ordinary Colleagues is first published on The Whistler Newspaper
President Joe Biden has been making his case for re-election to voters by telling them he is good for their pocketbooks, including at the pharmacy counter.
During his State of the Union address, Biden said legislation he signed gave Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.
“That’s not just saving seniors money and taxpayers money,” Biden said, a reference to the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022. “We cut the federal deficit by $160 billion because Medicare will no longer have to pay those exorbitant prices to Big Pharma.”
Biden added, “This year Medicare is negotiating lower prices for some of the costliest drugs.” He called for giving Medicare the power to negotiate prices for 500 drugs over the next decade.
In August, the federal government announced the first 10 drugs that it will negotiate for lower prices as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. A respected source of legislation analysis projects the change will save the government a lot of money, but those dollars haven’t been realized.
There is a reason Biden touted this legislation during his address: Polling by KFF shows people, regardless of their political leanings, overwhelmingly support the idea of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. But most people don’t know that such negotiations are underway.
The impact of the Inflation Reduction Act will take many years
In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will allow the federal government to negotiate prices with drugmakers for Medicare. Biden kept his promise to repeal the law that barred Medicare from negotiating prices.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects 10-year cumulative savings of $161.7 billion from two provisions of the Iaw: a phased-in effort to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices and a rebate for price increases above the overall inflation rate. (The White House has previously pointed to this analysis.)
However, not all of the savings will be permanent. Some $44.3 billion over 10 years will be funneled into related provisions that expand access and lower out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries.
“Negotiations are still ramping up, so the savings generated by the Inflation Reduction Act negotiation provisions are still in the future,” said Matthew Fiedler, a Brookings Institution expert on the economy and health studies. “The Congressional Budget Office did expect the inflation rebate provisions of the IRA (which are encompassed in the $160 billion) to begin generating modest savings during 2023 and 2024, but there, too, most of the savings are in the future.”
The legislation involves price negotiations for 10 brand-name medications that lack generic equivalents. Those drugs include the blood thinners Eliquis and Xarelto; the diabetes drugs Januvia, Jardiance and NovoLog; Enbrel, for rheumatoid arthritis; the blood-cancer drug Imbruvica; Entresto, for heart failure; Stelara, for psoriasis and Crohn’s disease; and Farxiga, a drug for diabetes, heart failure and chronic kidney disease.
The CBO has estimated that the negotiated prices will translate to nearly $100 billion in federal savings between 2026 and 2031.
“Biden is jumping the gun on claiming savings for seniors,” said Joe Antos, an expert on health care at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Price negotiations haven’t been completed; the new prices for selected drugs aren’t in place until 2026.”
Biden said the legislation is “saving seniors money and taxpayers money,” which could be interpreted to mean it is saving them money now on prescription drugs.
But the negotiations for these drugs would define the prices to be paid for prescriptions starting in 2026. For 2027 and 2028, 15 more drugs per year will be chosen for price negotiations. Starting in 2029, 20 more will be chosen a year.
That said, there are other provisions in the legislation that have already led to savings for seniors, said Tricia Neuman, senior vice president at KFF:
Certain recommended adult vaccines covered under Medicare Part D such as shingles are covered at no cost.
The act established a cap on Part D spending that begins phasing in this year. This year, Part D enrollees will pay no more than $3,300 on brand-name drugs. In 2025, the cap for all covered Part D drugs drops to $2,000.
The Inflation Reduction Act also included the $35 per month insulin cap, improvements in coverage for low-income beneficiaries, and the inflation rebate.
When we pressed the White House to provide examples of savings that have already occurred, a spokesperson also pointed to the insulin cap.
Meanwhile, Antos said although the Part D rebate has kicked in, the savings come from a small subset of Part D drugs taken by older Americans and the savings goes to the government, not to older Americans.
“There is no reason to expect that seniors will see significant savings since there’s no obligation for the feds to distribute savings to Part D enrollees,” Antos said.
Our ruling
Biden said, “We cut the federal deficit by $160 billion because Medicare will no longer have to pay those exorbitant prices to Big Pharma.”
