HBO's John Oliver faces lawsuit from health insurance executive over Medicaid monologue
Former AmeriHealth Caritas medical director Dr. Brian Morley believes an April 2024 segment on "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" about Americans losing Medicaid health care coverage destroyed his reputation and personal well-being. Oliver spent the entire episode sounding the alarm about "Medicaid unwinding" with a lengthy monologue that suggested Managed Care Organizations such as AmeriHealth Caritas have worked to take away healthcare.
When examining the situation of a young patient who lost access to in-home bathing and diaper changing, Oliver played an edited audio excerpt from a 2017 testimony in which Morley said about a "similar patient", "People have bowel movements every day where they don't completely clean themselves, and we don't fuss over [them] too much. People are allowed to be dirty. I would allow him to be dirty for a couple of days."
Oliver then said, "F--k that doctor with a rust canoe, I hope he gets tetanus of the balls," and told the HBO audience the testimony was authentic.
Liberal British Hbo Host Tells Colbert He's Staying In America And 'Going Down With The Titanic'
"When I first heard that, I thought that had to have been taken out of context. There is no way a doctor, a licensed physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it's OK if people have s--t on them for days. So, we got the full hearing, and I'm not going to play it, I'm just going to tell you, he said it, he meant it, and it made me want to punch a hole in the wall," Oliver told viewers.
Read On The Fox News App
In a lawsuit filed Friday in New York's Southern District that also named Partially Important Productions as a defendant, Morley alleged that Oliver "falsely" told viewers he "testified in a Medicaid hearing that 'he thinks it's okay if people have s--t on them for days,'" and "illegally denied Medicaid services to—a young man who has severe mental impairment, was harnessed in a wheelchair, wears diapers, and required in-home bathing and diaper changing because he could do neither himself."
Morley's lawyer wrote in the filing that Oliver's "false accusations were designed to spark outrage, and they did."
"Oliver's feigned outrage at Dr. Morley was fabricated for ratings and profits at the expense of Dr. Morley's reputation and personal well-being," the lawsuit said.
Liberal Comedian Hopes His Show Speaks To Trump Voters Despite Fierce Opposition To The President
"Defendants expressly asserted that they were not taking Dr. Morley's testimony out of context, knowing they had intentionally manipulated the context and their broadcast to convey a defamatory meaning that they knew was untrue," the suit continued, noting that if Oliver truly wanted the full hearing he would have known he was not speaking about an immobile or bedridden person, and that "Morley's testimony stood for the opposite of the defamatory meanings they ascribed to it."
"Morley did not equate wiping poorly with leaving anyone sitting in their own feces for days—whether disabled, incontinent, wearing diapers or not. He testified to the opposite. He testified that people who, for instance, are immobile, laying in their own bowel movements, cannot toilet transfer, or cannot bathe themselves—in other words, people like the individual Defendants depicted—require significant in-home care, including 'to have someone wiping them and getting the feces off' to ensure 'medical safety,'" the lawsuit stated.
The lawsuit alleges that Oliver also knew the patient Morley was actually talking about "was not confined to a wheelchair, was not incontinent, did not wear diapers, independently toilet transferred, was independently mobile, could change his or her own clothes, bathed him or herself, and did not require in-home diaper changing or assistance to bathe generally," but failed to disclose that to the HBO audience.
John Oliver Offers Justice Thomas Millions To 'Get The F--- Off The Supreme Court'
Oliver also failed to disclose that Morley approved six in-home visits per week to the actual patient, according to the lawsuit, which claims "Last Week Tonight" took the testimony out of context.
Morley believes Oliver's accusations are false and were made negligently with actual malice. He has demanded that HBO retract the "false and defamatory" statements and is seeking "reputational, emotional, and mental damages in an amount exceeding $75,000 and to be determined at trial."
Morley is also seeking punitive damages.
