Watch live: Gov. Josh Shapiro to speak about private equity after Crozer Health hospital closures
In the wake of the closures of Crozer-Chester Medical Center and Taylor Hospital in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, state leaders are pushing to limit private equity companies' influence on health care in the state.
The two hospitals closed in recent weeks after their owner, Prospect Medical Holdings, declared bankruptcy. Multiple infusions of cash from the state, county and local health systems kept the hospitals open a little longer, but ultimately, Crozer-Chester's last day open was May 2, and Taylor Hospital closed April 26.
Prospect was the focus of a CBS News investigation detailing how private equity investors siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars from community hospitals. The company was controlled from 2010 to 2021 by private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners, which held a majority stake.
Gov. Josh Shapiro will speak at a news conference about private equity in health care in the wake of the hospital closures.
The press conference is set to begin between 10:45 and 11 a.m. You can watch live in the player above, on CBS Philadelphia's YouTube channel, or wherever else CBS News Philadelphia is streaming.
In the news conference, the Democratic governor may address bills in the state legislature, including the House's Health System Protection Act, which would allow the Pennsylvania Attorney General and Department of Health to review transactions to purchase hospitals before they go through.
The bill from Democratic Rep. Lisa Borowski, who represents Delco, would also prohibit leaseback agreements by private equity firms, a subject of a suit filed last year by former Attorney General Michelle Henry. The suit alleged Prospect sold its hospital properties and then began paying $35 million in rent to Medical Properties Trust.
Leaseback transactions "pad investor dividends while burdening patients, employees, their families, and the broader community," Henry's office said in 2024.
Prospect had called the suit "hasty" and "completely unnecessary."
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine
ANAHEIM — California Democrats have learned one lesson from last November's national loss to Republicans: Voters want to see them fight. Especially for the working class. Their next challenge is actually doing it. And California Democrats have a prime opportunity to do so in an upcoming budget fight in Sacramento. Part of Donald Trump's appeal is that voters at least feel that he's 'fighting' for them even if it is largely performative. (Exhibit A: Trump's tax plan gives a $300 tax break to families earning $50,000 and $90,000 to a filer making $1 million, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So the word 'fight' was omnipresent in every speech, often in profane ways, at the California Democratic Party's three-day convention that ended Sunday. Speaking of his Republican opponents, California Sen. Adam Schiff told attendees: 'We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower, not now, not ever. We say to bullies, 'You can go f— yourself.'' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a keynote convention speaker, told delegates Saturday, 'We gotta be honest. We're in this mess because some of it is our own doing.' Walz acknowledged that as half of the losing presidential ticket, he may be 'the last person to lecture on this topic, but I'm going to tell you, none of us can afford to shy away from having hard conversations about what it's going to take to win elections.' 'We didn't just lose the working class to just anybody. We lost to a grifter billionaire giving tax cuts to his grifter billionaire buddies. That last election was a primal scream on so many fronts: 'Do something! Do something! Stand up and make a difference.'' America is dubious that Democrats can do something. A CNN poll released Sunday found that 16% of respondents felt Democrats are the party that could 'get things done.' More than twice as many respondents (36%) felt that way about Republicans. 'If you ask people today what a Democrat is, they say it is 'a deer in the headlights,'' Walz said. 'We've got to find some goddamn guts to fight for working people. … Nobody votes for roadkill.' 'That means having the guts to break down the power structures that are there. We know who's strangling our politics.' Lorena Gonzalez, president of the 2.3 million-member California Labor Federation, warned that Democrats shouldn't become 'Republican lite' by adopting their positions. She invoked the Depression-era song written by Florence Patton Reece, 'Which Side Are You On?' 'Are you on the side of the billionaires and the tech bros and Elon Musk and the Republican Lites?' Gonzalez said. 'Or are you on the side of working people, men and women who make this state work, who continue to go to work every day, hardworking people. Are you on the side of unions?' Case in point: It sounds hollow to hear California Democrats rail on Trump and congressional Republicans for their budget that would cut health coverage for 8.6 million Americans (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) when California is considering cuts to its most vulnerable citizens to close a $12 billion budget deficit. Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revised budget proposal i ncluded cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which provides care to low-income elderly and disabled people. Those providers, who are predominantly women of color, earn about $17 an hour. The typical provider would lose about $20,000 in pay annually under the proposal, according to union leaders. These are the 500,000 workers who bathe, dress and take care of 850,000 frail Californians — our parents, children and siblings. Many providers are one paycheck away from homelessness, union organizers say. Such a pay cut 'would be devastating,' Cynthia Williams, an Orange County in-home provider since 2008, told me. If the cuts were passed, her family would likely have to move and use the local food bank even more. She cares for her disabled-veteran sister and her daughter, who is blind and disabled and has a gastric condition that requires her to have four or five small meals a day. 'So that (salary reduction) would cut down on what I would be able to do. Providing four or five meals a day would not be an option,' Williams told me. 'We don't need to keep milking the poor to give to the rich,' she said. 'We need to make sure that Democrats care for the people that are the most vulnerable.' Union leaders, whose members are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns, say they are watching how Democrats handle this proposed cut. At a rally Saturday outside the Anaheim Convention Center where Democrats were meeting, United Domestic Workers Executive Director Doug Moore directed a message 'to our Democratic lawmakers. This rally is not just a protest. It's a warning. 'Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities and the caregivers who support them is not leadership, it's shortsighted cowardice,' Moore told rallygoers. 'Every Democrat inside this convention hall, this is your moment. Your integrity matters now more than ever. You can't claim to stand for justice, equity, working families in your speeches, then turn around and vote for budget cuts that hurt the very people who make this state function. 'It is time for you to have the courage to stand with us — or else. We are watching. We are the people who got you in the office.' California Democrats are looking for ways to stave off those cuts. Behind closed doors, Senate Democrats are considering several plans that would raise revenue from wealthy corporations to plug the budget deficit. One idea is to tax large corporations that do business in California but do not provide adequate or affordable health coverage to their employees and pay their workers so little that they must rely on Medi-Cal. It would require employers to pay a tax for each worker; details on the proposal are still being crafted. Other Democrats in the Legislature are privately discussing a proposal that would close the 'water's edge loophole' that would require corporations to report all their worldwide profits, not just the profits they claim were earned in the U.S. This proposal could enable California to collect taxes on its rightful share (an estimated $3 billion) of those total profits. Now, the percentage of national sales that occur in the state is the percentage of profit subject to corporate tax in California. Twenty-eight states plus Washington, D.C., require a version of water's edge reporting, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Polic y, The short-term question: Will Gov. Newsom veto this because he is concerned about being tagged as someone who 'raised taxes' — even if it is on wealthy corporations — if he runs for president in 2028 when his term ends? The long-term question: Whose side are Democrats on?
