

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

"This important study uses publicly available data to document why care for many people of color in hospitals with large numbers of Black and Latinx patients may suffer because of inadequate funding. This will continue until we adopt a Medicare for All insurance system protecting everyone equally." - Dr. Sidney Wolfe, founder and senior adviser, Public Citizen's Health Research Group
"This important study uses publicly available data to document why care for many people of color in hospitals with large numbers of Black and Latinx patients may suffer because of inadequate funding. This will continue until we adopt a Medicare for All insurance system protecting everyone equally." - Dr. Sidney Wolfe, founder and senior adviser, Public Citizen's Health Research Group
Hospitals that care for large numbers of Black and Latinx patients have far less to spend on facilities such as buildings and equipment, and offer fewer high-tech services than other U.S. hospitals, according to a new study of hospitals' capital assets and spending. The peer-reviewed study, released ahead of print in the International Journal of Health Services, used data from 4,476 hospitals to determine the total value of each hospital's facilities.
At hospitals serving few people of color, the total value of the facilities available for patient care was 60.2% higher than at the 10% of U.S. hospitals with the highest proportion of Black patients: $8,325 vs. $5,197 per inpatient day in 2017. For the 10% of hospitals with the largest share of Latinx patients, the comparable figure was $5,763. The researchers also found that the hospital asset gap is widening; hospitals serving mostly white patients had about twice as much funding for modernization and new equipment as those serving patients of color ($3,092 annually per patient day at hospitals serving mostly white patients vs. $1,242 at Black-serving hospitals and $1,738 at Latinx-serving hospitals).
The lower spending on facilities translated into more crowding at Black- and Latinx-serving hospitals, which had 35% and 18% less square feet per occupied bed respectively than hospitals with few patients of color. The inequalities in facilities and equipment were not explained by differences in patients' severity-of-illness, or hospitals' size, location or teaching status.
The study also found that 19 of 27 expensive, specialized services were less available at hospitals serving people of color; only 2 were more available. For instance, Black- and Latinx-serving hospitals were about half as likely as other hospitals to offer robotic surgery, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization, computer-assisted orthopedic surgery, cardiac rehabilitation and weight-loss surgery.
The researchers used data on the share of Black and Latinx people among Medicare patients at each hospital and calculated the value of (and new spending on) buildings and equipment from 2013-2017 official Medicare Cost Reports. They determined the availability of specific services and hospitals' square footage based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey.
An important determinant of a hospital's current resources for patient care, payer mix, is strongly linked to patients' race. Hospitals have historically collected low payments for the care of uninsured and Medicaid patients (who are disproportionately Black and Latinx), while patients with private coverage are the most lucrative.
Lead author, Gracie Himmelstein, an MD/PhD candidate at Icahn Mount Sinai Medical School and Princeton University's Office of Population Studies, and a Woodrow Wilson Fellow at Princeton commented: "Our study confirms the stark differences between rich hospitals and poor hospitals that I've seen during my training. Many of the doctors and nurses at poor hospitals are terrific, but they're fighting an uphill battle; they care for the sickest patients in the most crowded and difficult conditions. To compensate for decades of unequal health financing we need to invest in hospitals serving Black and Latinx patients, and abandon an insurance system that offers hospitals rich rewards to care for some patients, and less or nothing to care for others."
Co-author Dr. Kathryn Himmelstein, a resident in internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School noted, "White Americans were living three and a half years longer than Black Americans even before COVID-19 began ravaging communities of color. If America wants to show that Black lives truly matter, we need to reverse the structural racism that's literally built into our hospitals."
" Inequality Set in Concrete: Physical Resources Available for Care at Hospitals Serving People of Color and Other U.S. Hospitals". Gracie Himmelstein, MA and Kathryn EW Himmelstein, MSEd, MD. Available ahead of print: International Journal of Health Services, 2020
An embargoed copy of the article is available to media professionals on request from ghimmels@princeton.edu.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado," said US Sen. John Hickenlooper.