Biden’s statement omits the timeframe; the savings have not been realized. The CBO projected 10-year cumulative savings of $161.7 billion from two provisions of the legislation. And as for saving older Americans money on their prescriptions, that hasn’t happened yet. The federal government is negotiating the first 10 drugs with the new prices set to take effect in 2026.
We rate this statement Half True.
RELATED: Fact-checking Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address
RELATED: For the most part, the US pays double for prescriptions compared with other countries, as Biden says
RELATED: Fact-checking Joe Biden on inflation, the deficit and consumer confidence in the State of the Union
SAN ANTONIO — To earn their first win without Steph Curry of the season, Chris Paul put on a vintage performance, Klay Thompson notched his third straight 20-point game, and the Warriors hit 12 of their 27 3-pointers.
And Trayce Jackson-Davis dunked on the 7-foot-4 Victor Wembanyama.
“After he dunked that, the game was kind of over,” Brandin Podziemski said of his fellow rookie’s slam. “Sucked the life right out of the building.”
Before beating the Spurs 112-102 in the Frost Bank Center on Monday, Golden State was 0-4 on the season without Curry, not including the loss to Chicago in which he exited late with his sprained right ankle.
Even if it was against the Western Conference’s worst team, the Warriors (34-30) earned a much-needed victory that will keep them in the hunt to move up the play-in standings. Led by Paul, who registered 19 points, nine rebounds and eight assists, six Warriors scored in double-figures. With Draymond Green having fouled out in the last three minutes, Golden State clamped down on Wembanyama (27 points, 14 rebounds).
In the Warriors’ last matchup with the Spurs, a concerning 126-113 loss in Chase Center, the absences of both Curry and Wembanyama removed the glamor. Wembanyama was back to provide star power to the second leg of the home-and-home, though.
Wembanyama used his instincts and eight-foot wingspan to force a Jonathan Kuminga miss at the rim. He scored over Thompson in the post, dunked on a drop-step around Kuminga and stuffed Moses Moody at the rim.
In the first quarter alone, the rookie phenom logged seven points and seven rebounds in seven minutes. Then he opened the second quarter with a steal and slam, hardly requiring a dribble as he glided his way across half the court.
Without Wembanyama on Saturday, the Spurs crushed Golden State by shooting 17-for-33 (51.5%) from behind the arc. Before the All-Star break, they ranked last in 3-point percentage. Since, they lead the league.
San Antonio’s outside shooting allowed them to lead by as much as 21 in the Chase Center, but the Warriors prevented them from pulling away Monday night. The Spurs hit five of their first seven 3-pointers, but Golden State responded with an 11-2 run to start the second quarter. Paul, who ended the first frame with a buzzer-beating fadeaway, produced a steady stream of offense.
With Paul and Thompson, the Warriors were able to gather themselves when things got unsettled. Following an 8-0 Spurs run, the backcourt duo helped engineer a 13-4 answer. A Brandin Podziemski and-1 halfway through the third gave Golden State its first lead in almost 12 game minutes.
Podziemski thrived in his first game coming off the bench since Feb. 14, recording 14 points and eight rebounds while also drawing his league-leading 33rd charge. Paul and Trayce Jackson-Davis continued to show chemistry in the pick-and-roll, with the point guard connecting with the rookie on a pair of alley-oops.
The Warriors won the third quarter 32-18, completely flipping the game. The third flowed into the fourth, too, with Kuminga and Thompson leading another charge as Paul rested. San Antonio cooled off from range, dipping below 40%.
Golden State needed all the varying options to pick up the slack without Curry, who’s set to be re-evaluated Tuesday.
“It definitely puts pressure on all our guys, without Steph,” Steve Kerr said pregame. “So much of what we do revolves around him and the threat that he is, not to mention the (26.9) points per game.”
Without their center of gravity, more offense ran through Paul, who displayed the feel for the moment he’s honed over the course of his Springfield-caliber career.
