With telehealth services growing in popularity and necessity during the pandemic, U.S. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) has signed a letter with several members of Congress calling on House and Senate leadership to include an extension of Medicare pandemic telehealth authorities in upcoming government funding legislation.
The letter acknowledges that telehealth—or telemedicine as it is also called—has become an essential part of the health care system, especially in rural communities. Congress recognized the importance of such services when it passed COVID-19 legislation to increase access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries.
Telehealth services allows a physician or a specialist to provide healthcare without an in-person office visit. It also allows remote monitoring of a patient’s vital signs or other information, and provides for secure messaging or email with medical personnel.
But expanded access and funding for Medicare beneficiaries to utilize the services is temporary as it is tied to the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration, which is renewed in three-month increments.
According to the Jan. 28 letter, extending the current coverage of Medicare telehealth services would provide much-needed certainty to health care providers and patients. It would also give Congress time to enact permanent telehealth legislation to keep up with the burgeoning industry.
“Ramping up telehealth requires significant costs and resources from health care providers,” the letter to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy states. “Without more definitive knowledge about the duration of the pandemic and Medicare’s long-term coverage of telehealth, many organizations have been hesitant to fully invest in telehealth.”
Permanent legislative reforms to telehealth services are included in various current bills under consideration, including the CONNECT for Health Act which has bipartisan support from over 170 members of Congress. Such long-term solutions are imperative to increase access to care, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes, the letter states.
“An extension of the telehealth authorities would provide assurance that the investments will be sustainable over the long term. It would also reassure patients that their care will not end abruptly,” it states.
Nearly four dozen lawmakers signed the letter supporting a telehealth pandemic extension. The signers run the gamut of political ideology, including Schweikert and fellow Representatives Bill Johnson (R-OH), Cheri Bustos (D-IL.), and Don Bacon (R-NE).
Signers from the U.S. Senate include Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marco Rubio (R-FL). Both of Arizona’s Senators also signed.
A federal judge has been asked to award damages to the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party and her husband for fighting a Congressional subpoena which seeks detailed data from four phone numbers assigned to the couple’s T-Mobile business account, including records of calls to and from their medical patients.
Last week Kelli and Michael Ward filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to block a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack in Washington DC. The subpoena demands T-Mobile turn over records for the period of Nov. 1, 2020 to Jan. 31, 2021 from an account in the name of Mole Medical Services P.C., a company owned by the Wards.
The Feb. 1 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court seeks a court order declaring the Committee’s actions in issuing the subpoena violated federal law and Arizona law. It also seeks an order quashing the subpoena and enjoining T-Mobile from releasing any data to the Committee.
According to the Feb. 1 lawsuit, T-Mobile’s Legal and Emergency Response Team sent an advisory to Mole Medical Services after receiving the Jan. 19 subpoena. T-Mobile intended to comply with the subpoena on Feb. 4 unless provided proof by Feb. 2 of the filing of a motion for protective order, motion to quash, or other legal process “seeking to block compliance.”
The Committee has not commented on what drew their attention to the Wards or to their phone records, but the subpoena demands detailed records of incoming and outgoing calls—including call duration and associated phone numbers—as well as metadata, or call data records.
The lawsuit and motion to quash argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent places the burden on the House Select Committee to justify the need for the information being sought. Instead, the subpoena is so broadly written that it substantially infringes on “the right to privacy” guaranteed under Arizona state law, the lawsuit argues.
The Wards were among the 11 Republicans whose names were listed on the 2020 General Election ballot as Arizona’s electors for then-President Donald Trump. Both also signed an “alternate” slate of Arizona electors which they hoped could be used on Jan. 6, 2021 instead of the 11 electors for now-President Joe Biden.
The lawsuit concedes Kelli and Michael Ward use their business account phones for personal calls, including political communications, but argues that the data which would be disclosed by T-Mobile does not relate to a sufficiently important government interest between the Wards and the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol.
In addition, two of the four phone numbers associated with the targeted T-Mobile account are used by the couple’s children, according to the lawsuit. “Congressional investigators cannot possibly have any legitimate investigative interest in invading the personal privacy rights of the Wards’ children,” the filings state.
Several arguments against the subpoena center on the Wards’ work as medical professionals which is provided state and federal privileges of medical privacy and physician-client communications. The Committee has not addressed how it would limit the use or disclosure of confidential patient information that might be revealed if T-Mobile releases the demanded data, the lawsuit argues.
