Missouri Attorney General's office

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – On Wednesday, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that the United States Supreme Court upheld the court order he obtained at the Eighth Circuit blocking the Biden-Harris Administration’s latest illegal student loan cancellation scheme. Not one of the justices dissented.

“This is the second time the Supreme Court has sided with my office against one of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ unlawful student loan cancellation schemes,”&nbsp;said Attorney General Bailey.&nbsp;“This court order is a stark reminder&nbsp;to the Biden-Harris Administration that Congress did not grant them the authority to saddle working Americans with $500 billion in someone else’s Ivy League debt. This is a huge win for every American who still believes in paying their own way.”

The Eighth Circuit upheld the Eastern District of Missouri’s original preliminary injunction and took it even further, holding that “The Government is, for any borrower whose loans are governed in whole or in part by the terms of the Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 43820, enjoined from any further forgiveness of principal or interest, from not charging borrowers accrued interest, and from further implementing SAVE’s payment-threshold provisions. This injunction will remain in effect until further order of this court or the Supreme Court of the United States.”&nbsp;Today, the Supreme Court left it in place.&nbsp;

In 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Attorney General Bailey’s first&nbsp;challenge to the Biden Administration’s unilateral and unlawful wealth transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down Biden’s repayment plan as unconstitutional, citing the massive $430 billion-plus impact on the federal budget without express authority from Congress. The Court held that Missouri’s student loan servicing company, MOHELA, was an arm of Missouri’s state government, and therefore, granted the states standing to challenge the student loan plan.

Joining General Bailey in filing suit the second time around were the attorneys general of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

In the suit, the States asserted, “Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the President to force teachers, truckers, and farmers to pay for the student loan debt of other Americans—to the enormous tune of $430 billion. In striking down that attempt, the Court declared that the President cannot ‘unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.’ Undeterred, the President is at it again, even bragging that ‘the Supreme Court blocked it. They blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.’”

The States noted,&nbsp;“Yet again, the President is unilaterally trying to impose an extraordinarily expensive and controversial policy that he could not get through Congress. This latest attempt to sidestep the Constitution is only the most recent instance in a long but troubling pattern of the President relying on innocuous language from decades-old statutes to impose drastic, costly policy changes on the American people without their consent.”

The Supreme Court’s order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=da4df09cee&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zfledXfo$">here.</a>

The Eighth Circuit’s original order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=7605c9fc9d&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zfl5VIzc$">here.</a>

The Eastern District of Missouri’s order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=e267cd52be&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zwgADoQU$">here.</a>

The original lawsuit can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=6218e34393&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zvs0ScmE$">here.</a>