Top Colorado Democrats and democracy advocates were among those expressing concern on Friday after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis commuted the sentence of Tina Peters, a former county clerk and 2020 election denier backed by President Donald Trump.
"Today, Gov. Polis delivered a victory to every person urging President Trump to seize control of elections in 2026," said Aly Belknap, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause Colorado, in a statement. "By commuting Tina Peters' sentence, Gov. Polis dealt a massive blow to Colorado's ability to run its own elections and uphold its own judicial system."
"This decision sends a dangerous message that Colorado will tolerate criminal meddling in election systems and equipment when it is done to make a political statement," Belknap warned. "Authoritarians create martyrs out of people like Tina Peters to fuel outrage, mobilize supporters, and excuse lawbreaking in service of their agenda."
"But authoritarians cannot dismantle democracy on their own. They need powerful people to give them consent. Today, Gov. Polis gave President Trump that consent. This is a shameful day for Colorado," she added. "Gov. Polis' decision undermines election security, weakens accountability, and permanently stains his legacy."
Since returning to office last year, Trump has pardoned his supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, fought for access to state voter rolls, said that Republicans "ought to nationalize the voting" in direct defiance of the Constitution, generated fear that he'll have federal agents surround polling sites in November, and even repeatedly suggested that the 2026 elections shouldn't be held at all.
Trump also gave Peters a symbolic federal pardon and pressured Polis—who is term-limited and set to leave office next January—to act on her case. The president was not able to free Peters from her nine-year sentence himself because a jury convicted her of state felonies and misdemeanors for her role in breaching election equipment in 2021.
After the governor's decision, which was announced alongside dozens of other pardons and commutations, and sets up Peters to be released from prison on June 1, the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, "FREE TINA!"
Peters also turned to social media on Friday, thanking Polis, apologizing for her "mistakes," and writing that "upon release, I plan to do my best through legal means to support election integrity and, based on my own personal experiences, to elevate the cause of prison reform."
In an interview with The New York Times, Polis denied trying to placate the president by freeing the former clerk. He said that "she committed a crime; she deserves to be a convicted felon," but "she was given an unusually harsh sentence."
As the newspaper detailed:
The governor's decision came after Mr. Trump cut hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for Colorado, moved to dismantle a leading climate and weather research center in Boulder, rejected disaster relief for rural counties in the state that had been hammered by floods and fire, and vetoed an urgently needed water pipeline for rural Colorado.
In the interview, Mr. Polis pointed out that Mr. Trump had other grievances against Colorado, such as its mail-in voting system, and said he was not making his commutation decision with the expectation that Mr. Trump would undo his actions against Colorado.
"That's not something I ever considered," he said.
Meanwhile, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold declared that "this clemency grant to Tina Peters is an affront to our democracy, the people of Colorado, and election officials across the country. The governor's actions today will validate and embolden the election denial movement, and leave a dark, dangerous imprint on American democracy for years to come."
US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said that "Tina Peters is guilty as sin and a disgrace to Colorado. She tried to undermine Colorado's free and fair election system. When she was caught red-handed, she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and rightfully convicted by a jury of her peers. Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado. I strongly disagree with this decision."
Fellow US Senate Democrat Michael Bennet, who is running for governor, was similarly critical, saying: "I vehemently disagree with Gov. Polis' decision to commute Tina Peters' sentence. She broke the law, undermined our elections, and was convicted by a jury of her peers. With Trump continuing to attack Colorado, we must stand strong for our institutions and the rule of law."
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Democracy Docket that "it's unfortunate to see the governor of Colorado succumbing to the bullying tactics of election conspiracy theorists. He has thrown state and county election officials, Republicans and Democrats, under the bus after they resisted the corruption Ms. Peters engaged in and withstood attacks for many years as a result."