HBO and parent company Warner Bros. Discovery did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.Original article source: HBO's John Oliver faces lawsuit from health insurance executive over Medicaid monologue
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Landmark Science announces research to be presented at ISPE 2025
At this year's conference, Landmark Science spotlights real-world evidence's power to drive GLP-1 and Wegovy insights in Medicare and shape regulatory decision-making. LOS ANGELES, Aug. 19, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Landmark Science today announced its presence at International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) 2025 annual conference, in collaboration with Innovaccer, set to take place August 22–26 in Washington D.C. Landmark Science's real-world data is featured across five pieces of research to be presented at the conference. The research provides a timely look into patient populations initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists (RAs), offering new insights into the characteristics of Medicare patients initiating these therapies. They also offer a special focus on Medicaid patients initiating Wegovy (semaglutide) for cardiometabolic and cardiovascular risk reduction — an area of growing importance as GLP-1 RAs expand beyond diabetes management. "GLP-1s are on the rise in Medicare — from Type 2 diabetes and obesity to cardiovascular risk reduction, kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and noncirrhotic MASH, indications for GLP-1s have expanded fast. But not a lot is known about utilization in a Medicare population. Real-world evidence is essential in understanding prescribing patterns, patient outcomes, and safety profiles, ultimately guiding optimal care strategies and policy decisions for Medicare beneficiaries," said Shivani Aggarwal, CEO. "The rapid adoption of GLP-1s like semaglutide in cardiometabolic care highlights a critical need for real-world data to inform access, outcomes, and equity," said Puneet Budhiraja - Vice President, Analytics at Humbi AI by Innovaccer. "At ISPE, we're excited to share data that helps stakeholders better understand who is initiating these therapies — and who might be left behind." At this year's ISPE, Landmark epidemiologists are also generating novel methodologies that will shape the future of evidence generation used to support regulatory decision-making. "Our research uncovers nuanced trends and synthesizes them into transparent, evidenced based research—to showcase and drive the utility of real-world evidence in regulatory decision-making," said Shivani Aggarwal. Highlights include: Two poster presentations on Medicare beneficiaries initiating GLP-1 RAs and Wegovy. Two poster presentations underscoring RWE's potential for use in regulatory decision-making. A poster presentation introducing a framework operationalizing regulatory guidelines into key steps for submission success. Schedule a meeting with Landmark Science at ISPE 2025, and learn more about our abstracts and events, including workshops and panels. Follow Landmark Science on LinkedIn for more updates from #ISPE2025. Poster Discussions and Presentations Characteristics of Patients Initiating Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists (RAs) for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in a Medicare Population This study analyzes patient demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries initiating any GLP-1 RAs, shedding light on the populations adopting these treatments. - Monday Aug 25, 2025 | Hall D | Poster Session B: 11:30 AM- 1:00 PM- Poster Code: B-032 Characteristics of Patients Initiating Wegovy (Semaglutide) for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in a Medicare Population Focusing specifically on Wegovy, this analysis offers a more granular view into who Wegovy initiators are, how they responded, and what happened after Wegovy became an option for cardiovascular protection. - Monday Aug 25, 2025 | Hall D | Poster Session B: 11:30 AM- 1:00 PM- Poster Code: B-033 Characteristics of RWE used in Regulatory Decision-Making for Marketing Authorization Applications (MAAs) Real-world evidence use is growing but still has mixed acceptance. Here we synthesize emerging patterns into actionable insights for success. - Monday Aug 25, 2025 | Hall D | Poster Session B: 11:30 AM- 1:00 PM- Poster Code: B-079 Evaluation of Real-World Evidence in Regulatory and HTA Submissions Real-world evidence isn't judged the same everywhere — and the differences matter. We review feedback from regulatory and key HTA bodies to describe the acceptability of RWE in marketing applications. - Monday Aug 25, 2025 | Hall D | Poster Session B: 11:30 AM- 1:00 PM- Poster Code: B-080 Framework for Real-World Data Used in Regulatory Submissions Discover our framework, which operationalizes regulatory guidelines about real-world data into key steps for submission readiness. - Tuesday Aug 26, 2025 | Hall D | Poster Session C: 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM- Poster Code: C-124 About Landmark Science, Science, Inc. is a premier life science research organization providing real-world evidence and health outcomes research solutions. The company provides a comprehensive suite of services enabling the use of RWE to help patients. Landmark Science's team of experts deliver RWE for clinical program strategy, health economics, commercial, market access, regulators, and payors to meet diverse needs efficiently. Specialties include complex study designs used to support regulatory submissions, therapeutic area expertise, and data landscaping. To learn more, please visit or contact info@ Media Contact:Landmark Sciencemedia@ (424) 535-3011https:// View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Landmark Science, Inc
Scientific American
32 minutes ago
- Scientific American
How Scientists Finally Learned That Nerves Regrow
Billions of nerve cells send signals coursing through our bodies, serving as conduits through which the brain performs its essential functions. For millennia physicians thought damage to nerves was irreversible. In ancient Greece, founders of modern medicine such as Hippocrates and Galen refused to operate on damaged nerves for fear of causing pain, convulsions or even death. The dogma stood relatively still until the past two centuries, during which surgeons and scientists found evidence that neurons in the body and brain can repair themselves and regenerate after injury and that new nerve cells can grow throughout the lifespan. In recent decades this knowledge has inspired promising treatments for nerve injuries and has led researchers to investigate interventions for neurodegenerative disease. In humans and other vertebrates, the nervous system is split into two parts: the central nervous system, composed of the spinal cord and brain, and the peripheral nervous system, which connects the brain to the rest of the body. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Attempts to suture together the ends of damaged neurons in the peripheral nervous system date back to the seventh century. It was only in the late 1800s, however, that scientists began to understand how, exactly, nerves regenerate. Through his experiments on frogs, British physiologist Augustus Waller described in detail what happens to a peripheral nerve after injury. Then, in the 1900s, the influential Spanish neuroanatomist Santiago Ramón y Cajal provided insight into how nerve regeneration occurs at the cellular level. Still, there remained fierce debate about whether stitching nerves together would harm more than help. It was against the backdrop of bloody world wars of the 20th century that physicians finally made significant advances in techniques to restore damaged neurons. To treat soldiers with devastating wounds that typically involved nerve damage, doctors developed methods such as nerve grafts, in which pieces of nerves are transplanted into the gap in a broken nerve. Over time physicians learned that some peripheral nerve injuries are more conducive to repair than others. Factors such as the timing, location and size of the injury, as well as the age of the patient, can significantly impact the success of any given intervention. Crushed nerves are likelier than cut ones to be repaired, and injuries that occur closer to a nerve's target tissue have a greater chance of regaining function than those that occur farther away. Take the ulnar nerve, which stretches the entire length of the arm and controls key muscles in the lower arm and hand. A person with nerve damage near the wrist is much more likely to regain function in the arm and hand after undergoing treatment than someone who injures the same nerve near the shoulder, in which case it must regrow from the shoulder all the way to the wrist. Even today many peripheral nerve injuries remain difficult to treat, and scientists are striving to better understand the mechanisms of regeneration to facilitate healing. One notable development in recent years, according to neurologist Ahmet Höke of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, is a 'nerve transfer,' in which a branch of a nearby nerve is rerouted to a damaged nerve. In cases where, for example, a nerve is damaged far from its target muscle, existing techniques may not be sufficient to enable regrowth across the long distances involved within a time frame allowing for recovery. This detour provides an alternative pathway to regain function. Susan Mackinnon, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, has largely driven the advances in nerve transfer, enabling patients to use their limbs after peripheral nerve injuries that previously would have led to a permanent loss of movement in them. For instance, Oskar Hanson, a high school baseball player, lost sensation and movement in most of his left arm after a surgery to mend a ligament injury ended up damaging the ulnar nerve in that arm. 'There was zero hope that he would be able to have use of his arm again,' says his mother, Patricia Hanson. But after Mackinnon performed a nerve transfer procedure, most of the function returned. 'She saved his life with that surgery,' Hanson says. Despite the leaps that were made in treating peripheral nerve injuries, the notion that neurons within the central nervous system—the brain and spinal cord—were incapable of regrowth persisted until the late 20th century. A pivotal moment came in the early 1980s, when Canadian neuroscientist Albert Aguayo and his colleagues demonstrated that in rats, neurons of the spinal cord and brain stem could regrow when segments of peripheral nerves were grafted into the site of injury. These findings revealed that neurons of the central nervous system can also regenerate, Höke says: 'They just needed the appropriate environment.' In succeeding years, neuroscientists worked to uncover what, exactly, that environment looked like. To do so, they searched for differences in the peripheral and central nervous systems that could explain why the former was better able to repair damaged neurons. Several key differences emerged. For example, only injuries within the central nervous system led to the formation of glial scars—masses of nonneuronal cells known as glial cells. The purpose of these scars is still debated, however. Today the search for the specific mechanisms that prevent or enable neuron regrowth—in both the body and the brain—remains an active area of investigation. In addition to uncovering the processes at play in humans, scientists have pinpointed molecules that enable nerve cell repair in other organisms, such as 'fusogens,' gluelike molecules found in nematodes. Researchers are attempting to harness fusogens to help with difficult-to-treat human nerve injuries. Modern neuroscientists have also challenged another long-standing doctrine in the field: the belief that the adult brain does not engage in neurogenesis, the creation of brand-new nerve cells. Early clues for neurogenesis in the brain emerged in the 1960s, when researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology observed signs of neurons dividing in the brains of adult rats. At the time, these findings were met with skepticism, says Rusty Gage, a professor of genetics at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif. 'It was just too hard to believe.' Then, in the early 1980s, neuroscientist Fernando Nottebohm of the Rockefeller University discovered that in male songbirds, the size of the brain region associated with song-making changed with the seasons. Nottebohm and his colleagues went on to show that cells in the animals' brains died and regenerated with the seasons. Inspired by these findings, researchers looked for signs of adult neurogenesis in other animals. In 1998 Gage and his colleagues revealed evidence of this process occurring in the brains of adult humans—specifically within the hippocampus, a region linked with learning and memory. Although support for adult neurogenesis in humans has amassed over the years, some experts still debate its existence. In 2018 a team co-led by Arturo Alvarez-Buylla, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Francisco, who had worked with Nottebohm on songbirds, published a study stating that the formation of new neurons was extremely rare, and likely nonexistent, in adult human brains. Still, there's a growing consensus that neurogenesis does happen later in life —and that this growth appears to be largely limited to certain parts of the brain, such as the hippocampus. This past July a team at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden reported that the molecular signatures of precursors of neurons, known as neural progenitor cells, were present in the human brain across the lifespan—from infancy into old age. Researchers are now trying to understand the purpose of these budding nerve cells and asking whether they might offer clues for treating neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. Some scientists are even exploring whether, by targeting neurogenesis, they can improve the symptoms of psychiatric conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Understanding that a neuron can regrow and be repaired and identifying details of that process has been a great achievement, says Massimo Hilliard, a cellular and molecular neurobiologist at the University of Queensland in Australia. The next step, he adds, will be figuring out how to control these processes: 'That's going to be key.'
