Monday, 21 March 2016

Princess Health and Full House has Senate bill to regulate how druggists dispense 'biosimilar' medication that hasn't even been approved by FDA . Princessiccia

Update: SB 134 passed the state House 96-0 March 23 with a floor amendment that allows communication by fax, telephone, electronic transmissions or other prevailing means by the pharmacist to the provider to suffice as notice. The bill now awaits concurrence.  

Brand-name drugs called "biologics," because they are made from living tissues, have no competition from "interchangeable biosimilar" products in the U.S. because no interchangeable products have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. But that hasn't stopped the drug industry and Kentucky lawmakers from moving a bill to regulate how pharmacists could dispense these drugs if and when they are approved.

"This bill allows Kentucky pharmacists the ability to dispense safe and less expensive biological medications by allowing substitution of interchangeable biosimilars," Sen. Ralph Alvarado, R-Winchester, told the House Health and Welfare committee, which approved it March 17.

Current law does not allow these substitutions without advanced approval from the prescriber, Alvarado said. "This bill removes that hurdle."

The most contentious part of Senate Bill 134 has been its requirement that pharmacists must notify prescribers when they make this substitution, which advocates say is necessary because there are slight variations between the drugs.

Alvarado, also a physician, said the notification comes down to a "safety mandate," noting that if the patient had a "bad outcome" while on one of these medications, it is important for the provider to know exactly what medication the patient is taking.

Democratic Rep. David Watkins, a retired physician from Henderson, voted for the bill and supported the provider notification requirement.

"We're not talking about generics where you have exactly ideal medications, you are talking about biosimilars . . . which would be in some instances different molecules and have some different aspects," Watkins said. " I think that not notifying my office would be a gross disservice to my patients."

But the pharmacists disagree, and want substitution of interchangeable biosimilars to be handled the same way as generic medications, with the prescriber able to place a note on the prescription that says "do not substitute," said Bob Oakley, chairman of the Kentucky Pharmacists Association.

Oakley told the committee that while pharmacists support automatic substitution of an interchangable biosimilar for the name-brand biologic, they do not support notification. "Therefore, we are here to ask that we just keep it simple and keep it seamless," he said.

Rep. Addia Wuchner, R-Florence, said the bill had accommodations to make notification manageable for pharmacists, and asked Oakley what their real problem was. He replied, "It just adds more work to . . . their busy day."

But the pharmacists' lobby has cited other reasons. KPhA Executive Director Bob McFalls told James McNair of the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting, "Prescriber notification requirements have shown to increase costs for the health-care system overall" since they cause more brand-name drugs to be dispensed.

SB 134 passed the Senate 36-1 March 2, with Republican Sen. Jimmy Higdon, the majority whip from Lebanon, the only one voting against it. Higdon had submitted several floor amendments to modify the notification requirements, but withdrew them before the final vote.

Higdon told McNair that he didn't understand the urgency to pass this bill, noting that its passage would have no immediate effect.

�It�s the kind of bill that should be discussed,� Higdon said. �This whole thing is very complicated and futuristic, and a lot of people are talking to us about passing this. I just want to err on the side of caution. It doesn�t need to be fast-tracked. We need to do it right.�

Higdon was referring to the many lobbyists hired by pharmaceutical manufacturers that have descended on Kentucky in support of this bill.

"At least nine drug companies and groups have stated an interest in the Senate bill, according to the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission, McNair reports. "The number of registered lobbyists hired by pharmaceuticals employers has nearly doubled, from 46 in 2011 to 83 today. Their annual spending has more than doubled, to $824,196 in 2015."

The bill now resides in the House. Speaker Pro Tem Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, has filed a floor amendment to remove the notification requirements.

About biologics and biosimilars

While conventional medications are made from pure chemical substances and can be easily replicated, biologics are made from living tissues and each batch varies slightly from the last, according to the FDA. That's why these products can't be called generics, which are chemcially identical.

The most common biologics are Humira and Remicade for arthritis and Enbrel for psoriasis. They are very expensive and can cost thousands of dollars each month.

