Home Republicans cancel deliberate recess as authorities shutdown looms

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders Friday canceled a planned two-week recess as a government shutdown appeared more likely after they failed to pass a short-term spending bill with fewer than two days left to avoid the shutdown.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif, informed the GOP caucus of the canceled break at a closed-door meeting after more than 20 Republicans embarrassed him by voting with Democrats to defeat the bill.

Republicans who joined Democrats voting against the measure included several of McCarthy’s most outspoken antagonists, Rep. Matt Gaetz, of Florida; Reps. Andy Biggs and Eli Crane, of Arizona, and other hardline conservatives.

Even if the bill had passed, it was doomed to failure in the Senate, where Democrats hold majority control.

The government is scheduled to shut down at 12:01 a.m. ET Sunday if a funding bill is not approved by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden.

The Senate already advanced a bipartisan bill by a wide margin that would fund the government through Nov. 17.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Friday blasted McCarthy for trying to placate conservatives in his caucus, rather than working with Democrats and moderates on a bill that could pass the Senate.

“Coddling the hard right is as futile as trying to nail jello to a wall, and the harder the speaker tries, the bigger mess he makes,” Schumer said. “And that mess is going to hurt the American people the most.”

“I hope the speaker snaps out of the vice grip he’s put himself in and stops succumbing to the 30 or so extremists who are running the show in the House,” Schumer said. “Mr. Speaker, time has almost run out.”

House Republican leaders advised members that there would be votes Saturday.

It was unclear what they would be voting on.

But on Friday evening, McCarthy suggested that his conference might be willing to back a bipartisan bill to fund the government, as long as it did not contain additional emergency funding for Ukraine — a key White House demand with broad support in the Senate.

“I think if we had a clean [funding bill] without Ukraine on it, we could probably be able to move that through,” McCarthy told reporters as he left the closed door conference meeting.

Several hours later, McCarthy walked back his apparent willingness to move the Senate bill.

“After meeting with House Republicans this evening, it’s clear the misguided Senate bill has no path forward and is dead on arrival,” he said around 9:30 p.m. ET. “The House will continue to work around the clock to keep government open and prioritize the needs of the American people.”

Nonetheless, the notice to members to be ready for Saturday votes had raised hopes among both moderate Republicans and Democrats that McCarthy might agree to hold a vote on a version of the Senate bill to fund the government. Such a bill which would almost certainly pass with broad support from moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans.

As the clock neared midnight Friday, with just 24 hours remaining before a shutdown, it was difficult to envision what McCarthy could do that would both fund the government and satisfy the conservative critics in his restive caucus,

The White House condemned House Republicans for engaging in fiscal brinksmanship.

“We’re doing everything we can to plead, beg, shame House Republicans to do the right thing,” Shalanda Young, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told reporters.

She scoffed at McCarthy’s suggestion that he would refuse his own paycheck during a shutdown.

“That is theater,” Young said.

“The guy who picks up the trash in my office won’t get a paycheck. That’s real.”

The White House said Biden would stay “in dialogue with Congress” over the coming days, but insisted the core elements of any spending bill had been agreed to as part of the debt ceiling deal earlier this year.

Across Washington on Friday, government agencies prepared their employees and the public for the effects of a shutdown.

The Smithsonian Institution said it would use existing funds from last year to keep its museums and the National Zoo open for at least the next week.

Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers in Medicare drug worth negotiations

In this photo illustration, Farxiga is made available to customers at the New City Halsted Pharmacy on August 29, 2023 in Chicago, Illinois.

Scott Olson | Getty Images

Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim on Wednesday told CNBC they will agree to participate in the first round of Medicare drug price negotiations, even after all four drugmakers sued to halt the process last month.

Merck’s Type 2 diabetes drug Januvia, AstraZeneca’s own diabetes drug Farxiga, Boehringer Ingelheim’s diabetes drug Jardiance and Bristol Myers Squibb’s blood thinner Eliquis are among the first 10 drugs selected for price talks with Medicare. 

The four companies appear to be the first manufacturers to indicate that they will comply with the negotiations, which seek to rein in the rising costs of prescription drugs for older Americans. 