Kelli Ward is a practicing Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine who practices medicine exclusively in the field of medical weight loss. She uses a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant videoconferencing system for telemedicine visits with her patients, although there are times she relies on her Mole Medical phone to speak with patients, the lawsuit states.
Michael Ward is also a practicing Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine who serves as medical director for an air ambulance company. He actively practices emergency medicine in Arizona, mostly in the Lake Havasu City area where the couple live in Mohave County.
“In certain circumstances, Michael Ward gives the Phone Number to patients to follow up on their questions, the status of their condition, and the state of the improvement of their health,” the lawsuit states, adding that the same number serves as a point of contact for Ward’s work for the air ambulance, which involves calls from emergency medical technicians and paramedics about patients.
The lawsuit which also names Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) in his official capacity as the Committee’s chairman calls into question whether the subpoena was properly issued by the Committee due to quorum issues as well as a House rule which requires the Committee’s members to “authorize” a subpoena.
The case has been assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. Each defendant will have 15 days to file a response once served with the Wards’ complaint and summons.
QR codes can be scanned to download a coupon, sign in at a medical appointment, even look at a restaurant’s menu while waiting to be seated. They can also used by cybercriminals to scam people, the FBI is warning.
A QR code is a square barcode that a smartphone camera can scan and read to provide quick access to a website. It can also be used to prompt the user to download an app or process a direct payment to an intended recipient. And businesses large and small utilize QR codes for customer rewards programs.
The popularity of QR codes grew during the COVID-19 pandemic in part due to the contactless nature of the technology. But more and more cybercriminals are now tampering with the codes to surreptitiously redirect victims to a malicious site in order to steal login and financial information, the FBI warns.
“Cybercriminals tamper with both digital and physical QR codes to replace legitimate codes with malicious codes,” the FBI stated. “A victim scans what they think to be a legitimate code but the tampered code directs victims to a malicious site, which prompts them to enter login and financial information. Access to this victim information gives the cybercriminal the ability to potentially steal funds through victim accounts.”
The scammers can also utilize a QR code to embed malware which allows a cybercriminal to gain remote access to a victim’s device, and even redirect money transfers to the criminal, according to the FBI. The cybercriminal can even leverage financial information stolen from the device to withdraw funds from the victim’s bank accounts or credit / debit cards stored on the device.
“Law enforcement cannot guarantee the recovery of lost funds after transfer,” the FBI stated.
Companies are advised to consider whether the immediate convenience of offering QR code options is worth the potential cost of dealing with security breaches and disgruntled customers.
And for those consumers who really want to utilize QR codes, the FBI has some suggestions to reduce -albeit not eliminate- the risk of falling victim to a scammer.
According to the FBI:
Do not download a QR code scanner app, as this increases your risk of introducing malware onto your device. Instead, use the built-in code scanner incorporated in your camera app.
Avoid making payments through a site you were sent to via a QR code. Instead, manually enter a known and trusted URL to complete the payment.
Also, use caution when asked to enter any login, personal, or financial information from a site you navigated to from a QR code.
If you receive a QR code that appears to be from someone you know—such as a local business or medical provider—contact them through a known number or address to verify they sent you the code.
Do not download an app to your device via a QR code. Use your device’s app store instead for any download.
If scanning a physical QR code, ensure the code has not been altered or tampered with, such as a sticker placed on top of the original code.
Once you scan a QR code, check the URL it opened to make sure it is the intended site and looks authentic. A malicious domain name may be similar to the intended URL but with typos or a misplaced letter.
Finally, if you receive a notice of a failed payment from a company you recently made a purchase with and the only option you are given for completing the payment is via a QE code, call the company to verify. But do not use the phone number included on the notice—ensure you obtain the number through a trusted site.
If you believe you have been the victim of a QR code scam, contact your local police department or sheriff’s office. They may conduct the investigation or refer the matter to the nearest FBI office.
Meanwhile, suspicious QR code activities can reported directly to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center at www.ic3.gov
A major U.S.-based airline is pushing for a long-lasting consequence for disruptive passengers—having their names added to the FAA’s “no-fly” list. But it is not only passengers who engage in violence or a threat of violence who could end up banned from flying.
On Feb. 3, CEO Edward Bastian of Delta Airlines wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland asking for support of a plan to ensure more passengers who engage in disorderly conduct on an airplane or even in an airport could be barred from traveling on any commercial air carrier in the future.