"Express Scripts, the pharmacy benefits manager, estimates that while biologics accounted for only 1 percent of all prescriptions in 2014, they accounted for 32 percent of all prescription-drug spending," McNair reports.

Biosimilars are medications that are "highly similar" to already FDA-approved biological products. To date, only one of these, Zarxio, used for certain cancer patients, has been approved by the FDA, but it was not designated as interchangeable. According to the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society, six biosimilars have applied for FDA approval.

Interchangeable biosimilars are expected to produce the same clinical results in any given patient as it's "highly similar" biologic. To date, no interchangeable biosimilar medications have been approved by the FDA. When appoved, Alvarado suggested that they will cost up to 40 percent less than the biologics.

Kentucky is home to the North American distribution hubs for Amgen, Genentech and Johnson and Johnson and is the primary distribution point for many of the biologics (and soon to be biosimilars) in the U.S., according to an e-mail from RunSwitch PR.

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Princess Health and  March 20th, 2016 Hard To Tell A Difference. Princessiccia

Princess Health and March 20th, 2016 Hard To Tell A Difference. Princessiccia

March 20th, 2016 Hard To Tell A Difference

It's been quite some time since I had a night's rest that good. I slept nine hours straight, woke feeling refreshed and ready for a really good day. This new morning routine of mine really helps set a tone. It seems so small--a glass of water and twenty push-ups, but it's making a significant impact on how I feel, first thing.

This weight loss maintenance mode has turned out to be better than I expected. The last several months in this healthy weight range--and what I'm doing each day in support of it, is proving to be a plan truly suited for me. When it comes to weight loss mode--the words are, "find what works for you," and in maintenance mode it's "find the groove that's sustainable long term." For me, it was determining that maintenance would be only a few degrees away from weight loss mode. Except for the higher calorie budget--it's hard to tell a difference between the two. I'm very grateful.

I tried taking my grandson to see Zootopia today. Kristin joined us for the excursion and was a big help to us. It appeared that he would be okay and really enjoy the experience. About fifteen minutes in, he started to lose interest in the film and gain interest in everything else in the theater. We knew this might happen going in, so it wasn't a surprise. We quietly exited the theater and Noah wasn't the least bit upset to see daylight. You want to go feed the ducks? "Uh huh..." Okay, then, we'll go feed the ducks.

We all fed the ducks and geese, then decided to go to a park--but it was too cool for outdoor play. We opted for the McDonald's PlayPlace instead.
 photo FullSizeRender_zpsycdnblk7.jpg
 photo IMG_9594_zpsasv0qs3z.jpg
It was a fun outing with my little man.

I'm so glad that I'm in a position to really keep up with him as he grows. If my morbid obesity kept me a mostly inactive father (and it did)--at least I can be a vibrant and active grandfather.

When I honor my plan each day, I'm helping make that happen.

I'm looking forward to a fantastic week!

My Tweets Today:






















Thank you for reading and your continued support,
Strength,
Sean
Princess Health and  Legal clinic for cancer patients, families and caregivers in Louisville April 13 is free, but requests RSVP if you plan to attend. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Legal clinic for cancer patients, families and caregivers in Louisville April 13 is free, but requests RSVP if you plan to attend. Princessiccia

A free legal clinic for people facing cancer, and their families and caregivers, will be held in Louisville April 13. The Kentucky Cancer Program at the University of Louisville, the Louisville Bar Association and the Louisville Pro Bono Consortium are sponsoring the clinic at Gilda�s Club of Louisville, 633 Baxter Ave., from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 13. Free parking is available behind the building and across the street from the club.

Attorneys will be available to offer help with life-planning documents under Medicare Part D, including wills, powers of attorney, health care surrogacy and living wills. They also will provide guidance on employee benefits during illness and government assistance that is available such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security disability insurance.

Admission is free, but RSVPs in advance are needed; call 502-852-6318. For additional information, contact the Kentucky Cancer Program at jlcaud02@louisville.edu or 502-852-6318.
Princess Health and There They Go Again - the New England Medical Journal Publishes another Rant, this Time about Power Morcellation. Princessiccia

Princess Health and There They Go Again - the New England Medical Journal Publishes another Rant, this Time about Power Morcellation. Princessiccia

In 2015, we noted (here and here) that the New England Journal of Medicine seemed to have been reduced to publishing rants about "pharmascolds" who are paranoid about conflicts of interest. Now there they go again....