Missouri Attorney General's officeJEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – On Wednesday, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that the United States Supreme Court upheld the court order he obtained at the Eighth Circuit blocking the Biden-Harris Administration’s latest illegal student loan cancellation scheme. Not one of the justices dissented.“This is the second time the Supreme Court has sided with my office against one of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ unlawful student loan cancellation schemes,”&nbsp;said Attorney General Bailey.&nbsp;“This court order is a stark reminder&nbsp;to the Biden-Harris Administration that Congress did not grant them the authority to saddle working Americans with $500 billion in someone else’s Ivy League debt. This is a huge win for every American who still believes in paying their own way.”The Eighth Circuit upheld the Eastern District of Missouri’s original preliminary injunction and took it even further, holding that “The Government is, for any borrower whose loans are governed in whole or in part by the terms of the Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 43820, enjoined from any further forgiveness of principal or interest, from not charging borrowers accrued interest, and from further implementing SAVE’s payment-threshold provisions. This injunction will remain in effect until further order of this court or the Supreme Court of the United States.”&nbsp;Today, the Supreme Court left it in place.&nbsp;In 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Attorney General Bailey’s first&nbsp;challenge to the Biden Administration’s unilateral and unlawful wealth transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down Biden’s repayment plan as unconstitutional, citing the massive $430 billion-plus impact on the federal budget without express authority from Congress. The Court held that Missouri’s student loan servicing company, MOHELA, was an arm of Missouri’s state government, and therefore, granted the states standing to challenge the student loan plan.Joining General Bailey in filing suit the second time around were the attorneys general of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.In the suit, the States asserted, “Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the President to force teachers, truckers, and farmers to pay for the student loan debt of other Americans—to the enormous tune of $430 billion. In striking down that attempt, the Court declared that the President cannot ‘unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.’ Undeterred, the President is at it again, even bragging that ‘the Supreme Court blocked it. They blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.’”The States noted,&nbsp;“Yet again, the President is unilaterally trying to impose an extraordinarily expensive and controversial policy that he could not get through Congress. This latest attempt to sidestep the Constitution is only the most recent instance in a long but troubling pattern of the President relying on innocuous language from decades-old statutes to impose drastic, costly policy changes on the American people without their consent.”The Supreme Court’s order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=da4df09cee&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zfledXfo$">here.</a>The Eighth Circuit’s original order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=7605c9fc9d&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zfl5VIzc$">here.</a>The Eastern District of Missouri’s order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=e267cd52be&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zwgADoQU$">here.</a>The original lawsuit can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&amp;id=6218e34393&amp;e=5061322ab3__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!Clp93Jrb7_OyQCbrZdlMgPoSTxoxC7mjMcz_EwiNtgQit7VefJ7GeqsPH2wMO9sABPggjF1Nd5NhKZ1zvs0ScmE$">here.</a>

Supreme Court upholds Mo. AG's court order blocking Biden-Harris student loan scheme

BY&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

Missouri legislative leaders are demanding answers from state education officials about a monthslong backlog in a child care subsidy program.

Two House committees — the budget committee and the education committee — have scheduled hearings into the matter next month, and a Republican Senate leader has called for her chamber to launch a similar inquiry.

“I think it is safe to say The Office of Childhood is a massive disaster,” Senate Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican from Shelbina,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/1312548800/posts/pfbid0rzwkp3qSZikSAxDunLENbhXBzsx7jaSXFiezPcV9FTmjhPMkWmFiubpZv6VNgqX8l/?app=fbl" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;in a Facebook post Tuesday, referring to the office within the&nbsp;Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that&nbsp;is responsible for administration of the subsidy.

“… instead of creating more child care,” she wrote, “this office is running day cares out of business.”

Child care providers have been struggling to keep their doors open, and in some cases forced to shutter, due to technical issues with the education department’s disbursal of federal funds.

State education officials have largely blamed a contracted vendor for the monthslong backlogs. The system launched in December after the program shifted from the Department of Social Services to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The subsidy, part of a federal block grant program that is state-administered, helps cover the cost for day care owners serving low-income and foster children. Some day cares&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/05/missouri-child-care-subsidy-providers-day-care-children/">rely on the program</a>&nbsp;to pay their staff.

O’Laughlin said due to the “incompetence” of the office, she is requesting that Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden appoint an interim committee to look into the issues.&nbsp;

The technology vendor, along with leadership of the Office of Childhood, parents and child care providers would be asked to testify, she wrote.

The vendor contracted to develop and implement the new system for the subsidy program is World Wide Technology, a large technology services provider headquartered in St. Louis.

In addition to O’Laughlin, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat running for governor, demanded that her chamber’s leadership create an interim committee to look into the issues surrounding the subsidy.&nbsp;

The problems administering the program have “escalated to the point of crisis, with families losing access to care,” Quade&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079422-8-22-interim-committee-request-1" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;in a letter last week to House Speaker Dean Plocher, “as some facilities have been forced to close, due in large part to the department’s failure to remit the payments owed in a timely manner.”

The education department has been “less than forthcoming” in communication, she wrote.&nbsp;

“Since members of the House Democratic Caucus are being inundated with pleas for help from desperate families and struggling providers,” Quade wrote, “I’m certain our Republican colleagues are as well.&nbsp;

“If the department is unable or unwilling to provide answers, it is our duty to demand them.”