Manufacturers of the other six drugs selected have until Oct. 1 to sign an agreement to participate in the process. Those companies did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment about their intentions.

A spokesperson for Merck said in a statement that the company will sign the agreement to participate “under protest,” noting that it disagrees on “both legal and policy grounds” with the negotiations.

But “withdrawing all of the company’s products from Medicare and Medicaid would have devastating consequences for the millions of Americans who rely on our innovative medicines, and it is not tenable for any manufacturer to abandon nearly half of the U.S. prescription drug market,” the spokesperson said. “The choice between doing so and weathering the [Inflation Reduction Act’s] massive fines and taxes is no choice at all.”

If drugmakers decline to engage in the negotiations, they could be forced to pay an excise tax of up to 95% of their medication’s U.S. sales or to pull all of their products from the Medicare and Medicaid markets, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

A spokesperson for Bristol Myers Squibb similarly said the company has “no choice other than to sign the ‘agreement'” due to the penalties outlined by CMS.

An AstraZeneca spokesperson said the company remains “committed to ensuring patients have access to FARXIGA and plan to participate in the process outlined by CMS to communicate the value of FARXIGA to people covered by Medicare.”

Boehringer Ingelheim, which is privately held, said in a statement it is “committed to engaging in open and transparent conversations” with CMS.

Merck, Bristol Myers, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and other drugmakers like Johnson & Johnson have filed at least eight separate lawsuits in recent months seeking to declare the negotiations unconstitutional. Another lawsuit from the Chamber of Commerce, one of the biggest lobbying groups nationwide, is seeking a preliminary injunction, which aims to block the negotiations before Oct. 1. 

The pharmaceutical industry fiercely opposes the process because it believes it will threaten its revenue growth, profits and drug innovation. However, analysts expect minimal financial losses for companies, at least initially, since most of the drugs selected already face upcoming patent expirations that will likely weigh on revenue.

For example, Farxiga will lose its market exclusivity in 2026, which will open up the market to generic alternatives. That’s the same year renegotiated prices are set to take effect.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which narrowly passed Congress last year along party lines, empowered Medicare to negotiate drug prices for the first time in the program’s six-decade history. The law is the central pillar in the Biden administration’s efforts to control rising drug prices and was a major victory for the Democratic Party.

The administration named the first round of drugs set to face price talks last month, kicking off a lengthy negotiation process that will end in August 2024.

Working ladies health-care prices far outpace males, examine says

Luis Alvarez | Digitalvision | Getty Images

High health care costs are hitting women in the U.S. workforce much harder than men.

Working women spend $15.4 billion more in out-of-pocket health expenses annually compared to their male counterparts, according to a new analysis of employer-sponsored health plans from Deloitte Consulting.

The study found women spend 18% more than men on co-pays and deductibles, on average. That’s after excluding costs associated with pregnancy and maternity, according to the new report, and despite total health expenditures for women that are just 10% higher than for men.

“This is a problem we’re identifying that business leaders can actually solve within their own organizations. The takeaway being that women get paid less, and that they pay more for health care,” said Dr. Kulleni Gebreyes, U.S. chief health equity officer at Deloitte Consulting.

The result, she said, is a disproportionate financial burden.

Women tend to utilize more medical care than men, in part due to annual gynecological exams and the high costs of breast cancer imaging.

While annual exams are often fully covered, follow-ups that can result from those visits incur co-pays and trigger deductibles. Many of those services are often more expensive than the typical deductible, leading to a higher cost-sharing burden.    

The Deloitte analysts say employers could close the $15.4 billion cost-sharing gender gap through enhanced benefits design, at an estimated cost of $133 per employee per year, or about $11 per month.

“Our ask is that companies look at their data; examine if and where the gaps exist and step back to have more of an equitable design process to come up with what are the health benefits that would meet the needs of their workforce,” said Gebreyes.

JPMorgan settles Jeffrey Epstein go well with by Virgin Islands

JPMorgan Chase said Tuesday it will pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit by the U.S. Virgin Islands alleging that the huge American bank facilitated and benefited from sex trafficking of young women by its longtime customer Jeffrey Epstein.