Background

The sad story about the risks of power morcellation for the treatment of fibroids has received considerable media attention.  The state of play through July, 2014 was described in a series of articles in the Cancer Letter of July 4, 2014. (Look here.)

Uterine fibroids are a common affliction of women.  Their preferred surgical management had changed from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery, sometimes robotically performed, and often incorporating a device called a power morcellator to pulverize the fibroids, allowing the use of small incision.  However, after a patient at the Brigham and Womens' Hospital (BWH) in Boston, part of the Partners Healthcare system, was found to have disseminated sarcoma post power morcellation, most likely because the machine spread tumor cells throughout her abdomen, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory against using the procedure morcellation, and despite some controversy, the procedure is now uncommonly used.

The patient so severely affected was Dr Amy Reed, an anesthesiologist at the BWH.  Her husband, a cardiothoracic surgeon at BWH, launched a campaign to reduce the use of power morcellation.  His pursuit of this campaign underlined an important part of the history, 

The use of power morcellation was effectively allowed by the FDA in the absence of any controlled trials meant to assess its safety or efficacy in this context.  The device was deemed moderate risk and approved through the 510(k) process because it appeared similar to previously allowed devices, even though older devices were not used to remove fibroids.  The Cancer Letter quoted Dr David Challoner, who was on a relevant Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee, saying allowing the device on the market was 

one more example of the clearance of a device for a use, not approval, based on predicates already in the market, that is, prior morcellators for other uses

The New England Journal of Medicine Weighs In - with a Special Pleading

Once again, NEJM national correspondent Dr Lisa Rosenbaum had a contrarian view(1).  As we discussed here and here, last year Dr Rosenbaum wrote three commentaries suggesting the importance of conflicts of interest in health care had been overblown, especially with respect to medical journals.

This time, she argued that the FDA overreacted to the tragic case of  Dr Amy Reed. In particular, she was afraid that the risks of power morcellation were exaggerated, and based on poor quality data,

Several experts argued that these risk estimates were too high and that it was riskier to expose 100,000 or so women per year to open procedures rather than laparoscopic ones. Since the rarity of LMS precludes a randomized trial, however, risk estimates had to be based primarily on retrospective case series of varying rigor. Some studies were poorly stratified for risk factors such as age, and others spanned decades during which diagnostic criteria for LMS had changed.

Dr Rosenbaum failed to mention that the lack of good data about the risks of power morcellation stemmed from the lack of any large, well designed randomized controlled trials done to assess its benefits and harms. Of course, since the device's use was allowed by the FDA 510(k) process without any requirement for trial data, there was no incentive for device companies, at least, to do such trials.

Nonetheless, Dr Rosenbaum also argued the benefits of power morcellation were downplayed. 

the benefits of morcellation are largely invisible and thus 'unavailable.' Who sees the women who undergo a minimally invasive procedure, recover quickly, and avoid losing income? What does a pulmonary embolus, a wound infection, or a hemorrhage that didn�t happen look like? You can�t post pictures of these nonevents on social media. But their nonoccurrence is why we ought to be celebrating.

A March 18, 2016 article asked my opinion about Dr Rosenbaum's use of the clinical evidence.

'She talks about the data concerning the possible harms of power morcellation and argues that that data comes from relatively low-quality studies, not randomized, controlled trials, and that it is hard to tell the actual rate of harms, in particular, the dissemination of cancer. On the other hand, Dr. Rosenbaum implies that the benefits of power morcellation are well known.'

'She writes initially that power morcellation allows the treatment of fibroids to be �done more efficiently and effectively,� she later implies that power morcellation is less invasive, leads to quicker recovery, avoids income loss, and furthermore, reduces the likelihood of pulmonary embolus, wound infection, or hemorrhage.'

'However, she doesn�t provide any data about these ostensible benefits. A quick search suggested that there are no good randomized, controlled trials that assessed benefits. Her argument that we have abandoned a beneficial treatment based on poor quality and perhaps exaggerated the data about its harms�that does not seem to be supported by any clear data about its benefits.'

