This Wisconsin couple is suing Walgreens, Optum Rx after their 22-year-old son died of asthma attack
In January 2024, 22-year-old Cole Schmidtknecht went to Walgreens to fill a prescription for an asthma inhaler.
He was told the price of the inhaler had increased from $66 to $539 out-of-pocket, reports CBS News.
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
A near-record number of Americans are grappling with $1,000 car payments and many drivers can't keep up. Here are 3 ways to stay ahead
Protect your retirement savings with these 5 essential money moves — most of which you can complete in just minutes
Unable to afford the cost, Schmidtknecht left the pharmacy without filling his prescription and tried to manage with just his rescue inhaler. Days later, he suffered a fatal asthma attack.
His parents have now filed a lawsuit against both the pharmacy benefits-management company and Walgreens, claiming they are responsible for their son's death.
The Schmidtknechts' lawsuit alleges that the benefits company, Optum RX, owned by UnitedHealth Group, violated Wisconsin law by increasing the prescription's cost without a valid medical reason and failing to provide 30 days' notice of the price increase.
The lawsuit claims that the 30-day notice period would have given Cole time to visit his doctor and request an exception to the price increase. It also alleges that he was not offered a free or discounted inhaler while he sought assistance from his provider and that Walgreens informed him that there were no lower-cost alternatives or generic options available.
Cole's parents say he had to choose between paying his rent and covering his medication. Five days later, he suffered a severe asthma attack and died due to cardiac arrest.
WSAZ News contacted Optum Rx for a response to the situation. A spokesperson wrote, 'Mr. Schmidtknecht's death was tragic, and our thoughts are with his family. The claims made are factually inaccurate.'
Walgreens declined to offer a comment.
Cole's death is not an isolated incident. The American Hospital Association reported that nearly 30% of Americans say they haven't taken their medication as prescribed due to the high cost. It also estimates more than a million Medicare patients could die in the next decade because they cannot afford their medications.
Read more: Home prices in America could fly through the roof in 2025 — here's the big reason why and how to take full advantage (with as little as $10)
As the cost of living increases, affording life-saving or even just life-improving medications has become a constant battle for many Americans. However, there are steps you can take to ensure you have the medication you need.
Some pharmacies offer discounts or generic options for brand-name prescriptions. Always ask the pharmacy if there is a way to lower the price. Websites like GoodRX, SingleCare, or the manufacturer of the drug may also offer discounts if your insurance plan doesn't cover your medication.
Many drug companies offer patient assistance programs (PAPs). These programs are designed to help those who can't afford their medications. Most have their own application process, and the requirements can vary. If you are low-income or your insurance does not cover the medication, you may qualify.
If your current pharmacy won't work with you, consider alternatives. Online pharmacies, like Cost Plus, have lower overhead costs, which allows them to offer prescription drugs at a reduced rate. Advair Diskus, the medication Cole required to treat his asthma, is available on the site for just under $100.
If you're having trouble affording medications, your doctor may be your best resource. They may be able to switch your prescription to one your insurance covers or recommend a PAP to lower the cost. For some medications, the doctor may be able to offer samples or coupons.
Cole's death highlights a growing crisis in the U.S. If you are facing a similar struggle, there are options available.
Jamie Dimon issues a warning about the US stock market — says prices are 'kind of inflated.' Crashproof your portfolio with these 3 rock-solid strategies
One dozen eggs in America now costs $4.15 — and $14.35 for a pound of sirloin steak. Both record highs. 3 simple ways to protect your wealth in 2025
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP braces for first ‘test run' on codifying DOGE cuts
Congressional Republicans are gearing up for a major test of how easily they can lock in cuts sought by President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he aims to have the House act swiftly on approving Trump's request for more than $9 billion in cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting funding. That package is expected to hit the floor this week. 'We haven't done anything like this in a while, so this is probably, in some ways, a test run,' House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told reporters. Trump last week sent Congress a request for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to NPR and PBS. The request kick-starts a process that would allow Republicans to claw back funds for a list of programs on the administration's chopping block with just a simple majority in both chambers. That means Republicans wouldn't require Democratic votes in the Senate if they can stay mostly unified in greenlighting what's known as a rescissions package. But it's been decades since Congress has approved such a request to yank back funds previously greenlighted by lawmakers. Trump tried to use the same process to rescind funds in his first term but was unsuccessful, despite Republicans controlling the House, Senate and White House at the time. Republicans are bullish that this time will be different, however. '[Trump's] done this before, and they've got a great team, I think, in place,' Cole said. 'They've thought about these things a lot in the time in between his first and his second term.' 'They just seem to me to be much more sure-footed, and there's no question, the president has much more influence inside the Republican Party than he had during his first term,' Cole added. Still, some Republicans have expressed concerns about parts of the request. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) voiced opposition last week to cutting the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), saying Wednesday that the idea makes 'no sense' to her 'whatsoever.' 'Given the extraordinary record of PEPFAR in saving lives, it has literally saved millions of lives, and so I do not see a basis for cutting it,' she said. And not all Republicans are thrilled by the proposed cuts to public broadcasting in the plan, which calls for rescinding $535 million in both fiscal 2026 and 2027. 