JPMorgan did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement, which will give $55 million to Virgin Islands charities and the American territory’s anti-trafficking efforts.

The remaining $20 million will cover attorneys’ fees incurred by the Virgin Islands as part of the litigation in federal court in New York.

The Virgin Islands said the deal “includes several substantial commitments by JPMorgan Chase to identify, report, and cut off support for potential human trafficking, including establishing and implementing comprehensive policies and procedures.”

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell attend de Grisogono Sponsors The 2005 Wall Street Concert Series Benefitting Wall Street Rising, with a Performance by Rod Stewart at Cipriani Wall Street on March 15, 2005 in New York City.

Joe Schildhorn | Patrick McMullan | Getty Images

The territory said that $10 million of the money received would be used to create a fund to provide mental health services for Epstein’s victims.

JPMorgan also said Tuesday that it had reached a settlement with Jes Staley, a former executive at the bank who had been friends with Epstein, to resolve claims by JPMorgan that he was responsible for any civil damages and costs associated with Epstein-related litigation.

The terms of the agreement with Staley are confidential.

JPMorgan said that it “deeply regrets” its association with Epstein, who was a client from 1998 until 2013.

Virgin Islands Attorney General Ariel Smith said the agreement settles what was the first enforcement action against a bank for facilitating and profiting from human trafficking.

“As part of the settlement, JPMorgan has agreed to implement and maintain meaningful anti-trafficking measures, which will help prevent human trafficking in the future,” Smith said in a statement.

“This settlement is an historic victory for survivors and for state enforcement, and it should sound the alarm on Wall Street about banks’ responsibilities under the law to detect and prevent human trafficking.”

Jes Staley, former chief executive officer of Barclays Plc, arrives at the offices of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP in New York, US, on Sunday, June 11, 2023. Staley has faced his first day of testimony about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as part of lawsuits alleging the bank enabled the late financier’s sex-trafficking. Photographer: Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The deals come months after a separate $290 million settlement by JPMorgan with victims of the now-dead predator. That earlier deal ended a similar lawsuit by one of those victims in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

As with that prior agreement, the new pacts let the bank avoid a trial on the Virgin Islands’ allegations in that same court, which was due to start Oct. 23.

The territory had said it would ask jurors at that trial to award it at least $190 million in damages from JPMorgan.

The Virgin Islands previously obtained a $105 million settlement from Epstein’s estate, and another $62.5 million from billionaire investor Leon Black to resolve potential claims related to Epstein.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other top bank executives had been questioned by lawyers for the Virgin Islands as part of its suit against the firm.

Related court filings and hearings have led to a stream of embarrassing headlines about the bank since the case was filed in late 2022, more than three years after Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail following his arrest on federal child sex trafficking charges.

The Virgin Islands claimed JPMorgan effectively ignored repeated red flags that Epstein was trafficking women to his private island in the territory because it wanted to retain his business and that of his wealthy and powerful friends.

Among those red flags was Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea in Florida to a state charge of soliciting sex from an underage girl, a conviction that led to a 13-month jail stint.

In late August, a JPMorgan attorney told Judge Jed Rakoff that after Epstein died, the bank notified the Treasury Department that it since had identified more than $1 billion in transactions related to “human trafficking” by him dating back 16 years.

But the bank also had alleged in court filings that the Virgin Islands was complicit in Epstein’s crimes, saying he gave high-ranking territory officials money, advice, and favors in exchange for their allowing him to traffick women there unhindered.

NBC archive footage shows Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein in 1992

In a press release announcing the new agreement with the Virgin Islands, JPMorgan said it “believes this settlement is in the best interest of all parties, particularly for those who can benefit from efforts to combat human trafficking, and for survivors who suffer unimaginable abuse at the hands of these criminals.”

“While the settlement does not involve admissions of liability, the firm deeply regrets any association with this man, and would never have continued doing business with him if it believed he was using the bank in any way to commit his heinous crimes,” the statement said.

“The firm will continue to work with law enforcement to combat human trafficking and help to identify improper money movement into the global payments systems.”