I rendered that opinion on March 18 before I read a Cochrane Collaboration review of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for fibroids(2).  However, that review does not seem to contradict my statements above.  The review included some patients who were treated using power morcellation, but apparently did not find any studies that assessed patients treated only with power morcellation with those treated only with an alternative.  Even so, it only included nine studies that enrolled a total of 808 patients.  Thus, I think it is reasonable to say that there have not been any large, well-done randomized controlled trials of power morcellation versus other treatments of fibroids.  Even so, while the review found some advantages for minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in terms of short-term post-operative pain and length of hospital stay, it did not address pulmonary embolus, wound infection, or hemorrhage directly.  So while Dr Rosenbaum was right to say that the evidence from clinical research about the magnitude and nature of harms of power morcellation was relatively weak, the evidence about its benefits is also weak. Thus, Dr Rosenbaum's argument that the harms have been exaggerated while the benefits were overlooked was based on a logical fallacy, special pleading. 

This special pleading seemed the basis for her claim that

women may suffer more from its [power morcellation's] disuse.

So, as I was quoted by the Cancer Letter,

'The NEJM is perhaps the most prestigious, most highly regarded English-language medical journal in the world,' Poses said. 'It is, in many cases, viewed as the standard for scholarly medical journals. I am a bit surprised that it published a commentary by its own national correspondent that appears to make an argument�about benefits and harms of treatment and policymaking about treatment�that does not have a clear discussion of the data that support or fail to support either the benefits or the harms of the treatment.'

More Arguments, Less Justification

Dr Rosenbaum insisted that her concerns were about the question,

How do you use data to clarify tough trade-offs when the most compelling narratives paint evidence-based reasoning itself as an anathema?

However, she did not demonstrate an approach to policy making on power morcellation that was more evidence-based than what has transpired so far.

In addition, Dr Rosenbaum decried challenges to health care innovation from "the power of tragic stories," and the title of her commentary ("N-of-1 policymaking") suggested that the the FDA approach to power morcellation was based on a single tragic story.  Yet an FDA spokesperson insisted in the March 18, 2016 Cancer Letter article,

The FDA evaluated the available data at the time and determined that it was of sufficient quality and reliability to support our November 14, 2014 decision.


Furthermore, Dr Rosenbaum expressed concerns that power morcellation met its "demise" because of unwarranted concerns about the "greedy corporation," "medicine's corruption," and "industry greed."   Yet she ignored arguments that these concerns were not unreasonable.    

First, the commentary ignored claims that power morcellation procedures were very lucrative, e.g., those in the 2014 Cancer Letter article

'This is a very lucrative procedure.'  [Dr] Noorchashm, [Dr Reed's husband] said.  'The procedure itself bills $30,000 to $50,000, depending on the center.'

Nor did she argue against the assertion in the same article that device companies used political influence to promote their very expensive product,

There is a very strong pressure from the device industry to get into the market quickly.

The device companies have been able to make [the 510(k) process that allowed power morcellation] survive politically over the ensuing 40 years.

Also, Dr Rosenbaum's NEJM commentary failed to counter the assertion by Dr Noorchashm that the device manufacturers concealed the risks of power morcellation.

Device manufacturers clearly knew of the cancer risk.  You can see warnings about malignant tumors in the Ethicon and Karl Storz user manuals.  Clearly, their lawyers had warned them to put them there to avoid liability.  The bottom line is that these manufacturers knew of this hazard, but neither reported it back to the FDA, as would have been the safe and responsible thing to do.(3) 

Finally, according to the March 18, 2016 Cancer Letter article, while Dr Reed has apparently sued the BWH, and Dr Rosenbaum admitted she is on "faculty" at the BWH, neither she, the NEJM, nor the BWH will say whether she is currently being paid by the BWH.  Particularly,

the hospital declined to provide information on Rosenbaum's title and whether she is a full-time faculty member, citing personnel policies.