Time Magazine
33 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The AIDS Crisis Offers a Warning About Trump's Research Cuts
During a sweaty night in Houston 33 years ago, on Aug. 19, 1992, I spoke to the Republican National Convention and, via television, to millions of others. My speech, 'A Whisper of AIDS,' took 13 minutes of the four or five years I was told I had left. I had AIDS. Everyone said it would kill me. However, I did not die. Thanks to incredible medical research, AIDS was converted from certain death to possible life for those with access to new drugs. Today about 1.2 million Americans live with HIV/AIDS and 50,000 or so are added to this total each year. Thanks to drugs many people can't afford, an AIDs diagnosis is no longer a death sentence. Medicaid is redemptive. Federal resources save lives. And I am alive to bear witness to the danger that still lurks in our communities, to the enormous cost already paid in money and lives, and to the tremendous advancements we are making against this disease. If we're willing to learn, our experience with AIDS offers some lessons. For example: Science, if persistently supported, can generate miracles. Science has kept me alive all these years. Science has virtually eradicated vertical (mother-to-child) HIV transmission for a few pennies per person. The miracles are within reach. But if scientific funding is stopped, so are the miracles. The Trump Administration has gutted America's AIDS eradication program and HIV research initiatives. Republicans have simultaneously provided a historic tax cut for wealthy Americans. The unpleasant truth is that these policies are a reflection of a broader belief that some lives are more valuable than others. As the philosophy goes: Infants in, say, Sudan can be allowed to die because their lives aren't as important as American's. And funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which feeds hungry families and school kids, can be cut because their lives don't matter as much as wealthy Americans need a tax break. Burdening the poor with greater poverty while lightening the tax load of the most wealthy, to paraphrase Bill Gates, smacks of the richest people in the world killing the poorest children in the world. The dilemma we faced with the AIDS crisis, and we face again today with President Donald Trump's reckless dismantling of domestic and international programs, is that those setting the rules believe they themselves will not be impacted. What it will take to change minds, as we learned in the AIDS epidemic, is a personal encounter with the truth—and with the repercussions of their actions. When a Republican Congressman who voted for Trump's budget learns that his mother's rural nursing home has been closed, and there's no other one within a hundred miles, then he may care. When his eight-year-old daughter is given a terminal diagnosis, and his prayers for a miracle are not answered because research has been starved of needed funds, then he may care. When the consequences are close enough, personal enough, painful enough, we begin to care. When we care enough about hunger, we can and will solve it—just like when we cared enough about AIDS, we were able to make huge strides. But right now, we simply do not care enough. The AIDS epidemic taught us that until we are personally touched by the truth, we're not likely to care; and until we care, we'll stand by, hands in pockets, looking the other way. Cuts in USAID programs alone will result in the deaths of 14 million people, maybe more, who might have otherwise lived. But if their deaths are in another place, somewhere we won't be bothered by seeing them, we just don't care. If we wait until we care enough, we'll learn the lesson of Pastor Niemoeller who said of Nazi Germany: 'They came after the Jews and I was not a Jew, so I did not protest. They came after the trade unionists and I was not a trade unionist, so I did not protest. They came after the Roman Catholics and I was not a Roman Catholic, so I did not protest. Then they came after me, and there was no one left to protest.' It's an old warning, one I cited in a speech to Republicans 33 years ago. If we wait too long, and if we refuse to care about the lives of others, we will all eventually feel the consequences. Then we will care.