JPMorgan said that under the deal a large portion of the money will got to the Virgin Islands “to enhance the infrastructure and capabilities of law enforcement to prevent and combat human trafficking and other crimes in their territories.”

The bank said it will pay millions more”to support USVI charitable organizations whose work is aimed at addressing social ills, including fighting human trafficking and other sex crimes, and to support survivors on their paths to healing.”

With the remaining money going to attorneys’ fees, JPMorgan is paying the same amount, $75 million, that Deutsche Bank agreed to pay Epstein victims to settle a third Manhattan federal court lawsuit that alleged that bank facilitated his sex trafficking when he was a customer from 2013 through 2018.

Deutsche Bank had taken on Epstein as a customer after JPMorgan ended its relationship with him when Staley left the bank.

Epstein for years socialized with high-profile people such as former President Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew, and had business relationships with billionaires such as Black and former L. Brands CEO Les Wexner.

Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite who once was Epstein’s girlfriend, was convicted at a federal criminal trial in Manhattan in December 2021 of procuring underage girls to be sexually abused by him.

Maxwell later was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Staley, the former JPMorgan executive has denied claims of wrongdoing, including an allegation that he sexually assaulted a woman identified as “Jane Doe,” whose class action suit led to the prior settlement with the bank.

In November 2021, Staley stepped down as CEO of Barclays after an investigation by British bank regulators into how he had characterized his relationship with Epstein.

This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

Pelosi Says Republicans Will not Have The Votes To Deliver Biden Impeachment To The Home Flooring

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) thinks that House Republicans will never have the votes to bring Biden impeachment to the floor for a vote.

Pelosi said on MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki:

The fact is they have no goods. You know, they’ve been for months and months and months trying to make some kind of a charge. The, I don’t think they’ll ever bring it to the floor. They don’t, they won’t have the votes. They’re members in districts that President Biden won. Oh, not that they’re so fond of President Biden. But they, uh, these voters will say that’s just not the right way to go. You know, everybody was on my case in 2007 when we, we got the majority and they wanted us to impeach President Bush for the misrepresent the war in Iraq, the misrepresentations going in, departing from Afghanistan too soon, all of that. But you, if you have a difference of opinion, you just can’t be impeaching, impeaching. On the other hand, as you said, this is a fake distraction, but they don’t even have the courage to bring it to the floor.

Video:

Very few people in the history of the House of Representatives have been as good at counting votes as former Speaker Pelosi. If she says that Republicans won’t have the votes for Biden impeachment, then it is a safe bet that they won’t have the votes.

Both Republicans and Democrats in the House have said that the votes aren’t there to actually impeach Biden. Part of the con that McCarthy is trying to pull is to drag out the impeachment investigation through the nominating conventions next year.

House Republicans seem more interested in creating a general election issue than they are invested in impeaching President Biden. The votes probably aren’t going to be there to impeach the President, but the nation should prepare for months of breathless MAGA political theater, as impeachment is being used as a gimmick to help Trump.

gamma. Expands To Africa & Unveils Larry Gaaga As VP, GM

Media and technology company gamma. has expanded to Africa and unveiled its newest Vice President and General Manager. As The Shade Room previously reported, gamma. was launched by former Apple executive Larry Jackson in March.

Additionally, the company allows artists and brands to work on projects in “music, films, merchandise, fashion, web3 and other areas,” as per Variety.

RELATED: We Love To See It! French Montana Partners With gamma. & Others To Donate 500 Canoes To Makoko Community In Nigeria

More Details Regarding gamma.’s Expansion & Appointment Of Larry Gaaga

According to Pulse Nigeria, the company features offices in “New York, London, Miami, Nashville, and Dubai.” However, gamma. is now expanding to Africa and stationing its headquarters in Nigeria.

Additionally, gamma. has unveiled Larry Gaaga as the company’s Vice President and “General Manager for West Africa.” Gaaga is reportedly expected to “oversee” the company’s operations “across the entire African continent.”

Furthermore, Gaaga will reportedly provide “strategic direction” and lead “initiatives to develop local talent.” Gaaga’s contributions to the company are expected to ensure talent success on both the domestic and “global stage.”