My response (in the Cancer Letter article) was

'I can see that the hospital would not want to reveal her salary, if in fact she has one, and that has privacy implications,' Poses said. 'But I don�t understand why the hospital would not be able to simply tell you whether or not she is employed there and in what capacity.'

Thus, the latest commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine by National Correspondent Dr Lisa Rosenbaum used special pleading to argue for an expensive medical device with dubious benefits but which no more dubious evidence suggests may cause cancer.  The commentary also decried the device's critics as unreasonably concerned about "greed" and "corruption," even though the device is clearly expensive, there are at least creditable allegations that the device makers used political influence to promote it and concealed its risks, and ironically the commentary itself obfuscated whether Dr Rosenbaum has a major financial relationship to the hospital that is being sued in connection with use of that device there.

Thus, this latest New England Journal of Medicinearticle, like those by the same author in the same journal which we have discussed before (here and here), seems more like a rant in a political blog than a scholarly article in the US' and perhaps the world's most prestigious scholarly medical journal.  What is going on at the NEJM? What has happened to its editorial standards?  Why should it continue to inspire such trust?    

ADDENDUM (22 March, 2016) - See also comments in the 1BoringOldMan blog


References

1.  Rosenbaum L.  N-of-1 policymaking - tragedy, trade-offs, and the demise of morcellation.  N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 986-990.  Link here.
2.  Chittawar PB, Franik S, Pouwer AW et al.  Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Library 2014. Link here.
3.  Dyer O. US surgeon who campaigned against potentially dangerous device receives legal threat.  Brit Med J 2014; 349: g5577.  

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Princess Health and  March 19th, 2016 Needed It. Princessiccia

Princess Health and March 19th, 2016 Needed It. Princessiccia

March 19th, 2016 Needed It

I needed today. I needed the sleep without an alarm. I needed the relaxation. I just needed it--and I took it and enjoyed it thoroughly.

I prepared some good food, experienced some nice support connections, made time for an awesome workout and enjoyed dinner out with Amber and Kristin, before Amber and I rushed off to see the play Same Time Next Year.
 photo 10320419_10208830811389011_3009358701550864525_n_zpswvgfnphs.jpg
The conversation was great. Amber and Kristin both work with children in their respective professions. I'm pretty sure the conversation could have continued much longer had Amber and I not had plans for the play. It was a very nice time!

I skipped the chips and salsa at dinner since I enjoyed guacamole salad and chips for lunch. I did try a different combination of ingredients in my familiar taco selection and it was absolutely fabulous!

This new morning routine is working well. I'm not sure I'll do water drinking selfies every morning--simply because I'm fairly rough, first thing--I mean, aren't most of us? Then again, it might be comical. I've pretty much decided it'll be two cups of water first thing--instead of just one. It's fairly simple and it really helps me easily make water goal with this head start. I'm already thinking of ways to expand the routine. Again, I'm not going to push it much past 10 minutes--but even this short burst, first thing, feels good. And earning that first cup of good coffee is a really good motivator. 

I plan on sleeping well again tonight. I'm spending some time with my adorable little grandson tomorrow afternoon/evening. I need some Noah time! I'm contemplating if he's old enough (2 years-8 months) to see a movie in a theater. I'd like to take him to see Zootopia.

My Tweets Today:






























Thank you for reading and your continued support,
Strength,
Sean

Princess Health and Republicans accuse Beshear of holding down failed co-op's premiums to make Obamacare look good; he denies the charge. Princessiccia

By Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

Did Kentucky's government-sponsored insurance company fail because then-Gov. Steve Beshear and federal officials kept its rates artificially low to make Beshear's embrace of federal health reform look better?

Sen. Ralph Alvarado
That's what Republican state Sen. Ralph Alvarado of Winchester, using documents provided by Gov. Matt Bevin's office, suggested or claimed March 14 in a Senate floor speech about the Kentucky Health Cooperative.

"It appears that rates for the co-op may have been purposely kept down for the sake of optics, to make the rollout of the ACA in Kentucky appear successful when it clearly was not," Alvarado said, citing "multiple meetings between the co-op, the governor's office and CMS," the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the state-based co-ops created under the reform law, in the fall of 2014.

