Patty Prewitt: I finally got justice, but Missouri's legal system needs major reform
When you're accused of doing something you didn't do, that's bad enough. But when you're accused of a heinous act, arrested, convicted and locked away in prison for decades — that's brutal. But that's exactly what happened to me after my husband was murdered 41 years ago. I spent nearly 40 years in prison for a crime I didn't commit. During those years, my supporters and I petitioned every governor and every court asking for justice. These pleas, for the most part, fell on deaf ears.
On Dec. 20, only a few months ago, I was released. Outgoing Gov. Mike Parson commuted my sentence of life with no parole for 50 years. Although I'm innocent, I'll be on parole forever, paying $30 a month for the privilege. I'm still a convicted murderer in the eyes of the law. Over half of my life was wasted behind razor wire.
But freedom is a wonderful gift. I'm surrounded by loved ones, safe and warm in a beautiful home, and I enjoy every single minute of every day filled with unlimited hugs and snuggles, kisses, laughter, a soft bed, good and nutritious food, sweet dogs and cats that also are family, a bathtub, Alexa who knows all the songs, and quality time with my kids and fascinating grandchildren.
People keep asking if I'm overwhelmed. No, I'm not. Going to prison was overwhelming. Coming home is what I've been training for all these decades.
I have plenty of support, but many do not. How could I make it to parole meetings in Independence from Greenwood if I didn't have people with vehicles? I'm 75, so I don't have to find a job. How do younger parolees find work with no transportation and no suitable clothing? We need to do better for parolees who need help. I still haven't successfully signed up for Medicare. What a struggle.
Missouri needs to create a better method for applying for clemency with accountability and transparency. The current method is cloaked in secrecy and bogged down by poor organization. There were governors who not once acknowledged my clemency application or the thousands of calls, letters or emails from taxpaying citizens demanding my freedom. My successful clemency application was filed in May of 2010.
Before I experienced our justice system firsthand, I honestly believed that branch of government found and dispensed justice. The average person would be appalled at how poorly trials are conducted in America. The Midwest Innocence Project does the work that should have been done in the original court. Furthermore, our courts need to be more open to post-conviction appeals. For judges to deny DNA testing is ridiculous. What harm is a scientific test to a judge who is not paying for it?
I won't even go into how awful our prisons are in every way. I feel bad for all the good women I left behind. Most female inmates are mothers who were the primary caregivers for their children. Either a family member or the state must take responsibility for these brokenhearted children. Inmates are hidden in the shadows and our children suffer.
Now that I'm free, what am I doing now? I got my driver's license. I'm looking forward to good weather. I hope to be able to see a dentist and a primary care doctor soon. I'm studying to complete my bachelor's degree in humanities from Washington University in the fall. I'm also studying theater and literature with Prison Performing Arts in St. Louis. I'm petitioning for a pardon from Gov. Mike Kehoe, and my memoir 'Trying to Catch Lighting in a Jar,' describing my first 20 years in prison, will be published in May.
Meanwhile, I'm thankful and ecstatic to be free. I send my gratitude to everyone who supports justice, but there are still many changes that must come about to prevent others from suffering the injustice that I did.
Patty Prewitt is a native of Lone Jack and Lee's Summit class of 1967. She has four children, nine grandchildren and four great-grands.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Time For Medicare Advantage Leaders—Including Me—To Eat Our Own Cooking
Dr. Oz just turned 65 and became a Medicare beneficiary. Everyone who operates a Medicare plan ... More should be required to be one as well. In every industry, the best leaders live the experience of the customer. Car executives drive their own vehicles. Airline leaders occasionally fly coach. Restauranteurs eat from their own kitchen. But in healthcare—and specifically in Medicare Advantage (MA), which now serves more than 30 million Americans—the leaders designing these plans rarely, if ever, use them themselves. This disconnect breeds an empathy gap between decision-makers and the seniors whose lives and well-being depend on these products. It's time to close that gap. As Dr. Mehmet Oz turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare, he is in a unique position to lead the charge in fixing this blind spot. But I'm not letting myself off the hook either. As a current CEO of company that sells Medicare Advantage plans, I am proposing a standard that would apply to me and every other leader in this space: if you run a Medicare Advantage plan—or sit on its executive team that runs these plans—you should be required to enroll in that plan. No carve-outs. No executive-only exemptions. No platinum side-door coverage. For those of us under 65, the proposal would also require a structural change: expanding Medicare eligibility to allow MA plan executives early, voluntary enrollment in their own plans. We should not be allowed to claim ignorance or detachment simply because of our age. I want to be clear: if such an early-enrollment window existed, I would enroll myself. I should have to live under the same benefit design, customer service, and network constraints as every other member. Leaders like me—and my peers across the industry—must eat our own cooking.A Modest But Necessary Reform The proposal is simple but powerful: 1. All managed care CEOs and executive teams must enroll in their own MA plan. 2. Congress and CMS should create a new category of Medicare eligibility that allows executives under 65 to voluntarily enroll in their own MA plans in a 'test user' capacity. This is the only way for leadership to truly understand the member experience. 