“gamma.’s mission is to both nurture talent local to Africa and the Middle East into global superstars, as well as to open the continent for Western artists to reach new fans and opportunities,” Sipho Dlamini, gamma.’s President of Africa and Middle East, explained as per THISDAYLIVE. “Larry has the historical background and cultural fluency critical to establishing the relationships and resources necessary for us to succeed.”

The company’s co-founder and CEO, Larry Jackson, credited Gaaga for his “deep understanding of the local music landscapes” and his “relentless passion for nurturing talent as welcomed additions.”

“Larry [has] extensive experience, deep understanding of the local music landscapes, and relentless passion for nurturing talent are welcome additions to the gamma. family,” said Jackson. “He will strengthen our market presence and drive significant growth across Africa and by extension, worldwide.”

Gaaga has since responded to his appointment, as per THISDAYLIVE.

“I am honored and excited to take on the role of Vice President/General Manager of Africa,” Gaaga explained. “This presents a unique opportunity to contribute to the growth of the entertainment industry across the continent, promoting local talent and showcasing the incredible creativity and diversity of our artistes to the world.”

According to the outlet, before Gaaga’s most recent appointment at gamma., he was the Vice President of Def Jam Africa. The outlet reports that there, he “led the label’s A&R division.”

gamma.’s Most Recent Project Alongside French Montana

As The Shade Room previously reported, gamma. most recently partnered with French Montana, Swae Lee, and SALXCO to donate 500 canoes to the Makoko Community in Lagos, Nigeria. The community was reportedly built atop coastal waters in the area. Additionally, the community experienced “critical flood threats” along with “pollution and sewage drainage complications.”

According to an exclusive press release, gamma. and the artists’ donation would “support the livelihood” of over 200,000 people in Makoko. The canoe donations would ultimately assist the “flow of goods and services.” Additionally, it would also help transport families and children to schools.

In addition to the group’s meaningful donation, the community was featured in French Montana and Saw Lee’s latest music video, “Wish U Well.”

In addition to French Montana, gamma. has reportedly worked with artists such as Snoop Dogg and Usher.

RELATED: Apple Veteran Larry Jackson Launches gamma., A $1BN-Backed Media And Music Company Financed By Apple And Eldridge!

CDC recommends Pfizer maternal shot for infants

A doctor vaccinates an infant against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in a treatment room of her paediatric practice.

Swen Pförtner | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday recommended Pfizer’s maternal vaccine that protects infants from respiratory syncytial virus, putting the shot on track to be available in the U.S. this fall.

The agency specifically recommended that expectant mothers 32 to 36 weeks into their pregnancy receive the shot from September through January to protect their children from RSV, the leading cause of hospitalization among babies in the U.S.

CDC Director Mandy Cohen signed off on that recommendation hours after an independent panel of advisors to the agency voted 11 to 1 to pass it.

“This is another new tool we can use this fall and winter to help protect lives,” Cohen said in a statement. “I encourage parents to talk to their doctors about how to protect their little ones against serious RSV illness, using either a vaccine given during pregnancy, or an RSV immunization given to your baby after birth.”

Pfizer’s vaccine, called Abrysvo, is already approved and available in the U.S. for adults ages 60 and up.
The CDC’s recommendation comes as RSV and other respiratory viruses such as Covid begin to spread at higher levels in the U.S.

Public health officials hope Pfizer’s vaccine and other treatments will make the country more equipped to combat RSV this fall and winter, especially after the nation faced an unusually severe season of the virus last year.

RSV usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms. But younger children and older adults are particularly vulnerable to more severe RSV infections.

Each year, the virus kills a few hundred children younger than 5, and 6,000 to 10,000 seniors, according to the CDC. RSV also causes around 58,000 to 80,000 hospitalizations among children younger than 5 years old each year, the CDC said.

Pfizer has said its maternal vaccine could prevent up to 16,000 hospitalizations and more than 300,000 visits to the doctor due to RSV if the shot becomes available in the U.S. this fall and winter. 