Even another former Republican clerk—Matt Crane, who's now executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association—sounded the alarm, arguing that "Tina Peters' actions have made life harder, not only for election officials here in Colorado, but make no mistake, for election officials all across the country. Her conduct became a rallying point for election conspiracy movements that fueled hostility and distrust towards the very people responsible for administering free and fair elections."
"Rather than standing with public service servants and defending one of our nation’s most cherished rights, the right to vote, Gov. Polis is bending the knee to the same political forces and conspiracy movements that are actively undermining confidence in our democratic institutions," Crane said. "That choice carries consequences far beyond this single case."
“If President Trump and his allies truly cared about America’s legacy of religious freedom, they would be celebrating church-state separation as the unique American invention that has allowed religious diversity to flourish."
An all-day prayer event scheduled for Sunday on the National Mall is set to feature evangelical Protestant leaders as well as top White House and Republican Party officials as speakers, and is being promoted as a celebration of "thanksgiving" as well as an opportunity for participants to learn about the founding of the nation as the 250th anniversary of its independence approaches.
In reality, said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the "National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise, and Thanksgiving" appears to be a "Jubilee of Christian Nationalism"—with evangelical Christians making up three-quarters of the scheduled speakers, despite the fact that they account for just a quarter of Americans overall.
“If President Trump and his allies truly cared about America’s legacy of religious freedom, they would be celebrating church-state separation as the unique American invention that has allowed religious diversity to flourish in our country," said Laser. "Instead, they continue to threaten this foundational principle by advancing a Christian nationalist crusade to impose one narrow version of Christianity on all Americans."
The event, which is partly funded by taxpayer dollars earmarked for the nation's 250th anniversary, will feature Christian musical performers organized around three "pillars" that are labeled as "miracles" a Christian God bestowed on America, “personal testimonies of God’s healing,” and a "unified moment of rededication."
At a webinar last month, Rev. Paula White-Cain, who serves as a faith adviser to the White House, said the event is "really truly rededicating the country to God.”
The idea that the founders of the United States intended the country to be a Christian one has long been a fixation of evangelical Christian leaders, despite the lack of evidence for such a claim.
“Look at the document," Princeton University history professor Kevin Kruse told The Washington Post, referring to the Constitution. "The only rules they wrote about religion were ones that keep religion at arm’s length. No establishment, no limits on free exercise, no religious test for office... There’s a difference between saying America is a nation with many Christians in it and that America is a nation dedicated to Christianity and defined by it."
Robert Jones, president of the Public Religion Research Institute, told the Post that about a third of Americans currently report that they have no religious affiliation, making the US more religiously diverse than it's ever been.
“We proudly celebrate 250 years of American independence from kings who ruled over both church and state," said Laser. "For 250 years, America has been marching toward the promise of a country where all people can be free to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they don’t harm others. Christian nationalists threaten that promise by undermining church-state separation, a pillar of our democracy."
The jubilee, which will also feature an 18-wheeler "Freedom Truck" featuring educational content made by the right-wing group PragerU and the Christian school Hillsdale College, comes after numerous displays of religiosity from the Trump administration.
Even many of the president's supporters on the Christian right were aghast at an artificial intelligence-generated image he posted last month on social media, appearing to depict him as a Christ figure. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is set to speak at the jubilee, has spoken about the US-Israeli war on Iran as Christian crusade and has hosted evangelical worship services at the Pentagon, while Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins wrote, "He is Risen indeed!" in an Easter email to federal employees that recounted the biblical story of the resurrection.
Robert Weissman, co-president of government watchdog Public Citizen, noted that the corporate sponsors of Freedom 250, the public-private partnership that's organizing the 250th anniversary, "may want to curry favor with the Trump administration."
The sponsors, including John Deere, Oracle, and Lockheed Martin, "should be forced to answer whether they support the extreme agenda they are celebrating," he said.
“This outrageous event makes a mockery of a core constitutional tenet of American life, the separation of church and state, essentially promoting a particular flavor of white evangelical protestantism as state-sponsored religion,” said Weissman. “This self-proclaimed day of thanksgiving torpedoes the best of American traditions—inclusivity and diversity—and has no place being connected to the US government."