Wednesday, Plocher&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079476-house-education-committee-to-hold-special-hearing-on-dese-childcare-payment-delays" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 10 to “investigate the causes and impacts of delays” in the state issuing child care payments.

A House Budget Committee hearing was already scheduled for Sept. 11 to discuss child care with the education agency.

“At any hearing that is scheduled with lawmakers,” the education department’s spokesperson, Mallory McGowin, said in an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079575-8-28-24-dese-comment" target="_blank">email</a>&nbsp;to The Independent, “DESE plans to be transparent about the challenges that exist, and the work being done to address the issues.”

McGowin said there are currently backlogs in family applications for subsidy assistance, provider contract applications, and in providers’ requests to resolve outstanding payment issues.

And there are ongoing issues getting providers their full payment: “Payments are being processed daily and providers are getting paid,” she said, “though some are not receiving full payment due to ongoing technical issues.”

Regarding the backlog of family applications, McGowin said the department has contracted with a staffing agency and expects it to be cleared by “mid to late September.” The department has also cross-trained additional staff to clear the backlog of provider contract applications. That backlog is expected to be cleared “by early to mid-September.”

Regarding outstanding payment issues, she said the current contractors have doubled their staff working on “issues preventing or delaying provider payments.” DESE has also contracted with an agency to clear the backlog of subsidy payment corrections and hired part-time workers to help process requests for missing payments. McGowin didn’t provide a timeline for the department overcoming the backlog of payment corrections.

“DESE recognizes the importance of subsidy payments to the child care industry and the value the program provides to Missouri’s workforce, in particular for families who provide care to children in foster care,” McGowin said.

McGowin encouraged parents and providers with questions to call the subsidy hotline at&nbsp;<a href="tel:5734158605" target="_blank">573-415-8605</a>.