“This fall marks the start of the annual respiratory infection season in the Northern Hemisphere, and we are prepared with vaccines against multiple infectious diseases and – for the first time in history – an available RSV vaccine to help prevent disease in two at-risk populations,” said Dr. Luis Jodar, Pfizer’s chief medical officer for vaccines medical development.

The company’s single-dose vaccine is the first RSV treatment to use maternal immunization: Expectant mothers get vaccinated with the shot, which triggers antibodies that are passed to the fetus. That provides infants with protection against the virus from birth through the first six months of life.

The Food and Drug Administration established the 32- to 36-week dosing timeframe when it approved the shot.

The FDA and CDC cleared an RSV antibody injection for infants from Sanofi and AstraZeneca over the summer, but that treatment is administered directly to babies. The CDC recommended the injection, known as Beyfortus, to all infants under 8 months of age and some older babies. 

A subgroup of the CDC advisory panel “felt strongly” that most infants won’t need both Beyfortus and Pfizer’s Abrysvo, CDC medical officer Dr. Jefferson Jones said during the advisory meeting Friday. That subgroup reviews published and unpublished data to develop recommendation options for the panel.

“The pregnant person and their prenatal care provider will need to make the decision during pregnancy regarding which RSV prevention product to use,” said Jones.

Weighing Abrysvo’s efficacy and safety data

The CDC panel’s recommendation of Pfizer’s maternal vaccine was based on data from a phase three trial on nearly 7,400 participants. But mothers received the shot 24 to 36 weeks into their pregnancy in the trial, which is a wider period than the approved dosing time frame.

During the first 90 days after birth, the shot was nearly 82% effective at preventing severe RSV disease in newborns and 57% effective at keeping babies from needing a doctor’s visit due to RSV-related breathing problems. 

That efficacy appeared to lower slightly over time: By six months after birth, Pfizer’s shot was about 70% effective at preventing severe disease and 51% effective at avoiding a trip to the doctor. 

A panel of advisors to the FDA generally praised the efficacy of Pfizer’s maternal vaccine but expressed concerns about potential safety risks. 

In the phase three trial, a slightly higher number of premature births occurred among mothers who took the shot compared to those who received a placebo: 5.7% versus 4.7%, respectively. 

Pfizer, the FDA and CDC staff have said the difference wasn’t statistically significant. 

Pfizer has also sent the CDC advisory panel unpublished data suggesting that the rate of preterm births decreased for women who only received the shot during the approved dosing time frame of 32 to 36 weeks into pregnancy, Dr. Katherine Fleming-Dutra, a pediatrician with the National Center for Immunization at the CDC, said during the advisory meeting on Friday. 

Fleming-Dutra said 4.2% of births were premature among mothers who took the shot during that time frame compared with 3.7% among those who received a placebo.

“The rate of preterm birth decreased as there’s less opportunity to be born preterm and also the imbalance between vaccine and placebo groups narrowed with the approved dosing interval,” Fleming-Dutra said.

Still, the prescribing label for Pfizer’s vaccine will come with a warning not to administer the shot before 32 weeks of pregnancy because of that “numerical imbalance” in premature births, the FDA said in its approval. 

The FDA is requiring Pfizer to examine the risk of premature births in a post-marketing study on the vaccine. Post-marketing refers to research conducted on a product after it receives FDA approval.

Pfizer’s examination will also involve evaluating any pregnancy-related complications following vaccination, Alejandra Gurtman, the company’s senior vice president of clinical research and development for vaccines, told CNBC last month.

That includes eclampsia, which refers to seizures that develop during pregnancy or shortly after birth. 

Pfizer will launch a pregnancy registry that will allow women and obstetricians to call and report any adverse events after patients receive the vaccine, according to Gurtman.

FTC sues Texas anesthesiology supplier to bust monopoly

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., July 13, 2023.

Kevin Wurm | Reuters

The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued the largest anesthesiology provider in Texas, claiming the company has wielded monopoly power to drive up prices for patients and boost its profits.

The FTC asked a federal judge in Houston, Texas, to break up U.S. Anesthesia Partners’ alleged monopoly power and permanently bar the company from engaging in anti-competitive practices.