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
The global intifada is here. Hamas-aligned networks brought terror to US soil and we need to stop it
For decades, "Globalize the Intifada" chants have rung throughout Europe and the Middle East, a blatant and unmistakable call for violence and terrorism against Israelis and Jews. But over the past two years, those chants have only intensified and multiplied, now making their way west to our United States. What started with campus protests has now turned to vigilante violence. This week in Boulder, Colorado, a man yelling "free Palestine" threw Molotov cocktails at peaceful protestors hosting an event to bring home the Israeli hostages, setting them ablaze. Two young staff members of the Israeli Embassy were murdered outside the Jewish museum, after which the shooter said, "I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza." Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home was set on fire with his family inside because of "what [Shapiro] wants to do to the Palestinian people," given that he's Jewish. These are not isolated incidents. They are all organized and linked to one group: Hamas. The same terrorist ideology behind these attacks was on display on college campuses over the past two years in the form of violent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic encampments. Let's be clear, these are not the protests of the 1960s. Contrary to what the media may have reported, these were not student-driven "protests" at all. New lawsuits, filed by my organization, expose how the violent takeover of Columbia University's Hamilton Hall and the weeks-long encampments at UCLA were part of an organized, choreographed effort by career professionals to carry out Hamas' plans of violence, terror, and the eradication of Jews and Israelis. At UCLA, a rabbi, a doctor, and a law student sued National Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Zionist groups over encampments that were manned with a sword and "human phalanxes." Designated teams of security personnel surrounded the area armed with wooden planks, makeshift shields, pepper spray and tasers. Members of the groups involved in the lawsuit coordinated via social media and Google Docs ways in which to plan, fund, execute, and reinforce the encampment. And just a few days after the first encampment was dispersed by police, more than 40 protestors were found with metal pipes, bolt cutters, chains and padlocks, and manuals for "occupying" campus buildings. At Columbia University, a highly coordinated mob used violent, masked tactics reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan to storm the campus' Hamilton Hall. Armed with rope, zip ties, and crow bars, the masked invaders smashed their way through the doors and windows, and when they came across two people in their way – janitors, neither of whom were Jewish – they terrorized them, battered them, and mocked them. These two janitors sued the group behind the occupation, the People's Forum, for the assault, during which the assailants berated the janitors as "Jew lovers" for their employment. These aren't doe-eyed kids with signs calling for a more loving and peaceful world. These protestors are part of an expansive terrorist network taking advantage of those same doe-eyed students, using them to stoke violence and create chaos. This is an attempt to legitimize the terrorization of an entire group of people. This is the use of guerrilla warfare tactics against students and faculty in an environment that is supposed to be safe. What we are dealing with now is a highly organized, generously-funded, professionally managed campaign that has all the attributes of a military engagement – from detailed planning to careful mapping to precise logistical elements. This new realization requires a shift in strategy in how we fight back against these attacks. Up until now, most cases against universities were based on a single strategy: to hold taxpayer-funded colleges accountable for the hate that they allowed to become pervasive at their institutions. The goal of this strategy is two-fold. First, colleges should not be permitted to use taxpayer money to fund discrimination, especially when that discrimination prevents students from attending classes. Second, colleges should be incentivized to deal appropriately with the problems on their own campuses, so that neither the government nor lawyers have to handle them one-by-one. These previous cases that held universities accountable for their deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism have worked when they have forced these schools to admit to and confront the rampant anti-Semitism on their campuses. I developed this strategy during my time as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education twenty years ago. It underlies the ongoing congressional investigations and enforcement activities by the Office for Civil Rights, and it's similar to the strategy used by the Trump Task Force on Anti-Semitism to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools. But a lot can change in twenty years, and this is no longer enough. To address this current reality, it is necessary to adopt new strategies to deal with it. We must hold perpetrators accountable for their criminal actions on campus, including both criminal prosecution and civil litigation. But that alone won't be enough. We must also disrupt the perpetrators' support and resources that are helping them to carry out these calculated, coordinated campaigns. In other words, we were previously addressing the symptoms of anti-Semitism by holding universities accountable. Now, we're also getting to the root of the problem by addressing those who fund, support, plan, and enable the anti-Semitic activity. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Colorado attacker supported; the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who praised the October 7th attacks; and Students for Justice in Palestine, who continually promote violence on campus and incite "the student intifada." Our protests have changed, just as our reality has. We must be ready to change with it. Kenneth L. Marcus' organization is representing the Columbia janitors and members of the UCLA Jewish community in both lawsuits.
