Science
Column: UnitedHealthcare's chief executive was shot dead. Why did thousands react with glee?
The apparent assassination of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk Wednesday has unleashed an extraordinary outpouring of emotion. But it’s not all horror or sadness over a 50-year-old father of two being shot dead in public by a man in a mask.
Thompson’s death has inspired a torrent of fury about the way his insurance company and others treat — or mistreat — people in their moments of greatest need. Some of the reactions, particularly on social media, have been downright gleeful about the killing.
What a stunning illustration of the hatred so many Americans feel toward for-profit health insurance companies, which too often make money for stockholders by withholding care from sick people.
UnitedHealthcare is a particularly awful exemplar. It is infamous for high denial rates and low reimbursement levels.
According to an investigation by the medical news site Stat and a federal lawsuit recently filed in Minnesota, UnitedHealthcare has been using a deeply flawed artificial intelligence algorithm to wrongfully deny healthcare to elderly and disabled patients. Stat reported that the company “pressured its medical staff to cut off payments for seriously ill patients … denying rehabilitation care for older and disabled Americans as profits soared.”
ProPublica reported last month that the company was using algorithms to identify people it deemed guilty of “therapy overuse” and deny mental health treatment. Both California and Massachusetts determined that the company was breaking the federal law that requires insurers to cover mental health issues the same way they cover physical ailments. UnitedHealthcare denied claims for more than 34,000 therapy sessions from 2013 to 2020 in New York alone, saving the company about $8 million.
Adding to this unsavory picture, four of its top executives, including Thompson, have been under scrutiny for $101.5 million in stock trades they made after the company was informed that it was the target of a federal antitrust investigation but before the news became public and the stock price dropped.
Perhaps all this helps explain why, as of Friday morning, more than 85,000 people had reacted to UnitedHealthcare’s solemn Facebook statement about Thompson’s death with a laugh emoji.
People on other social media platforms also piled on.
“All human life is sacred, so it’s not proper to laugh when serious harm befalls someone,” wrote one Bluesky user. “The moral thing to do is instead charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
“UnitedHealth CEO meets the same fate as many of his clients,” posted another Bluesky user above photos of the shooter pointing his gun at Thompson’s back before he reportedly rode off on an e-bike.
Stories of terrible interactions with the largest health insurer in the country also poured forth.
Elizabeth Austin, a single mother who lives in Bucks County, Pa., told me she had a miserable experience with UnitedHealthcare after her young daughter, Carolyn, was diagnosed with leukemia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her chemotherapy caused nausea, so Carolyn’s doctor ordered a nighttime feeding tube to supplement what little she was able to eat while awake. She said United Healthcare wouldn’t pay for the feeding tube unless Carolyn ate no solid food at all.
“I was like, ‘She’s 9! She wants to eat food!’” Austin told me. Unmoved, the insurer forced Austin to pay $900 a month out of pocket for the device.
Later, when Carolyn developed a sensitivity to a sedative used during her monthly lumbar punctures, her doctors switched to another medicine, and the company again denied payment, Austin said. She paid for that herself too.
Austin said she eventually developed a stress-related heart condition that required ablation surgery. She and her daughter are healthy now, but the scars remain. She said she was saddened but not shocked to learn about Thompson’s death.
“These things are happening because people are really struggling,” she told me. “I don’t think the CEO was responsible for my daughter’s caregiving issues, but it’s smart to ask, ‘Why did this happen?’ Could it be a systemic issue?’ People are buckling under the pressure.”
At this point, the motive for Thompson’s killing is a matter of speculation. But ammunition recovered from the scene was inscribed with words often used to describe insurance companies’ anti-patient strategies, including “deny” and “defend,” the Associated Press and others reported.
In the 2010 book “Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It,” Jay M. Feinman, a Rutgers law professor, traces the evolution of insurance companies from generally helpful organizations where adjusters — that is, human beings — were responsible for reimbursements into the antagonistic, algorithm-driven behemoths they are today.
In the 1990s, he writes, insurance companies such as Allstate turned to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to develop new strategies.
“McKinsey,” Feinman writes, “saw claims as a ‘zero-sum game,’ with the policyholder and the company competing for the same dollars. No longer would each claim be treated on its merits.” Computers would determine reimbursements, and settlements would be offered on a “take-it-or-litigate basis.” Feinman writes that McKinsey urged Allstate to move “from ‘Good Hands’ to ‘Boxing Gloves.’”