The agency claims that New York-based private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe founded U.S. Anesthesia Partners in 2012 to pursue an aggressive consolidation strategy that exploited Texas’ fragmented market for anesthesiology providers.

The FTC complaint says that Welsh Carson sought to make USAP the dominant provider in Texas by hoovering up the numerous independent practices that previously competed against one another, keeping prices lower.

CNBC Health & Science

Read CNBC’s latest health coverage:

Welsh Carson and USAP engaged in what the companies called a “roll-up,” buying nearly every large anesthesia practice in Texas, according to the complaint.

Since 2013, USAP has grown from 400 anesthesia providers at 45 health-care facilities to 4,500 providers at 1,100 facilities in 2021.

USAP has established monopoly power in Houston and Dallas, the two largest cities in Texas, and a dominant position in Austin, the state’s capital, according to the complaint.

The company has used its dominance to raise prices, raking in tens of millions of dollars, the FTC alleges.

USAP is so powerful in Austin, Dallas and Houston that it can raise prices while still gaining market share because it is difficult for competitors to enter the market, and patients typically cannot forgo anesthesia, according to the complaint.

Dr. Derek Schoppa, a USAP board member, told CNBC that the FTC’s complaint is based on flawed legal theories and a lack of medical understanding about anesthesiology.

“The FTC’s intended outcome threatens to disrupt and restrict patients’ equitable access to quality anesthesia care in Texas and will negatively impact the Texas hospitals and health systems that provide care in underserved communities,” Schoppa said in a statement.

Here is what to find out about worker retention tax credit score claims

IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel testifies before a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Feb. 15, 2023.

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

As the IRS pauses on processing new claims for a pandemic-era small business tax break, some filers are in limbo as the agency works on further guidance.

The IRS on Thursday temporarily halted processing for amended payroll tax returns claiming the so-called employee retention tax credit, or ERC, which was enacted during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Worth thousands per eligible employee, the IRS said the program has triggered a flood of “questionable claims,” as a cottage industry of specialist firms has popped up and pressured small businesses to wrongly claim the tax relief.

More from Personal Finance:
IRS halts processing of a small business tax break
Does your business qualify for the employee retention credit?
House scrutinizes pandemic-era small business tax break 

“Businesses that receive ERC payments improperly face the daunting prospect of paying those back, so we urge the utmost caution,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said on Thursday, urging small businesses to review claims with a qualified tax professional.

In the meantime, the IRS is working on further guidance on how to withdraw unprocessed ERC claims, along with a settlement program for small businesses who wrongly received the credit and want to pay it back.

‘There’s no need to panic’

While affected small businesses may be concerned, “there’s no need to panic here,” said Jennifer Rohen, a principal at CliftonLarsonAllen with expertise in claiming the ERC.

If you claimed the credit and are worried about eligibility, it’s an excellent time to review your filing with a qualified tax professional, she said.

The IRS has released a detailed ERC eligibility checklist to assist filers. The credit was designed for small businesses and tax-exempt organizations that paid employees during government-mandated shutdowns or experienced a “significant decline in gross receipts” during certain periods in 2020 and 2021.

My blanket advice is always to talk to a qualified tax professional who has filed [ERC claims] before.

Craig Hausz

CEO and managing partner at CMH Advisors

“My blanket advice is always to talk to a qualified tax professional who has filed [ERC claims] before,” said certified financial planner Craig Hausz, CEO and managing partner at CMH Advisors in Dallas. He is also a certified public accountant. 

If you received the credit and know you don’t qualify, Hausz said you should start the process of paying the money back. “I think the IRS is going to be a lot more lenient on abating penalties and interest if someone proactively sends money back,” he added.

There’s still time for a ‘valid claim’

While the deadline for 2020 amended returns is approaching, there’s still time for legitimate ERC claims, said Kristin Esposito, director for tax policy and advocacy for the American Institute of CPAs. Small businesses have until the tax deadline in 2024 to amend 2020 returns.

“If you have a valid claim, I would still go through the calculation and have all your documentation ready,” she said. “But if it seems too good to be true, it usually is.”