3. No waivers, no special coverage allowances. The goal is to force leadership to live the true plan reality: the prior authorizations, the formularies, the network restrictions, the call centers, the appeals It Matters—for Me, and for the Industry I don't make this proposal lightly—because it would apply to me, too. If this became law or industry standard tomorrow, I would sign up. And I believe most honest leaders would welcome the clarity and accountability it would bring. Here's why it matters:- Operational Truth: You only truly understand the friction points—customer service delays, billing errors, prescription denials—if you live them yourself.- Accountability: Plan leaders would no longer tolerate broken systems they themselves have to endure.- Culture Change: A company where the C-suite shares the same risks and frustrations as members cannot help but become more consumer-focused.- Public Trust: Medicare Advantage is under increasing scrutiny from policymakers and the public. This move would send a clear, ethical signal: we stand behind what we sell.- Policy Innovation: The best ideas for simplifying prior authorization, improving networks, and reducing out-of-pocket costs would come not from distant consultants—but from firsthand More 'Not For Me' Products Too much of healthcare is designed by people who never have to use it. Too many decisions are made in corporate conference rooms far removed from the lived experience of real patients. If Medicare Advantage is the future of healthcare for seniors—as so many believe—its architects must also live that future. That includes Dr. Oz. That includes every MA CEO. And that includes me. It's time for all of us to eat our own cooking.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
An Open Letter to the President: Addressing our Debt
Donald J. TrumpThe Mar-a-Lago Club1100 South Ocean BoulevardPalm Beach, Florida Dear President Trump: I voted for you in all three of your presidential campaigns. The first time, I cast my vote with cautious optimism. The third time, with enthusiasm. And I contributed financially to your campaign. You have achieved what few thought possible - a triumphant return, driven by a deep-seated belief among millions of Americans that only you can effectively challenge the entrenched political establishment. Your first 100 days were extraordinary, but if your presidency is to be remembered not just as bold but also historic, one challenge must rise above all others: - the national debt. The national debt, currently $37 trillion, is the result of pervasive fiscal irresponsibility, accumulated over many decades. Our annual interest payments now exceed $1trillion - more than we spend on our national defense. This is not just a financial burden. It is a threat to the survival of our country as a democratic republic. Without immediate, decisive action, the consequences are predictable: more credit downgrades, more increases in interest rates, and crippling obligations to service the debt. What would happen to our great country if annual interest payments exceeded not just our defense budget but also Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare? Mr. President, if we are to remain a vibrant nation, this exploding national debt has to be attacked immediately and significantly. That will not happen without your leadership. Sadly, the Republican Party has shown that it is not a reliable ally. Even before Republicans regained control of the House, they held a secret vote. By a margin of 158 to 2 they brought back earmarks - the very same pork barrel spending practices that Speaker John Boehner put to bed. Since then, the Democratic Congress never dared to bring back earmarks. House Republicans did. The results were predictable, and immediate: $16 billion in earmarks. More than 7,500 pet projects. In the Senate, eight of the 12 largest earmarkers are Republicans. In the House, 48 of the top earmarkers are Republicans. Here are the largest earmarkers: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine (population 1.4 million) secured $870 million in earmarks. Sen. Lisa Murkowski grabbed $851.1 million in earmarks. Sen. Mitch McConnell took nearly $500 million in earmarks. My own congressman, Brian Mast, walked away with $437 million in earmarks. Obviously, eliminating pork barrel spending wont, by itself, address the structural problems in Washingtons budget process - or make the "big, beautiful bill" currently being debated in Congress deficit-neutral. But if members of Congress cant even control themselves, what kind of example do they set for the American people? How can politicians ask their fellow Americans to sacrifice when they wont do it themselves? Actions speak louder than words. Fiscal irresponsibility dominates the culture within Congress, within our government. That culture, obviously, will not change on its own. It can be changed. But only with your leadership. Mr. President, fortunately, today you have a tool to attack waste, fraud, duplication, and incompetence. Because of the cloud, Big Data, and the Freedom of Information Act, you can deliver every government expenditure to every citizens cell phone, iPad, and computer. You can bring a new era to government, i.e., transparency. Mr. President, you can be the launch pad for transparency. Imagine a government where every single taxpayer dollar that government spends is tracked and reported to the public. Imagine the cultural shift from secret votes, from wasteful spending to one where every government official knows their budgets will be scrutinized in detail. Mr. President, here are several all-encompassing, culture-changing, deficit-attacking actions you can announce tomorrow: Lead by example: Cut White House expenses by a defined percentage. Report the savings to the public every quarter. Challenge Congress: Ask every member to cut their office and committee budgets. Suggest at least 10%. Publish a quarterly report on every senator and representative. Eliminate pork-barrel projects: Call on Congress to abolish earmarks. Shine a light on every remaining earmarker until they fall in line. Mobilize