Earlier this year, the insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that it would start limiting reimbursements for anesthesia based on its own time limits for surgeries. The idea, Anthem said, was to prevent overbilling. Doctors, predictably, were outraged.
“This is just the latest in a long line of appalling behavior by commercial health insurers looking to drive their profits up at the expense of patients and physicians providing essential care,” Donald Arnold, the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, told NPR.
On Thursday, after the outpouring of rage against health insurers sparked by Thompson’s killing, Anthem reversed course, blaming “significant widespread misinformation” about its proposed policy for the about-face.
No wonder there is so little empathy for Brian Thompson, who was by many accounts a lovely human being. In death, he has become an unwitting symbol of the terrible things health insurance companies do to people for money.
Bluesky: @rabcarian.bsky.social. Threads: @rabcarian
Science
Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate
President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the pact among almost all nations to fight climate change.
By withdrawing, the United States will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only four countries not party to the agreement, under which nations work together to keep global warming below levels that could lead to environmental catastrophe.
The move, one of several energy-related announcements in the hours following his inauguration, is yet another about-face in United States participation in global climate negotiations. During his first term Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris accord, but then President Biden quickly rejoined in 2020 after winning the White House.
Scientists, activists and Democratic officials assailed the move as one that would deepen the climate crisis and backfire on American workers. Coupled with Mr. Trump’s other energy measures on Monday, withdrawal from the pact signals his administration’s determination to double down on fossil-fuel extraction and production, and to move away from clean-energy technologies like electric vehicles and power-generating wind turbines.
“If they want to be tough on China, don’t punish U.S. automakers and hard-working Americans by handing our clean-car keys to the Chinese,” said Gina McCarthy, former White House climate adviser and former head of the Environmental Protection Administration. “The United States must continue to show leadership on the international stage if we want to have any say in how trillions of dollars in financial investments, policies and decisions are made.”
On Monday Mr. Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations, which administers the pact, notifying the world body of the withdrawal. The withdrawal will become official one year after the submission of the letter.
U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were already stalling in 2024, and Mr. Trump’s entry into office makes it increasingly unlikely the United States will live up to its ambitious pledges to cut them even further. Emissions dropped just a fraction last year, 0.2 percent, compared with the year earlier, according to estimates published this month by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power that was spurred by the previous administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.
The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting Mr. Biden’s goal, announced last month under the auspices of the Paris Agreement, of slashing greenhouse gases 61 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.
In a scenario where Mr. Trump rolled back most of Mr. Biden’s climate policies, U.S. emissions might fall only 24 to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Rhodium Group found.
“President Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. “His disgraceful and destructive decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet.”
Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade.
The United States is also a major exporter of emissions. Because of policies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats, the United States is now producing more crude oil and natural gas than any nation in history. Mr. Trump has vowed to further ramp up production and exports.
While the United States may not be party to the Paris Agreement, it will still be part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which hosts annual climate negotiations known as COPs. This year’s COP will be held in Brazil in November and nations will be announcing new pledges for emissions reductions.
One recent study by Climate Action Tracker, a research group, found that, if every country followed through on the pledges they have formally submitted so far, global average temperatures would be on track to rise roughly 2.6 degrees Celsius, or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, well above the 1.5 degrees Celsius the Paris Agreement originally set as a goal.
“Trump’s irresponsibility is no surprise,” said Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and an architect of the Paris Agreement in 2015. “In time, Trump will not be around but history will point to him and his fossil fuel friends with no pardon.”
Science
RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the Food and Drug Administration a “corrupt system” that is waging “war on public health.” He has pledged to eliminate “entire departments” at the agency charged with ensuring the safety of the foods Americans eat and the medicines we take, warning the more than 18,000 people who work there to “pack your bags.”
President-elect Donald Trumphas nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy will have the opportunity to “go wild” on health, foods and medicines, as Trump put it during the campaign.
Remaking the FDA may not be as straightforward — or as desirable — as it seems from the outside, says Dr. Robert Califf. He’s in a position to know: his second stint as the agency’s commissioner comes to an end Monday.