“At Delta, nothing is more important than ensuring a safe and secure travel experience for consumers as they reclaim the skies in the months ahead,” Bastian wrote, adding that any “disruption or act of violence on our planes and at our airports warrants full and public prosecution of the offenders, with zero tolerance for any behavior that interferes with flight safety.”
In January, federal prosecution was initiated against passengers in at least four acts of violence against various airline employees. There are also many instances in which a passenger acts in a disorderly manner without placing anyone, or an aircraft, in immediate danger, and is therefore not prosecuted.
Which is why Bastian is calling on all U.S. commercial air carriers to share their “unruly passenger” no-fly list so that individuals with a history of bad behavior against one airline can be prevented from doing the same on another carrier.
But it is not simply passengers who verbally or physically assault crew members or fellow passengers who are considered unruly, according to Bastian’s letter to Merrick.
Passengers who refuse to wear a mask on an aircraft, even when social distancing is occurring or when the passenger is trying to eat, can be deemed by a flight crew member of acting in a disorderly manner. In fact, Bastion’s letter notes nearly 1,900 passengers have been added to Delta’s internal no-fly list for refusing to comply with mask mandates.
The company has also submitted more than 900 of those names to the Transportation Security Administration to pursue civil penalties, Bastian wrote. Such penalties can include thousands of dollars per violation, even if there is no criminal prosecution.
Delta is one of 10 members of Airlines for America (A4A), formerly the Air Association of America, which represents the interests of several of the country’s leading airlines. The other A4A members are Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, jetBlue, Southwest, and United, as well as commercial cargo carriers Atlas Air Worldwide, FedEx Express, and UPS.
On Thursday, the Arizona House approved two separate bills cracking down on divisive and adult content in K-12 schools: a bill banning critical race theory from curriculum, HB2112, and a bill outlawing sexually-explicit materials from schools, HB2495. Both passed along party lines, 31-28.
Both bills received a similar partisan reception when passed by the House Education Committee: in their opposition of the bills, Democrats doubted their efficacy and necessity, whereas Republicans championed their cause and applauded them.
Introduced by State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa), HB2112 bans teachings rooted in the traditional, original definition racism: that one race, ethnic group, or sex is superior to any other, and that an individual’s race, ethnicity, or sex predetermines their moral character and makes them inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive. The bill also rings of Biblical wisdom: similar to what Ezekiel 18 imparts, teachers also may not assign guilt or lay blame on any student for the actions and events of others who share the student’s race, ethnicity, or sex. Additionally, the bill would reject teachings that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist. Violations of this legislation could result in teachers facing penalties such as suspension or the loss of their teaching certificate, and school districts receiving up to $5,000 in fines per violation.
The legislature’s previous attempt to ban critical race theory was struck down in court last year because it was integrated in a bill that the judge ruled was a violation of the single subject requirement of the state constitution.
Udall explained that she received “countless” pleas from parents on the divisiveness and harms caused by critical race theory teachings in public K-12 schools at present. She cited several specific examples; for one, a Red Mountain High School teacher required students to study the critical race theory terms “intersectionality,” “anti-racist,” and “restorative justice,” then write a self-reflection paper about their privileges. Another example concerned an Arizona State University (ASU) teacher preparation program assigning a book called “Nurture Shock,” in which one chapter discussed “why white parents don’t talk about race.” Yet another example concerned a social studies teacher in Glendale who sent her colleagues materials to discuss race in class, focusing in part on how white people have a greater burden for being anti-racist, such as understanding their privilege.
“This categorization and scapegoating will not heal racial divides. Instead, it emphasizes ethnicity and gender as insurmountable barriers to peace,” said Udall.
Udall then described the gaslighting parents endured when they contended the presence of critical race theory in classrooms: how parents were told their experiences were a one-off incident and that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, despite the National Education Association (NEA) repeatedly advocating for the theory after issuing a resolution last summer that they would make concerted efforts to instill critical race theory teachings in classrooms.
“These concepts should be things we can all agree on: that all men are created equal, that hard work and persistence pay off, that students of all races are capable of being held to a high standard of academic excellence,” said Udall.
Democrats’ arguments against the bill alleged that it would get in the way of teaching history. However, the bill didn’t outlaw teachings of certain history, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws — rather, the bill focused on conclusions and statements of fact imparted by critical race theory teachings.