'You go to rural America, public television is how you get emergency broadcasting and all that kind of stuff,' Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, said Thursday. 'I look at Idaho Public Television, they're a great organization, and we don't see the politics that some states do in them, or at least they believe they see that and stuff.' However, Simpson said he still intends to support the overall package. 'I don't think in the long run, the rescissions are going to hurt them, because we're talking about the advanced appropriations and stuff like that.' 'What they're concerned about is, and should be, is the next year's appropriation process and stuff,' he continued. On its website, DOGE estimates that it's racked up $180 billion in savings as of June 3 through a combination of efforts like asset sales, contract cancellations and renegotiations, 'fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations' and workforce reductions. And White House budget chief Russell Vought signaled further special requests to lock in more DOGE cuts could be on the way when pressed on the matter during a budget hearing last week, particularly as the administration's ongoing efforts to shrink the government have been tangled up in courts. But he also said it's 'very important' for this first package of cuts to pass, adding, 'If it does, it'll be worth the effort and we'll send up additional packages.' 'We are very anxious to see the reception from a vote standpoint in the House and the Senate,' Vought said, though he added, 'I'm less concerned about the House as I am in the Senate.' Some Republicans see the package introduced this week as potentially the easiest one to deal with, as many in the party have been critical of foreign aid and funds going to outlets like PBS and NPR, which they've accused of political bias. In a statement promoting the package on the social platform X, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Friday touted the president's request as cutting '$9.4 BILLION in wasteful spending' while holding 'bureaucrats accountable to the American people.' The package would target dollars for items like migration and refugee assistance that the administration says support activities that 'could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors,' USAID efforts they say have been used to 'fund radical gender and climate projects,' and development assistance they argued 'conflict with American values' and 'interfere with the sovereignty of other countries,' among other rescissions. Funding would also be eliminated for the United Nations Children's Fund, U.N. Development Program and the U.N. Population Fund under the proposal, as well as the World Health Organization and 'portions of the U.N. Regular Budget for the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.' Democrats, meanwhile, have come out in strong opposition to the plan, accusing Trump of seeking political retribution and undermining foreign assistance efforts. They've also signaled trouble down the line when it comes time for both sides to negotiate a funding deal for fiscal 2026 — when Democratic support will likely be necessary to keep the government open in early fall. 'It's going to make it very difficult for us to do bipartisan bills if we believe that he's just going to send rescissions over for whatever they want or don't want in a bipartisan agreement,' Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told The Hill this week. 'They need Democratic votes.' There's been some GOP frustration over the administration's handling of the annual funding work as well, as lawmakers on both sides have pressed the White House for more information about its budget plans in recent weeks. 'If we're getting to the point where we are right now, where we have a [funding stopgap], where we don't really have spend plans that are meaningful, now we have the administration transferring to the Congress their desires with rescission,' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, said. 'I don't want to be a committee that no longer has a purpose. The role that we play is significant.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code
As Congress crafts yet another budget, it is time to confront a quiet enabler of America's growing wealth gap: the way we tax corporate profits. The U.S. corporate tax system is a maze of complexity, distortion and avoidance. At the same time, the richest Americans — who own the lion's share of corporate stock — see their wealth balloon not from income, but from capital appreciation fueled by retained corporate earnings. They pay little or nothing in taxes until they choose to sell — if ever. Here is a simple idea that could transform that system: Replace the corporate income tax with a flat tax on retained earnings. Instead of taxing corporate profits on paper, tax the portion that companies choose not to distribute — those retained earnings that quietly accumulate on balance sheets, inflate stock values and end up driving inequality. The logic is straightforward. Retained earnings represent profits that aren't reinvested in capital or returned to shareholders. They sit — often offshore and untaxed — fueling stock buybacks or simply increasing book value. Meanwhile, shareholders can borrow against those unrealized gains, grow richer by the year and legally avoid income tax altogether. Under the current system, corporations face a 21 percent statutory income tax rate. But due to loopholes and global tax arbitrage, the effective rate is often much lower — closer to between 9 percent and 15 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of stocks and mutual fund wealth, much of which compounds through retained earnings without triggering taxable events. A 20 percent flat tax on retained earnings, applied at the corporate level, would be lower than the statutory income tax but much harder to evade. It would simplify the tax code, eliminate gamesmanship and ensure that profits benefit society, whether distributed or not. Companies could avoid the tax by issuing dividends — thereby transferring the tax burden to shareholders, who would then pay ordinary dividend taxes. Or companies could reinvest in productive capital expenditures or research and development, which could be exempted from the tax base. People often complain that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A retained earnings tax addresses this directly, since the wealthy are by far the largest shareholders. By inducing higher dividend payouts, the tax would convert more untaxed wealth into taxable income — ensuring the rich pay more, proportionally and predictably. This plan is fair. Wealth would no longer accumulate tax-free inside corporations. Ultra-wealthy shareholders would see