As soon as the Spurs cut Golden State’s lead to single digits, Paul drilled a tough fadeaway from the midrange. Then he patiently found Kuminga cutting along the baseline for a tomahawk dunk. When Devin Vassell canned a 3 to again threaten the Warriors’ lead, Paul went straight back to his spot on the elbow for another jumper.
“He controlled the game, got us organized down the stretch when they were threatening,” Kerr said. “Hit a bunch of big shots, distributed the ball, rebounded — he did everything. There’s a reason he’s going to the Hall of Fame. He’s one of the great point guards ever, and he’s still got a lot left.”
For the last 2:43 of the game, with Green out, the Warriors held San Antonio to one point. Jackson-Davis, who anchored the defense in that stretch, then stamped the win by somehow postering Wembanyama.
“When you’re in these games, night in and night out, it’s plays like that that sort of seal the game,” Paul said. “That was one of those like, ‘okay, we’ve got it.’”
As he said it at the postgame podium, Paul let out a performative sigh of relief. It may as well have been a real one.
Price worries, bureaucratic obstacles, and “I’m-over-covid-itis” slow uptake of a drug that’s complicated to take but often effective. (JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES)
By Arthur Allen
Evangelical minister Eddie Hyatt believes in the healing power of prayer but “also the medical approach.” So on a February evening a week before scheduled prostate surgery, he had his sore throat checked out at an emergency room near his home in Grapevine, Texas.
A doctor confirmed that Hyatt had covid-19 and sent him to CVS with a prescription for the antiviral drug Paxlovid, the generally recommended medicine to fight covid. Hyatt handed the pharmacist the script, but then, he said, “She kept avoiding me.”
She finally looked up from her computer and said, “It’s $1,600.”
The generally healthy 76-year-old went out to the car to consult his wife about their credit card limits. “I don’t think I’ve ever spent more than $20 on a prescription,” the astonished Hyatt recalled.
That kind of sticker shock has stunned thousands of sick Americans since late December, as Pfizer shifted to commercial sales of Paxlovid. Before then, the federal government covered the cost of the drug.
The price is one reason Paxlovid is not reaching those who need it most. And patients who qualify for free doses, which Pfizer offers under an agreement with the federal government, often don’t realize it or know how to get them.
“If you want to create a barrier to people getting a treatment, making it cost a lot is the way to do it,” said William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
Public and medical awareness of Paxlovid’s benefits is low, and putting people through an application process to get the drug when they’re sick is a non-starter, Schaffner said. Pfizer says it takes only five minutes online.
It’s not an easy drug to use. Doctors are wary about prescribing it because of dangerous interactions with common drugs that treat cholesterol, blood clots, and other conditions. It must be taken within five days of the first symptoms. It leaves a foul taste in the mouth. In one study, 1 in 5 patients reported “rebound” covid symptoms a few days after finishing the medicine — though rebound can also occur without Paxlovid.
A recent JAMA Network study found that sick people 85 and older were less likely than younger Medicare patients to get covid therapies like Paxlovid. The drug might have prevented up to 27,000 deaths in 2022 if it had been allocated based on which patients were at highest risk from covid. Nursing home patients, who account for around 1 in 6 U.S. covid deaths, were about two-thirds as likely as other older adults to get the drug.
Shrunken confidence in government health programs is one reason the drug isn’t reaching those who need it. In senior living facilities, “a lack of clear information and misinformation” are “causing residents and their families to be reluctant to take the necessary steps to reduce covid risks,” said David Gifford, chief medical officer for an association representing 14,000 health care providers, many in senior care.
The anti-vaxxers spreading falsehoods about vaccines have targeted Paxlovid as well. Some call themselves anti-paxxers.
“Proactive and health-literate people get the drug. Those who are receiving information more passively have no idea whether it’s important or harmful,” said Michael Barnett, a primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an associate professor at Harvard, who led the JAMA Network study.
In fact, the drug is still free for those who are uninsured or enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health programs, including those for veterans.
That’s what rescued Hyatt, whose Department of Veterans Affairs health plan doesn’t normally cover outpatient drugs. While he searched on his phone for a solution, the pharmacist’s assistant suddenly appeared from the store. “It won’t cost you anything!” she said.