"Somewhere along the way rates were kept down despite these actuarial recommendations," which said the money-losing cooperative should increase its rates 35 to 40 percent for the 2015 plan year, Alvarado said. The co-op's average increase, announced in late October 2014, was 15 percent. In November, CMS expanded the co-op's $47 million solvency loan to $125 million "to try to sustain this company," he said.

Beshear denied the charges through a spokeswoman, Hayley Prim. She said in an email, "Rates were set by the co-op, which was a privately run insurance plan. Like all other insurance plans, the rates must be certified by the Department of Insurance and actuarially sound. The state did not hold rates artificially lower to improve optics."

CMS officials encouraged co-ops "to price their plans low and grow as fast as they could," Adam Cancryn reported for SNL Financial in November 2015, in a long article that is widely regarded as the best written about the failure of the co-ops. Twelve of the 23 have closed or plan to.

The insurance co-op's offices are in eastern Jefferson County.
In December 2014, the Kentucky Health Cooperative reported a loss of $50 million, "with several hazardous financial conditions indicated," Alvarado said, but that year its chief executive officer, chief financial officer and member-services vice president got bonuses of $50,000, $40,000 and $40,000 on top of their salaries of $250,000, $179,000 and $131,000.

"This company had no money, was in deficit, and yet funds were being used clearly for bonuses," Alvarado said. Its CFO, Leonard Sherman, left the company in December 2014, according to a document filed by its liquidators.

Joe Smith of Frankfort, who was chair of the cooperative's now-dissolved board, said in an interview that the salaries and bonuses were "probably a little bit less" than typical in the insurance industry. He said bonuses were paid because the co-op enrolled many more customers than expected, but no bonuses were paid after the first year.

Smith blamed "the Republican Congress" for killing the co-op and those in many other states by limiting the "risk corridor" subsidies paid to insurance companies for covering sicker-than-average populations.

He acknowledged that the Obama administration largely abandoned the co-ops, making them "a sacrificial lamb," but he said they could not effectively compete with large insurance companies, mainly because the reform law prohibited them from advertising, as the big insurers wanted. The law created funding for the not-for-profit cooperatives as a way to provide competition with for-profit insurers and hold premiums down.

Janie Miller, who was Beshear's first health secretary, resigned as CEO of the Kentucky Health Cooperative in June 2015. That October, the co-op said it had largely eliminated its losses but would close because it was getting only a $9.7 million of a $77 million risk-corridor subsidy that it needed to stay afloat. It is now in liquidation, supervised by Franklin Circuit Court.

Alvarado said Miller and her successor, Glenn Jennings, refused to appear at a legislative budget subcommittee meeting in November. He said the Insurance Department "gave us very limited answers about what happened, [which] made me wonder if any wrongdoing was involved."

Alvarado said the legislature's Program Review and Investigations Committee should examine the co-op's finances and the Senate should issue a subpoena requiring Miller and Jennings to appear.

Then-Gov. Steve Beshear,
discussing health reform at the
Brookings Institution in D.C.
Prim, Beshear's spokeswoman, said, "While it is unfortunate the co-op did not succeed, an overwhelming majority of Kentuckians have a positive view of Kynect," the online exchange where Kentuckians can buy federally subsidized health-insurance policies. "It has succeeded by providing low-cost health insurance options and creating a competitive marketplace for private insurers that have kept rates low for everyone."

In his speech, Alvarado incorrectly referred to Kynect policies as Medicaid, the federal-state health plan for the poor and disabled. Beshear expanded Medicaid eligibility to Kentuckians in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

Alvarado declined to give Kentucky Health News the documents to which he referred in his speech, saying he got them from Bevin's office, which could be asked for them.

Bevin's office provided the liquidators' first report, filed Dec. 31; an actuarial report on small-group plans for 2016, submitted in July 2015; an actuarial report on individual plans for 2015, filed in August 2014; and a February 2015 letter from Miller responding to the Insurance Department's request for a "corrective action plan." None of the documents mention the meetings Alvarado said occurred among CMS, the co-op and the governor's office.

The August 2014 actuarial report said, "The financial viability of KHC is in question. . . . KHC's projections reflect very aggressive assumptions, albeit within a reasonable range, and may result in a very optimistic view of future experience."