the bureaucracy: Instruct all agencies to focus on rooting out waste, fraud, duplication, and incompetence, and report the progress quarterly. Say explicitly that you will monitor progress and report the bold and expose the complacent. Bringing transparency to government can do more than clean up wasted taxpayer dollars. It can rebuild trust. It can remind the American people that the government can still work for them. It will solidify your legacy as the chief executive who did not just talk about draining the swamp, you did it. Imagine our country if we did not have to spend $1 trillion each year on interest payments. That is the future Americans deserve. Mr. President, you have been given a historic mandate. You can leave office with a legacy as the president who did not just promise to "Make America Great Again," but who actually did it. America cannot be made great again without addressing the greatest threat to our countrys survival as a democratic republic - the exploding national debt. Respectfully, Thomas W. Smith Thomas W. Smith is the founder of Prescott Investors, Inc.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The cost of staying alive could become a lot more expensive for millions of Americans because of Trump drug tariffs
Americans would likely pay more for necessary everyday prescription drugs, such as insulin, painkillers, chemotherapy, or antibiotics, if President Donald Trump were to enact tariffs on pharmaceuticals, experts warn. In an effort to incentivize drug manufacturers to bring production back to the United States, Trump has proposed tariffing pharmaceuticals made overseas – which account for an overwhelming majority of everyday medicine used in the U.S. 'We're going to be doing that,' Trump said of pharmaceutical tariffs in April. 'That's going to be like we have on cars. You know we have a 25 percent tariff on cars, we have a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and that's what the [pharmaceutical] category fits right now.' 'The higher the tariff, the faster they come,' Trump said. But experts say that's not necessarily true and there would be tangible consequences to such action, from higher brand-name drug prices to generic drug shortages. 'If tariffs were applied to prescription drugs, one of the most immediate consequences could be price increases — on prices that we already pay way in excess of other countries,' Dr. Mariana Socal, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said. The U.S. imports a majority of its branded prescription drugs – or medications that are patented with a brand name such as Viagra, Wegovy, or Zoloft – from high-income countries. Dr. Jeromie Ballreich, an associated research professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said much of the manufacturing comes from Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland because they have favorable tax policies for companies. As a result, adding a tariff would only make it more expensive for pharmacies and insurance companies to keep them in supply. 'We would expect pharma to pass the costs onto the insurers and we would expect insurers to pass the cost onto the individual patients,' Ballreich said. 'So, if there is a 50 percent tariff on your insulin product because it's coming from Ireland, patients in Mississippi who get insulin – they will either be faced with a higher cost when they go up to the pharmacy to fill their insulin or they're going to face a higher indirect cost because the premiums of the insurance plan are going to go up,' he said. Ballreich said a tariff on countries that produce high quantities of branded drugs would put 'pressure' on public insurers like Medicare or Medicaid and private insurers. However, branded drugs only account for roughly 10 to 15 percent of prescriptions. A majority of Americans, up to 90 percent, use generic drugs, often manufactured in India and China, because they're cheaper. Making branded drugs less accessible through tariffs would only increase reliance on generic drugs, which could exacerbate shortages that already impact millions of Americans. '[Shortages] can have very significant implications in day-to-day clinical practice,' Socal said. 'For example, if you are administering chemotherapy for an oncology patient, that may have significant consequences even for the prognosis of that case moving forward.' In 2024, the U.S. experienced a shortage of more than 300 drugs – 70 percent of which were generic prescriptions. Socal said that when patients are not able to access a more affordable version of their prescription, it means they may put their health at risk by skipping a dosage, taking a lower dosage, or not filling their prescription at all. Otherwise, they're forced to turn to the more expensive branded version. 'Those more expensive drugs are not always the best,' Socal said. 'Very frequently, and we saw this with chemotherapy shortages, the available drugs are second-line drugs.' The president has indicated that any negative impact from tariffs may be temporary and worth it to bring manufacturing and jobs back. 'We're doing it because we want to make our own drugs,' Trump said. But Ballreich and Socal are more skeptical. 'Tariffs are a very blunt instrument to incentivize domestic U.S. manufacturing of the branded drugs we use,' Ballreich said. Given pharmaceutical companies have moved outside of the U.S. for tax purposes, Ballreich says tax policy may be a better way to incentivize them, especially since many of those drugs are more difficult to manufacture. 'It's not just a very simple chemical plant; these tend to be very complex,' he said. Socal suggested a better strategy would be to understand where drugs are being manufactured and which ones would make more sense to bring to the U.S. — since even those manufactured locally often rely on certain imported ingredients and materials. 'Having tariffs on pharmaceutical products coming from abroad can actually also hurt our domestic manufacturers,' he says. While the president has not officially implemented any tariff policy on pharmaceuticals yet, he said, in April, that the plan would take effect in the 'not too distant future.'