“We believed that she was being authentic and honest with us," said one Virginia labor leader. "She just flat-out flipped."
Labor unions are feeling betrayed after Virginia's Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have restored collective bargaining rights for half a million public sector workers.
Virginia is one of the most restrictive states in the country for public sector bargaining, a holdover from the Jim Crow era when the General Assembly and other state legislatures across the South sought to crush the power of a public workforce with many Black employees.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Virginia has one of the largest public sector pay gaps in the country, with state and local government employees making about 27% less on average than their private-sector peers, and it is similarly stratified in other states with weak collective bargaining rights.
Spanberger, a former US representative who was elected governor this past November, made pro-union messaging central to her affordability-focused platform. She decried President Donald Trump's executive order stripping federal workers of collective bargaining rights last year and said that as governor, she'd "look forward to working with members of our General Assembly to make sure more Virginians can negotiate for the benefits and fair treatment that they earn.”
But since taking office, Spanberger's support for restoring public sector union rights has been more tepid as she's gotten an earful from fiscally conservative Right-to-Work and taxpayer advocacy groups who claimed higher salaries for public employees would drain state funds and raise the cost of services.
When a bill to immediately mandate collective bargaining rights to 500,000 workers was proposed in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly, she introduced amendments aimed at watering down the bill—making it optional for employers to recognize unions, delaying the full implementation until 2030, and introducing what unions called a "kill-switch" that would have allowed future governors to revoke collective bargaining power.
The legislature shot Spanberger's amendments down and passed the bill in its original form. On Thursday, the governor vetoed it altogether.
In her veto message, Spanberger said she wanted the bill's other collective bargaining provisions for state employees, home care workers, and higher education employees to go into effect first "in order to demonstrate the efficacy of this new system" before it was opened up to all public employees.
But the unions that advocated for the bill say Spanberger led workers on with false promises.
"This veto is a devastating betrayal to the hundreds of thousands of public employees who have spent years, and in many cases decades, fighting for a seat at the table," said Doris Crouse-Mays, the president of the Virginia AFL-CIO. "Spanberger campaigned publicly and privately on promises [of] affordability, to support working families and respect workers' rights... Instead, when presented with the opportunity to make history and deliver on those promises, she chose to side with fear, political calculation, business, and the same anti-worker arguments that have been used for generations to deny workers power in Virginia."
LaNoral Thomas, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Virginia 512—a union which helped lead the charge to pass the bill—told the Virginia news site Dogwood that her union had "high hopes" for Spanberger when she was elected.
“We believed that she was being authentic and honest with us," Thomas said. "She just flat-out flipped. It is shocking.”
"Public employees are not a special interest. They are our neighbors. They are the educators, bus drivers, social workers, librarians, custodians, and first responders who hold our communities together," said a joint statement from Carol Bauer, president of the Virginia Education Association, and Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association.
They emphasized that the veto also carried "a deep racial and gender impact," noting that "Virginia’s public sector bargaining ban is rooted in a Jim Crow era effort to silence Black workers at the University of Virginia Hospital who organized for fair pay and dignity." They said, "Preserving that legacy today disproportionately harms women and workers of color, who make up so much of the public-service workforce and who have the most to gain from fair wages, safer workplaces, and a real voice on the job."
Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)—the largest national union of public sector workers in the US, with more than 1.4 million members—said that Spanberger had caved to "anti-worker extremists [who] have sidelined working people while starving the public services Virginia families rely on, earning the state a reputation as one of the most anti-worker in the country."
"While the governor has broken her word," Saunders said, "AFSCME members are deeply grateful to the bill’s sponsors and the leadership of both chambers, who kept theirs. Their commitment to working people stands in stark contrast to the governor and will not be forgotten."
"Gov. Spanberger made a choice today," he added. "Working people will remember it."