“DESE and its contractors, World Wide Technology and MTX, are working hard to address these issues and sincerely apologizes to the child care providers and families affected by this transition,” she said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724869100628.png" alt=" Child care providers have been struggling to keep their doors open, and in some cases forced to shutter, due to technical issues with the education department’s disbursal of federal funds (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> Child care providers have been struggling to keep their doors open, and in some cases forced to shutter, due to technical issues with the education department’s disbursal of federal funds (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>Missouri legislative leaders are demanding answers from state education officials about a monthslong backlog in a child care subsidy program.Two House committees — the budget committee and the education committee — have scheduled hearings into the matter next month, and a Republican Senate leader has called for her chamber to launch a similar inquiry.“I think it is safe to say The Office of Childhood is a massive disaster,” Senate Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican from Shelbina,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/1312548800/posts/pfbid0rzwkp3qSZikSAxDunLENbhXBzsx7jaSXFiezPcV9FTmjhPMkWmFiubpZv6VNgqX8l/?app=fbl" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;in a Facebook post Tuesday, referring to the office within the&nbsp;Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that&nbsp;is responsible for administration of the subsidy.“… instead of creating more child care,” she wrote, “this office is running day cares out of business.”Child care providers have been struggling to keep their doors open, and in some cases forced to shutter, due to technical issues with the education department’s disbursal of federal funds.State education officials have largely blamed a contracted vendor for the monthslong backlogs. The system launched in December after the program shifted from the Department of Social Services to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.The subsidy, part of a federal block grant program that is state-administered, helps cover the cost for day care owners serving low-income and foster children. Some day cares&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/05/missouri-child-care-subsidy-providers-day-care-children/">rely on the program</a>&nbsp;to pay their staff.O’Laughlin said due to the “incompetence” of the office, she is requesting that Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden appoint an interim committee to look into the issues.&nbsp;The technology vendor, along with leadership of the Office of Childhood, parents and child care providers would be asked to testify, she wrote.The vendor contracted to develop and implement the new system for the subsidy program is World Wide Technology, a large technology services provider headquartered in St. Louis.In addition to O’Laughlin, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat running for governor, demanded that her chamber’s leadership create an interim committee to look into the issues surrounding the subsidy.&nbsp;The problems administering the program have “escalated to the point of crisis, with families losing access to care,” Quade&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079422-8-22-interim-committee-request-1" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;in a letter last week to House Speaker Dean Plocher, “as some facilities have been forced to close, due in large part to the department’s failure to remit the payments owed in a timely manner.”The education department has been “less than forthcoming” in communication, she wrote.&nbsp;“Since members of the House Democratic Caucus are being inundated with pleas for help from desperate families and struggling providers,” Quade wrote, “I’m certain our Republican colleagues are as well.&nbsp;“If the department is unable or unwilling to provide answers, it is our duty to demand them.”Wednesday, Plocher&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079476-house-education-committee-to-hold-special-hearing-on-dese-childcare-payment-delays" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 10 to “investigate the causes and impacts of delays” in the state issuing child care payments.A House Budget Committee hearing was already scheduled for Sept. 11 to discuss child care with the education agency.“At any hearing that is scheduled with lawmakers,” the education department’s spokesperson, Mallory McGowin, said in an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25079575-8-28-24-dese-comment" target="_blank">email</a>&nbsp;to The Independent, “DESE plans to be transparent about the challenges that exist, and the work being done to address the issues.”McGowin said there are currently backlogs in family applications for subsidy assistance, provider contract applications, and in providers’ requests to resolve outstanding payment issues.And there are ongoing issues getting providers their full payment: “Payments are being processed daily and providers are getting paid,” she said, “though some are not receiving full payment due to ongoing technical issues.”Regarding the backlog of family applications, McGowin said the department has contracted with a staffing agency and expects it to be cleared by “mid to late September.” The department has also cross-trained additional staff to clear the backlog of provider contract applications. That backlog is expected to be cleared “by early to mid-September.”Regarding outstanding payment issues, she said the current contractors have doubled their staff working on “issues preventing or delaying provider payments.” DESE has also contracted with an agency to clear the backlog of subsidy payment corrections and hired part-time workers to help process requests for missing payments. McGowin didn’t provide a timeline for the department overcoming the backlog of payment corrections.“DESE recognizes the importance of subsidy payments to the child care industry and the value the program provides to Missouri’s workforce, in particular for families who provide care to children in foster care,” McGowin said.McGowin encouraged parents and providers with questions to call the subsidy hotline at&nbsp;<a href="tel:5734158605" target="_blank">573-415-8605</a>.“DESE and its contractors, World Wide Technology and MTX, are working hard to address these issues and sincerely apologizes to the child care providers and families affected by this transition,” she said.

Missouri legislative leaders call for hearings over child care subsidy ‘crisis’

(Radio Iowa) - State Auditor Rob Sand says his office will conduct an audit of the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown. 

Sand says the audit comes at the request of State Representative Sue Cahill, a Democrat from Marshalltown. Cahill tells Sand the audit is needed after the unexpected layoffs in July of eleven full-time staff. She says these cuts were made without input from the Legislature and occurred despite the home receiving an additional one million dollars in state funding during the budget process. 

A spokesman for the Iowa Veterans Home released a statement that says the new structure is built to improve service delivery for residents. And says unfortunately, there’s been disinformation throughout the transition, and the main points made by Cahill appear misinformed and factually wrong. It says the assertions that eleven employees were laid off and the realignment would "negatively affect the quality of care are objectively, verifiably false."