more of their income flow to dividends, triggering taxes like ordinary Americans face on wages. In 2024, S&P 500 companies earned approximately $1.9 trillion in pre-tax profits. Of that, they paid only about $248 billion in corporate taxes — just 13 percent of total profits — and distributed around $650 billion in dividends to shareholders. That left well over $1 trillion in earnings to be retained or used for stock buybacks. A 20 percent tax on just the retained portion — estimated near $870 billion — would yield $174 billion annually. More importantly, it would encourage companies to issue more dividends — triggering personal income tax obligations at rates of 15 percent to 23.8 percent. For the first time in decades, untaxed paper wealth held by the ultra-rich would convert into real, taxable income. This plan is earnings are already reported as a line item on corporate financial statements, so no need for armies of tax accountants. This plan also encourages efficiency. Corporations would be nudged to either distribute profits or reinvest productively — reducing hoarding, stock buybacks and financial manipulation. The scale of profit hoarding is not theoretical. As of late 2024, Apple held over $65 billion in cash and equivalents. Microsoft held more than $71 billion. Alphabet, parent company of Google, sat on over $95 billion and Amazon was at $100 billion. These figures represent retained capital sitting in balance sheets — largely untouched by taxation. In many cases, this hoarded cash fuels share repurchases or simply adds to paper valuations, thus benefiting the wealthiest shareholders while contributing nothing to public coffers. Of course, this idea has precedents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with an undistributed profits tax in the 1930s. Today, a version survives as the Accumulated Earnings Tax, but it's rarely enforced and easy to circumvent. This proposal is simpler, bolder and broader. Critics may worry this plan would discourage reinvestment or burden growth. But a well-designed system can exempt reinvested earnings tied to clear capital investment or innovation. What this proposal targets is not growth but excessive hoarding of profits that serves only the wealthy few. Others may fear that such a tax would prompt corporations to switch to alternative structures or shift operations abroad. But a retained earnings tax can be applied based on financial disclosures for U.S.-based public companies and expanded to large LLCs or partnerships. In fact, it may reduce incentives to move profits offshore, since it targets where wealth stays, not where it's reported. The politics are promising. A retained earnings tax is lower than the current corporate income tax — yet may raise more consistent, sustainable revenue. It eliminates the need to police every deduction, credit and carve-out. It also aligns with populist sentiments on both the left and right: no more tax-free stockpiling, no more billionaires (referred to by some today as 'oligarchs') borrowing off their gains while avoiding taxes. Congress has a chance to reset how we think about taxing wealth — not by chasing every dollar of income, but by targeting the retained profits that silently fuel inequality and sidestep the tax system. Fixing the corporate tax code is essential not just for raising revenue but for restoring fairness, transparency and trust in the American economic compact. Peter D. Wells is principal at Ancient Wisdom Consulting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Cory Booker says he won't accept campaign donations from Elon Musk
Sen. Cory Booker on Sunday said he would not accept campaign donations from tech mogul Elon Musk but urged the former Trump adviser to 'get involved right now in a more substantive way' in Democrats' push against the sweeping GOP-backed spending bill. 'This bill is disastrous for our long-term economy,' Booker told NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'This is an American issue, and I welcome Elon Musk not to my campaign. I welcome him right now, not to sit back and just fire off tweets, get involved right now in a more substantive way in putting pressure on Congress people and senators to not do this.' Asked directly whether he would ever accept campaign funding from Musk, Booker said, 'I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign, but I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know' about the bill. Booker's remarks come as other Democrats, like Rep. Ro Khanna of California, have floated welcoming Musk into the Democratic Party after a feud between President Donald Trump and the Tesla and SpaceX CEO exploded into public view last week. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' Khanna told Politico last week after Musk and Trump fired off a series of social media posts criticizing each other. The falling out started after Musk called the budget bill a 'disgusting abomination' in a post on X. In subsequent posts on Truth Social, the president accused Musk of 'wearing thin' and said 'he just went crazy.' Musk later accused Trump of 'ingratitude' in another post on X after he spent $250 million boosting Trump's campaign in 2024 and accused Trump of links to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post. On Saturday, in a phone call with NBC News, Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after their public spat. The president also responded to a direct question about what might happen if Musk decided to financially support Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections, days after Musk wrote in a post on X, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' appearing to refer to Republicans who voted for the GOP-backed spending bill in the House. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News, adding that there could be 'serious consequences.' In May, House Republicans passed a sweeping domestic policy bill called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that would extend tax cuts passed in the first Trump administration, increase funding for border security and eliminate federal taxes on tips and overtime pay. The bill has also drawn scrutiny from Democrats for slashing funding for Medicaid and some food stamps while adding work requirements for Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income Americans. Musk and some Senate Republicans have blasted the bill for estimated effects it could have on the federal debt and deficit, though Trump and House Republicans have downplayed those concerns. 'More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket as this president again pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans,' Booker said on Sunday. This article was originally published on