New ERC claims won’t be processed until 2024 at the earliest and filers may not receive the credit until the spring or summer, according to Hausz.

Poland says it can now not provide Kyiv with weapons

A Polish Leopard 2PL tank during a Defender Europe 2022 military exercise of NATO troops including those from France, the U.S. and Poland, at the military range in Bemowo Piskie, near Orzysz, Poland, on May 24, 2022.

Kacper Pempel | Reuters

Poland has said it will no longer supply its neighbor Ukraine with weapons, as a rift over agricultural exports deepens.

“We no longer transfer weapons to [Ukraine], because we are now arming Poland,” Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Wednesday on the X social media platform, previously known as Twitter, according to a Google translation.

“Ukraine is defending itself against the brutal Russian attack and I understand this situation, but as I said, we will protect our country,” he added.

Poland is helping Ukraine to fight what he called the “Russian barbarian,” but cannot agree to any destabilization of the Polish market by Ukrainian grain imports, Morawiecki said in further Google-translated comments carried by Polish news agency Polska Agencja Prasowa. The comments followed a dramatic deterioration of relations between Kyiv and Warsaw this week.

Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki delivers remarks with U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris before their meeting in her ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington, D.C., April 11, 2023.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

Warsaw has been one of Kyiv’s staunchest allies since mutual foe Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Poland has donated a wide range of weaponry to Kyiv, from modern Leopard 2 tanks to Soviet-era fighter jets, as well as delivering military training to Ukraine’s armed forces.

A recent dispute over Ukraine’s agricultural exports — which have had to be transferred via eastern European countries while Russia has effectively blockaded grain ships leaving the country’s ports — has threatened to break the alliance, however.

The high-profile falling-out came to a head on Monday, as Ukraine filed complaints against a number of countries, including Poland, at the World Trade Organization over the bans on Ukrainian grain exports.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a thinly-veiled swipe at Ukraine’s eastern European allies, telling the United Nations’ General Assembly that Kyiv is “working hard to preserve the land routes for grain exports and it is alarming to see how some in Europe play out solidarity in a political theatre – making [a] thriller from the grain. They may seem to play their own role but in fact, they are helping set the stage to a Moscow actor.”

That drew a sharp rebuke from Poland, with Warsaw summoning Ukraine’s ambassador over the statements.

Ukraine has not publicly commented on Poland’s latest announcement on stopping weaponry transfers.

What happened?

Tensions have been rising between Poland and Ukraine for a number of months, after Warsaw and a number of its eastern European neighbors complained of a glut of Ukrainian agricultural exports that ended up in their own countries, driving down national grain prices and hurting local farmers.

The EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, attempted to mediate earlier this year by allowing trade restrictions on Ukrainian grain exports to eastern European countries — namely, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia. This meant that these nations were effectively just transit countries through which Ukrainian grains were transported before being distributed throughout Europe and beyond.

A Polish farmer during an April 12, 2022 protest against Ukrainian grain imports, which have lowered prices for crops in Poland.

Attila Husejnow | Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

But the Commission refused to extend those limits last week, renewing tensions with Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, who said they would defy the relaxation of import rules and maintain restrictions.

That led to an eruption of anger and indignation in Kyiv, with the government filing complaints with the WTO against Warsaw, Bratislava and Budapest on Monday.

“It is fundamentally important for us to prove that individual member states cannot ban the import of Ukrainian goods. That is why we file lawsuits against them in the WTO,” Yulia Svyridenko, a senior Ukrainian government minister, said in a statement on the economy ministry’s website on Monday.  

“At the same time, we hope that these states will lift their restrictions and we will not have to clarify the relationship in the courts for a long time. We need solidarity with them and protection of farmers’ interests,” Svyridenko added.

In happier times: Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki embrace during a joint news briefing on a day of the first anniversary of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine February 24, 2023.

Viacheslav Ratynskyi | Reuters

The “unilateral ban” on the import of Ukrainian agricultural products by Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, was hurting domestic exporters, Svyridenko said, adding they “have already suffered and continue to suffer significant losses due to downtime, additional costs and the impossibility of fulfilling foreign economic agreements.”