(Radio Iowa) - State Auditor Rob Sand says his office will conduct an audit of the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown. Sand says the audit comes at the request of State Representative Sue Cahill, a Democrat from Marshalltown. Cahill tells Sand the audit is needed after the unexpected layoffs in July of eleven full-time staff. She says these cuts were made without input from the Legislature and occurred despite the home receiving an additional one million dollars in state funding during the budget process. A spokesman for the Iowa Veterans Home released a statement that says the new structure is built to improve service delivery for residents. And says unfortunately, there’s been disinformation throughout the transition, and the main points made by Cahill appear misinformed and factually wrong. It says the assertions that eleven employees were laid off and the realignment would "negatively affect the quality of care are objectively, verifiably false."

Audit Planned For Iowa Veterans Home

SEDGWICK COUNTY —Law enforcement investigating after a group of possibly teenagers or individuals in their early twenties, were involved in a shooting incident near Exploration Place,&nbsp;300 N McLean Blvd. in Wichita. Police asked for help to identify suspects and released a security camera image.

&nbsp;The Sedgwick County District Attorney's office has charged 19-year-old D’Angelo Martinez for criminal discharge of a firearm in connection with the crime.

Just before 12:30a.m. August 4, there was an exchange of gunshots between the groups, and a bullet struck a glass window at Exploration Place.

Fortunately, no one was injured, including a group of children at a sleepover event at Exploration Place. Police believed that a confrontation occurred near the Keeper of the Plains Statue and the South Bridge prior to the shooting taking place.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1722947154401.png" alt="Security camera image Wichita Police" />
 <figcaption>Security camera image Wichita Police</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY —Law enforcement investigating after a group of possibly teenagers or individuals in their early twenties, were involved in a shooting incident near Exploration Place,&nbsp;300 N McLean Blvd. in Wichita. Police asked for help to identify suspects and released a security camera image.&nbsp;The Sedgwick County District Attorney's office has charged 19-year-old D’Angelo Martinez for criminal discharge of a firearm in connection with the crime.Just before 12:30a.m. August 4, there was an exchange of gunshots between the groups, and a bullet struck a glass window at Exploration Place.Fortunately, no one was injured, including a group of children at a sleepover event at Exploration Place. Police believed that a confrontation occurred near the Keeper of the Plains Statue and the South Bridge prior to the shooting taking place.

Suspect charged for gunfire that damaged Kan. science museum

KANSAS CITY—Law enforcement are investigating a teens death just days after a violent attack in Kansas City.

Just after 6:30p.m. August 21, police responded to report of disturbance in the 5000 block of Swope Parkway, according to Sheriff Daryl Forte'.

First responders found 18-year-old Montague Ashline suffering from head trauma. EMS transported him Ashline to a local hospital

Preliminary investigation showed there was an argument between multiple people that led to Ashline being hit with an object.

On Monday, Ashline died from his injuries. Police have not reported an arrest.

If anyone has any information on Ashline’s death they are asked to call the TIPS Hotline anonymously at 816-474-TIPS. There is a reward of up to $25,000 for information submitted anonymously that leads to closure in the case.

KANSAS CITY—Law enforcement are investigating a teens death just days after a violent attack in Kansas City.Just after 6:30p.m. August 21, police responded to report of disturbance in the 5000 block of Swope Parkway, according to Sheriff Daryl Forte'.First responders found 18-year-old Montague Ashline suffering from head trauma. EMS transported him Ashline to a local hospitalPreliminary investigation showed there was an argument between multiple people that led to Ashline being hit with an object.On Monday, Ashline died from his injuries. Police have not reported an arrest.If anyone has any information on Ashline’s death they are asked to call the TIPS Hotline anonymously at 816-474-TIPS. There is a reward of up to $25,000 for information submitted anonymously that leads to closure in the case.

18-year-old dies days after violent attack in Kansas City

Missouri was among the states who filed a lawsuit last week to block the Biden administration program

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>&nbsp;

WASHINGTON — A Texas federal judge late Monday sided with 16-Republican led states to temporarily block a Biden administration program that grants deportation protections for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens and a potential pathway to citizenship.