Califf’s career has spanned academia, large health systems, the biotech industry, Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the federal government. His colleagues at the FDA “work just as hard and are at least as smart” as people he’s worked with anywhere else, he said. Public criticism comes with the territory, but things look different when you’re on the inside trying to ensure access to infant formula, make tobacco products less addictive and help consumers understand what’s in their groceries.
Califf spoke to a group of reporters last week on his last day in the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md. Here’s his advice to those who will take over public health roles in the incoming Trump administration. His comments have been edited for length and clarity.
What do you wish people understood about your job?
This is a job that has a lot of bosses and a lot of constraints. When you’re in the commissioner’s office at FDA, you report to the executive branch. But Congress also thinks it’s your boss. It’s not unheard of for FDA to want to do something and get a message from an important appropriator that, “If you do this, we’re going to cut your budget somewhere else.”
It’s really interesting to me that people think the FDA can just declare this and that. It usually can’t. It usually has to go through a systematic approach. The minute you step beyond the legal boundaries of what the rule book says, you’re going to end up in court. That will get reined in fairly quickly.
How do you expect the new administration to change the FDA?
I have no idea. Right now we have rhetoric, and the rhetoric is contradictory. We just have to wait and see.
Some of the people who have been nominated to positions have been very critical, implying that there are nefarious motives of people working in public heath agencies. It feels a lot different when you have to make the decision and be accountable for it as opposed to criticizing the decision.
I have a copy of [President Theodore] Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech above my desk at home to remind myself every day that you get all this criticism from people who are not actually doing the work. It’s better to be in the arena trying to do the best that you can do.
Kennedy says he wants to get rid of certain departments within FDA. Are there areas you’re most worried about?
I’m worried about every part of the FDA. I don’t think you’ll find people at FDA doing work that no one cares about.
If you look at the food side of the FDA and the inspectorate, it’s massively underfunded. If you cut that — especially if you’re also saying we need to radically change the food system — that would be a problem.
Kennedy wants to see big changes in the food and health industries. Is that realistic?
Slogans are easy, and they sound really tough, but it’s a little different when you get into the to-and-fro. The lobbies that have very much created this food system are powerful. Maybe they can be overcome. There’s a possibility that things could be done for public health that couldn’t be done before.
The other part of this is if you really want to change the food system, you’d better have a 10- or 20-year plan. If you pronounced today, “No ultra-processed foods in SNAP or other federally assisted programs,” the farming industry would crash. I’m not saying that’s a reason to keep it the way it is. What I am saying is you’d better have a very carefully thought-out plan which sustains the economy, not just a bunch of slogans.
Trump said he would investigate claims about vaccines and autism. How should the FDA respond?
Anyone that investigates this will find that the risks and benefits are already delineated. There are dozens of studies that show no relationship between vaccination and autism. It wouldn’t be where I would spend my time, but if he wanted to do it, I think he’ll find that things are already well-documented.
That doesn’t mean that post-market surveillance couldn’t be better. It’s not a great way to have things that every time a question needs to be answered for public health, you need to get permission from every state and territory.
But I don’t think people are going to find any surprises. It’s all out there. For there to be any kind of conspiracy, it would take a whole lot of people outside of government deciding to work together. I’ve lived in America my whole life. It’s hard to get anybody to work together on things.
You’ve called misinformation a leading cause of death. Is it getting better or worse?
We’re losing the battle on misinformation. I’m not talking specifically about FDA. I’m talking about all of us.
To me it’s very clear that a lot of people died who would not have died had they just gotten a free COVID vaccine, and had they not been misled or been made to feel doubtful by people peddling incorrect information.
Often people who are experts in one area have opinions about another area, then when someone disagrees they call it misinformation. It’s a lot easier to put out a slogan or to make something up than it is to worry about whether you’ve got it right and take the time and effort to go to sources and get the right information.
We’re losing the battle right now because of this intersection of social media and cultural changes that have happened. It threatens a lot of the basis for public health. We’ve got to create networks of people who are dedicated to the truth.
What advice do you have for the new health leadership?
Change doesn’t come so easily in government. If we move at least five people, it has to get a congressional review. This makes it really hard.
When possible, use evidence for decision-making. I’ve heard a lot of tweets and short social media things saying, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to do that.” Let’s see the evidence about what an effective treatment is, and then if it’s good, go with it.
Those are my two main pieces of advice.