The co-op's members used medical services more often than it expected. In the second quarter, there were 263 hospital patient days per 1,000 members, higher than the pricing assumption of 184 per 1,000 but a still a "significant decrease" from the first quarter, for which the report did not give a figure.

The co-op was also having trouble dealing with members and health-care providers. Its corrective plan filed in February 2015 addressed complaints about such things as slow payment standards, paid premiums not being posted to members' accounts, complaints from in-network providers about being processed as out-of-network, and long waits for customer service, with supervisors not being available.

The liquidators' report to the court estimated that the co-op still owes about $80 million in claims, and their financial analysis left unclear whether all those claims would be paid. The balance sheet in the liquidators' statement, dated June 30, said the co-op had $117 million in assets and $128 million in liabilities, and the liabilities included only $67.7 million in unpaid claims. However, the co-op's biggest federal loan, of $125 million, is "subordinate to policyholder obligations, claimant and beneficiary claims, operating expenses and state reserve and solvency requirements," the report said. CMS, the federal agency, has asked an independent actuary to provide its own estimate of unpaid claims.
Princess Health and  Judge denies Bevin's bid to close Lexington abortion provider, citing difficulty that would create for Eastern Ky. women. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Judge denies Bevin's bid to close Lexington abortion provider, citing difficulty that would create for Eastern Ky. women. Princessiccia

UPDATE, June 15: A three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

A Lexington judge has rejected Gov. Matt Bevin's request to close the city's only abortion facility, saying that it is operating legally and that closing it would restrict access to abortions by residents of Eastern Kentucky.

Circuit Judge Ernesto Scorsone said Friday that he wouldn't issue an injunction to close EMW Women�s Clinic on Burt Road because the state failed to show that it is likely to win its lawsuit or that allowing it to stay open in the meantime would cause any irreparable injury.

�In addition to the evidence indicating that EMW is operating legally and in conformity with the most important regulations of a licensed abortion facility, closing the clinic is against the public interest,� Scorsone wrote. �EMW is the only physician�s office that routinely provides abortion services in the Eastern half of the state, and both parties agree that a right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is constitutionally protected. Closing EMW would have a severe, adverse impact on the women in the eastern part of the state.�

The clinic's attorney, Scott White, said it only performs first-trimester abortions and would reopen next week. It had closed in response to the lawsuit because of potential fines. Bevin spokeswoman Jessica Ditto said the administration would take the case to the state Court of Appeals.

The state claims the clinic needs to be licensed as an abortion clinic because that is all it does.

At a hearing Wednesday, "Clinic owner Ernest Marshall said the clinic used to do more regular gynecological health care, and is open to doing more, but he said that since his partner died a few years ago, the clinic�s primary work is abortions," Linda Blackford reports for the Lexington Herald-Leader. "On Feb. 17, state inspectors with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services visited the clinic, where they reported that employees told them the clinic only performs abortions. Inspectors also found dirty conditions and expired medicine."

Scorsone wrote that he was sure the clinic would address those issues, which typically do not lead to efforts to shut down medical facilities. He wrote, �The uncontroverted testimony presented at the hearing is that it is within the standard of care to perform first trimester abortions in a doctor�s office and that these procedures are less dangerous than others routinely performed in an office setting. The procedures used do not require sedation or the services of an anesthesiologist, factors that indicate EMW is a private physician�s office exempt from the licensing requirements for ambulatory surgical centers.�

"Scorsone said that the facility is already in compliance with the two most important requirements of an abortion clinic � that it has in place a transfer agreement with a hospital and a transportation agreement with an ambulance service in case there are complications with a procedure," Joseph Gerth reports for The Courier-Journal.

The clinic performed 411 of the 3,187 abortions reported to state officials last year. Most (2,773) were done by the EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, which Marshall owns.

"The Bevin administration has targeted abortion clinics for regulatory action in the first months of his term," Gerth notes. "In February, he sought to block Planned Parenthood from offering abortions at a new clinic it opened in Louisville." That clinic has suspended abortions while the suit proceeds.