The ruling by Judge J. Campbell Barker&nbsp;of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.232527/gov.uscourts.txed.232527.27.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">an administrative stay</a>, meaning no applications can be processed while the case is ongoing. The Department of Homeland Security began accepting applications last week.

“The claims are substantial and warrant closer consideration than the court has been able to afford to date,” Barker, who former president Donald Trump appointed, wrote in his order.

A DHS spokesperson said the agency will defend the program, known as Keeping Families Together, in court.

“Keeping Families Together enables U.S. citizens and their family members to live without fear of separation, consistent with fundamental American values,” a DHS spokesperson said. “The Department of Homeland Security will comply with the court’s decision, including continuing to accept applications, while we defend Keeping Families Together in court.”

DHS is still allowed to collect applications for the program, but not allowed to approve them, according to the order from Barker.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-131f" target="_blank">Applications that have already been processed</a>&nbsp;and a parole in place granted, are not impacted by the current stay.

The states,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-states-aim-halt-biden-program-protecting-undocumented-spouses-deportation" target="_blank">which filed the suit last week</a>, are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

They are being represented by American First Legal, an organization established by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller — the architect of Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

Those states argue that the Biden administration overreached its authority in creating the program and they argue the program would financially harm them if that group of undocumented people — roughly 500,000 — are allowed to remain in the country.

In his order, Barker set a court timeline that could deliver a decision by mid-October, right before the presidential election. Both sides have until Oct. 10 to submit their briefs.

“The court does not, however, express any ultimate conclusions about the success or likely success of those claims,” Barker wrote. “As with most administrative stays, the court has simply undertaken a screening, ‘first-blush’ review of the claims and what is at stake in the dispute.”

President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/06/18/biden-to-unveil-protections-for-some-undocumented-spouses-easier-daca-work-visas/" target="_blank">in June unveiled the program</a>, which is a one-time action that applies to long-term undocumented people married to U.S. citizens for 10 years as of June 17 this year. It also applies to their children. It’s expected to roughly include 50,000 children who are undocumented but have an immigrant parent married to a U.S. citizen.

The program allows for those undocumented spouses and their children to apply for a green card under certain requirements, which DHS will review on a case-by-case basis.

Under current U.S. immigration law, if a noncitizen enters the country without authorization, they are ineligible for permanent legal status and would need to leave the U.S. and then reenter through a green card application by their U.S. spouse. It’s a lengthy process that can take years.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724510077030.png" alt="President Biden during the announcement in June-White House image" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during the announcement in June-White House image</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Missouri was among the states who filed a lawsuit last week to block the Biden administration program</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>&nbsp;WASHINGTON — A Texas federal judge late Monday sided with 16-Republican led states to temporarily block a Biden administration program that grants deportation protections for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens and a potential pathway to citizenship.The ruling by Judge J. Campbell Barker&nbsp;of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.232527/gov.uscourts.txed.232527.27.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">an administrative stay</a>, meaning no applications can be processed while the case is ongoing. The Department of Homeland Security began accepting applications last week.“The claims are substantial and warrant closer consideration than the court has been able to afford to date,” Barker, who former president Donald Trump appointed, wrote in his order.A DHS spokesperson said the agency will defend the program, known as Keeping Families Together, in court.“Keeping Families Together enables U.S. citizens and their family members to live without fear of separation, consistent with fundamental American values,” a DHS spokesperson said. “The Department of Homeland Security will comply with the court’s decision, including continuing to accept applications, while we defend Keeping Families Together in court.”DHS is still allowed to collect applications for the program, but not allowed to approve them, according to the order from Barker.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-131f" target="_blank">Applications that have already been processed</a>&nbsp;and a parole in place granted, are not impacted by the current stay.The states,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-states-aim-halt-biden-program-protecting-undocumented-spouses-deportation" target="_blank">which filed the suit last week</a>, are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.They are being represented by American First Legal, an organization established by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller — the architect of Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.Those states argue that the Biden administration overreached its authority in creating the program and they argue the program would financially harm them if that group of undocumented people — roughly 500,000 — are allowed to remain in the country.In his order, Barker set a court timeline that could deliver a decision by mid-October, right before the presidential election. Both sides have until Oct. 10 to submit their briefs.“The court does not, however, express any ultimate conclusions about the success or likely success of those claims,” Barker wrote. “As with most administrative stays, the court has simply undertaken a screening, ‘first-blush’ review of the claims and what is at stake in the dispute.”President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/06/18/biden-to-unveil-protections-for-some-undocumented-spouses-easier-daca-work-visas/" target="_blank">in June unveiled the program</a>, which is a one-time action that applies to long-term undocumented people married to U.S. citizens for 10 years as of June 17 this year. It also applies to their children. It’s expected to roughly include 50,000 children who are undocumented but have an immigrant parent married to a U.S. citizen.The program allows for those undocumented spouses and their children to apply for a green card under certain requirements, which DHS will review on a case-by-case basis.Under current U.S. immigration law, if a noncitizen enters the country without authorization, they are ineligible for permanent legal status and would need to leave the U.S. and then reenter through a green card application by their U.S. spouse. It’s a lengthy process that can take years.