Science
Extinct Human Species Lived in a Brutal Desert, Study Finds
Chimpanzees live only in African rainforests and woodlands. Orangutans live only in the jungles of Indonesia. But humans live pretty much everywhere. Our species has spread across frozen tundras, settled on mountaintops and called other extreme environments home.
Scientists have historically seen this adaptability as one of the hallmarks of modern humans and a sign of how much our brains had evolved. But a new study hints that maybe we aren’t so special.
A million years ago, researchers have found, an extinct species of human relatives known as Homo erectus thrived in a harsh desert landscape once considered off limits before Homo sapiens came along.
“It’s a significant shift in the narrative of adaptability, expanding it beyond Homo sapiens to include their earlier relatives,” said Julio Mercader, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary and an author of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.
Fossils of our early forerunners collected over many decades seemed to confirm the special adaptability of our species. Our ancestors, known as hominins, split off from other apes in Africa about six million years ago and lived for millions of years in open woodlands. They did not seem to live in extreme environments.
Dr. Mercader and his colleagues closely examined environments in East Africa, which has yielded some of the richest troves of hominin fossils. They picked a site in northern Tanzania called Engaji Nanyor where paleoanthropologists had previously found fossils of Homo erectus.
Homo erectus is believed to have evolved about 2 million years ago in Africa. They were the first to reach the stature of modern humans, and they had long slender legs to run on. Their brains were also larger than those of earlier hominins, though only about two-thirds the size of our own.
At some point, Homo erectus expanded out of Africa, getting as far as Indonesia, where they became extinct about 100,000 years ago. In Africa, many researchers suspect, they gave rise to our own species in the past several hundred thousand years before disappearing there as well.
Dr. Durkin and his colleagues set out to determine exactly what kind of environment Homo erectus lived in a million years ago at Engaji Nanyor. They looked at fossil pollen grains, analyzed the chemistry of the rocks and searched for other clues to the landscape.
“These studies are an immense amount of work,” said Elke Zeller, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the project.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers determined, Engaji Nanyor had been a comfortable open woodland. But around a million years ago, the climate dried up and the trees vanished. The landscape turned to a Mojave-like desert shrub land — an extremely arid place that seemed inhospitable for early hominins.
“The data led us to a pivotal question: How did Homo erectus manage to survive and even thrive under such challenging conditions?” Dr. Mercader said.
Instead of fleeing, the hominins figured out how survive in their changing home. “Their greatest asset was their adaptability,” Dr. Mercader said.
They changed the way they searched for animal carcasses to scavenge, for example. The hominins found the ponds and streams that sprang into existence after storms. They didn’t just drink at these fleeting watering holes. They hunted the animals that also showed up there, butchering their carcasses by the thousands.
The hominins also adapted by upgrading their tools. They took more care when chipping flakes from stones to give them a sharper edge. Rather than just pick up rocks wherever they were, they preferred material from particular places. And once they made a tool, they carried it with them.
“They may have had strategies where they basically say, ‘This is a good tool. I should bring it with me and be ready if we find food,’” said Paul Durkin, a geologist at the University of Manitoba who also worked on the study.
Dr. Durkin and his colleagues found that Engaji Nanyor was at the southern edge of a vast belt of desert shrub lands that stretched out of Africa, across much of the Middle East and into Asia. It’s possible that the adaptability that Homo erectus displayed at Engaji Nanyor helped them expand to other continents.
Dr. Zeller and her colleagues have taken a different approach to studying hominins: creating large-scale climate models to figure out what conditions were like during our evolution. Their models, like the new study, suggest that Homo erectus may have thrived in environments that were once thought too harsh for species other than our own.
Studies like the ones Dr. Zeller and the Engaji Nanyor team are conducting “are all starting to tell the same story,” she said. “We definitely have to look further back in time to understand our adaptability.”
-
Science1 week ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology1 week ago
Amazon Prime will shut down its clothing try-on program
-
Technology1 week ago
L’Oréal’s new skincare gadget told me I should try retinol
-
Technology5 days ago
Super Bowl LIX will stream for free on Tubi
-
Business7 days ago
Why TikTok Users Are Downloading ‘Red Note,’ the Chinese App
-
Technology3 days ago
Nintendo omits original Donkey Kong Country Returns team from the remaster’s credits
-
Culture3 days ago
American men can’t win Olympic cross-country skiing medals — or can they?
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta is already working on Community Notes for Threads