State Representative Judy Schweibert (D-Phoenix) argued that critical race theory teachings imparted lessons of honesty, integrity, and freedom to pursue dreams.
“When we teach history, it’s not about assigning guilt or blame. It’s about teaching young people to think deeply and critically themselves so we don’t repeat the same mistakes,” said Schweibert.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) insisted that critical race theory teachings were “the truth.” State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Ahwatukee) said that she agreed that “the sins of the father shouldn’t be visited on the children” and appreciated the intent of the bill, but feared that the bill’s wording would prevent teachers from placing any blame on anybody.
HB2495 bans the sexual explicitness of materials given to K-12 students. State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) introduced the bill. It would prohibit K-12 public schools from exposing or referring students to “sexually explicit material,” which was defined as depictions of sexual conduct such as masturbation, intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, public area, buttocks, or a female’s breast; sexual excitement, meaning the sexual stimulation or arousal of human male or female genitals; and ultimate sexual acts, such as any form of or allusion to intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, or sodomy.
The bill passed with Udall’s amendments to exempt classical literature, early American literature, and books required for a course awarding college credit, but only with written parental consent prior to exposure of each material. If parental consent can’t be obtained, the school must furnish the student with an alternative assignment without sexually explicit material.
“This is simply a practice that I believe a majority of Arizonans don’t want. I don’t believe that they want sexually-explicit material shown to their children,” said Hoffman.
In rebuttal, Democrats argued that there were already laws prohibiting inappropriate materials from being shown to children. They insisted that they were equally opposed to showing children pornography in schools.
Schweibert argued that parents didn’t have a right to determine what other people’s children were to learn — even in this case. She asserted that the legislature was “treading on dangerous territory” tantamount to instigating a book burning movement. Schweibert cited bans on historically revered books like “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Of Mice and Men,” and the Bible; however, those were the doing of left-leaning groups, often with blessings from Democratic leaders.
Both bills now head to the Senate for consideration.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
This week, the House Government Committee narrowly passed two bills to further secure elections. HB2236 would prohibit automatic voter registration, and HB2241 would require anyone dropping off an early ballot to either show their ID or sign that they have permission to do so for the individual who completed the ballot; it’s a class six felony if they refuse. State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) introduced both bills, securing passage along party lines, 7-6.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) insisted that the bills were “anti-voter.” Bolding is running for secretary of state; his major platform points include the fact that he’s running against former President Donald Trump’s pick for the position and that he’d be Arizona’s first black secretary of state, two qualities that bear striking similarities to President Joe Biden’s must-haves for his next Supreme Court pick.
Preventing as many eligible Arizonans from voting is the goal of #HB2241 and dozens of other anti-voter bills this session. All based on conspiracies and the #BigLie, and all because sponsors did not like the results of a free, fair, and excessively scrutinized 2020 election. https://t.co/xasMpiAI3o
House and Senate Republicans’ attempts to further secure elections over the past few years have caused controversy with left-leaning communities.
This week, over 200 “faith leaders” issued a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell asking him to relocate the next Super Bowl from Arizona over the state’s “disease of racism, and, particularly, its symptom of voter suppression.” They cited bills passed last year: SB1003, which requires voters to rectify their signature by 7 pm on election night; SB1485, which cleans up the early voters list; and SB1819, which formed a special committee on the election audit. That final bill, SB1819, was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court due to violations of the state constitution’s single subject rule.
As another reason for moving the Super Bowl away from Arizona, the group cited Senator Krysten Sinema’s (D-AZ) opposition to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Sinema refused to support the legislation because doing so would have scrapped the filibuster. Unlike Sinema, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) came out in support of ending the filibuster to pass the legislation to federalize elections.
More than 200 faith leaders called on @NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to consider moving the Super Bowl out of #Arizona next year over several voting bills they characterize as voter suppression. 10 pastors in Tucson signed on. Letter here: @KVOAhttps://t.co/bXaTU2Ag66pic.twitter.com/LmyRy97B3a
Although the individuals signed onto the letter identified themselves as faith leaders, it is unclear whether they claim to be faith leaders in relation to the Christian Bible considering the nature of their doctrines.
If the NFL remains consistent with their decision-making, it’s unlikely that this latest letter will have any influence on Arizona hosting the next Superbowl. Last May, Bolding made the exact same demands of Goodell in a letter of his own, even hearkening back to the state’s historic refusal to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which the NFL ignored.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