Federal judge pauses program that grants protections for undocumented spouses

A 74-year-old resident of the Chillicothe women’s prison has
died of what appears to be natural causes.

The Missouri Department of Corrections reports the death of
Connie Sanders-Ford who was serving a life sentence from McDonald County for
first-degree murder and armed criminal action.

Corrections officials report Sanders-Ford was pronounced dead
shortly before five o’clock Monday morning.

You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostA 74-year-old resident of the Chillicothe women’s prison has
died of what appears to be natural causes.The Missouri Department of Corrections reports the death of
Connie Sanders-Ford who was serving a life sentence from McDonald County for
first-degree murder and armed criminal action.Corrections officials report Sanders-Ford was pronounced dead
shortly before five o’clock Monday morning.You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Missouri Corrections officials report death at Chillicothe prison

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>

A Missouri law declaring some federal gun regulations “invalid” is unconstitutional&nbsp;because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, a federal appeals court in St. Louis unanimously ruled on Monday.&nbsp;

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court ruling from last year that&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/07/federal-judge-rules-missouris-second-amendment-preservation-act-unconstitutional/">blocked Missouri from enforcing the Second Amendment Preservation Act</a>, a law passed in 2021 that penalizes police for enforcing certain federal gun laws.

Among the law’s provisions is a $50,000 fine for law enforcement agencies that“infringe” on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.

Some of the gun regulations deemed invalid by the law include imposing certain taxes on firearms, requiring gun owners to register their weapons and laws prohibiting “law-abiding” residents from possessing or transferring their guns.

“Because the (Second Amendment Preservation) Act purports to invalidate federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause, we affirm the (district court’s) judgment,” Chief Judge Steven Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in the unanimous opinion.&nbsp;

The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit challenging the law arguing it has undermined federal drug and weapons investigations. Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Attorney General Andrew Bailey to allow Missouri to enforce the Second Amendment Preservation Act while its appeal is ongoing.

In a statement through his spokeswoman, Bailey said he is reviewing the decision. He added: “I will always fight for Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.”

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas released a statement Monday afternoon praising the court’s decision.&nbsp;