As Hyatt’s case suggests, it helps to know to ask for free Paxlovid, although federal officials say they’ve educated clinicians and pharmacists — like the one who helped Hyatt — about the program.
“There is still a heaven!” Hyatt replied. After he had been on Paxlovid for a few days his symptoms were gone and his surgery was rescheduled.
About That $1,390 List Price
Pfizer sold the U.S. government 23.7 million five-day courses of Paxlovid, produced under an FDA emergency authorization, in 2021 and 2022, at a price of around $530 each.
Under the new agreement, Pfizer commits to provide the drug for the beneficiaries of the government insurance programs. Meanwhile, Pfizer bills insurers for some portion of the $1,390 list price. Some patients say pharmacies have quoted them prices of $1,600 or more.
How exactly Pfizer arrived at that price isn’t clear. Pfizer won’t say. A Harvard study last year estimated the cost of producing generic Paxlovid at about $15 per treatment course, including manufacturing expenses, a 10% profit markup, and 27% in taxes.
Pfizer reported $12.5 billion in Paxlovid and covid vaccine sales in 2023, after a $57 billion peak in 2022. The company’s 2024 Super Bowl ad, which cost an estimated $14 million to place, focused on Pfizer’s cancer drug pipeline, newly reinforced with its $43 billion purchase of biotech company Seagen. Unlike some other recent oft-aired Pfizer ads (“If it’s covid, Paxlovid”), it didn’t mention covid products.
Connecting With Patients
The other problem is getting the drug where it is needed. “We negotiated really hard with Pfizer to make sure that Paxlovid would be available to Americans the way they were accustomed to,” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters in February. “If you have private insurance, it should not cost you much money, certainly not more than $100.”
Yet in nursing homes, getting Paxlovid is particularly cumbersome, said Chad Worz, CEO of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, specialists who provide medicines to care homes.
If someone in long-term care tests positive for covid, the nurse tells the physician, who orders the drug from a pharmacist, who may report back that the patient is on several drugs that interact with Paxlovid, Worz said. Figuring out which drugs to stop temporarily requires further consultations while the time for efficacious use of Paxlovid dwindles, he said.
His group tried to get the FDA to approve a shortcut similar to the standing orders that enable pharmacists to deliver anti-influenza medications when there are flu outbreaks in nursing homes, Worz said. “We were close,” he said, but “it just never came to fruition.” “The FDA is unable to comment,” spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said.
Los Angeles County requires nursing homes to offer any covid-positive patient an antiviral, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees nursing homes nationwide, has not issued similar guidance. “And this is a mistake,” said Karl Steinberg, chief medical officer for two nursing home chains with facilities in San Diego County, which also has no such mandate. A requirement would ensure the patient “isn’t going to fall through the cracks,” he said.
While it hasn’t ordered doctors to prescribe Paxlovid, CMS on Jan. 4 issued detailed instructions to health insurers urging swift approval of Paxlovid prescriptions, given the five-day window for the drug’s efficacy. It also “encourages” plans to make sure pharmacists know about the free Paxlovid arrangement.
Current covid strains appear less virulent than those that circulated earlier in the pandemic, and years of vaccination and covid infection have left fewer people at risk of grave outcomes. But risk remains, particularly among older seniors, who account for most covid deaths, which number more than 13,500 so far this year in the U.S.
Steinberg, who sees patients in 15 residences, said he orders Paxlovid even for covid-positive patients without symptoms. None of the 30 to 40 patients whom he prescribed the drug in the past year needed hospitalization, he said; two stopped taking it because of nausea or the foul taste, a pertinent concern in older people whose appetites already have ebbed.
Steinberg said he knew of two patients who died of covid in his companies’ facilities this year. Neither was on Paxlovid. He can’t be sure the drug would have made a difference, but he’s not taking any chances. The benefits, he said, outweigh the risks.
Reporter Colleen DeGuzman contributed to this report.KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