“Two years ago, Missouri enacted an unconstitutional law, claiming to invalidate federal gun laws,” Lucas wrote. “The law was rejected in federal appeals court today…&nbsp;I am saddened that our state expended the time and energy of many in our legal system in service of this clearly unconstitutional effort.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1681466878038.png" alt="Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement that his office was reviewing the decision. file photo" />
 <figcaption>Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement that his office was reviewing the decision. file photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>A Missouri law declaring some federal gun regulations “invalid” is unconstitutional&nbsp;because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, a federal appeals court in St. Louis unanimously ruled on Monday.&nbsp;A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court ruling from last year that&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/07/federal-judge-rules-missouris-second-amendment-preservation-act-unconstitutional/">blocked Missouri from enforcing the Second Amendment Preservation Act</a>, a law passed in 2021 that penalizes police for enforcing certain federal gun laws.Among the law’s provisions is a $50,000 fine for law enforcement agencies that“infringe” on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.Some of the gun regulations deemed invalid by the law include imposing certain taxes on firearms, requiring gun owners to register their weapons and laws prohibiting “law-abiding” residents from possessing or transferring their guns.“Because the (Second Amendment Preservation) Act purports to invalidate federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause, we affirm the (district court’s) judgment,” Chief Judge Steven Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in the unanimous opinion.&nbsp;The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit challenging the law arguing it has undermined federal drug and weapons investigations. Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Attorney General Andrew Bailey to allow Missouri to enforce the Second Amendment Preservation Act while its appeal is ongoing.In a statement through his spokeswoman, Bailey said he is reviewing the decision. He added: “I will always fight for Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.”Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas released a statement Monday afternoon praising the court’s decision.&nbsp;“Two years ago, Missouri enacted an unconstitutional law, claiming to invalidate federal gun laws,” Lucas wrote. “The law was rejected in federal appeals court today…&nbsp;I am saddened that our state expended the time and energy of many in our legal system in service of this clearly unconstitutional effort.”

Federal appeals court declares Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ unconstitutional

(Radio Iowa) - For the last time this summer, law enforcement agencies are ready to launch a STEP, or a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program.

 Iowa State Patrol spokesman Trooper Paul Gardner, from the Fort Dodge post, says STEP will put dozens of extra law enforcement officers on the roads during the upcoming holiday weekend, and they'll be seeking out speeders, impaired drivers and other lawbreakers. 

Gardner says parties are common over Labor Day, and so is drinking. He implores Iowans who are hosting events for the holiday to make sure their guests don't drive impaired by calling them a taxi or Uber, giving them a ride home or offering them a place to stay.

(Radio Iowa) - For the last time this summer, law enforcement agencies are ready to launch a STEP, or a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program. Iowa State Patrol spokesman Trooper Paul Gardner, from the Fort Dodge post, says STEP will put dozens of extra law enforcement officers on the roads during the upcoming holiday weekend, and they'll be seeking out speeders, impaired drivers and other lawbreakers. Gardner says parties are common over Labor Day, and so is drinking. He implores Iowans who are hosting events for the holiday to make sure their guests don't drive impaired by calling them a taxi or Uber, giving them a ride home or offering them a place to stay.

Iowa law enforcement will zero in on speeders, impaired drivers over holiday

Four lawsuits filed since mid-July argue that the state has intruded on interstate commerce and violated federal property rights protections

By RUDI KELLER&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

Three major pharmaceutical companies and their national lobbying organization are suing Missouri to block&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/13/billions-at-stake-as-national-battle-over-drug-pricing-plays-out-in-missouri/">enforcement of a new state law</a>&nbsp;requiring them to give medical providers unlimited access to discounted drugs for their pharmacies.

In four federal lawsuits filed over the past month, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Abbvie and PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry, argue that Missouri lawmakers unconstitutionally intruded into interstate commerce with&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=186" target="_blank">the bill passed this year</a>.

Under the bill, drugmakers must accept orders to deliver medications to providers eligible for discounts under&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/opa" target="_blank">the 340B program</a>, named for the section of law where it is authorized. The bill allows eligible providers to have an unlimited number of contracts with pharmacies to dispense their prescriptions of drugs purchased under the program.

“Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Missouri has no authority to define who has access to 340B-priced drugs,” states the lawsuit filed last week by PhRMA in the Western District of Missouri.

The law takes effect on Wednesday. The plaintiffs in each case have asked for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement, but no hearings on the requests have been scheduled and only one case, filed Aug. 2 by Novartis, has had enough activity for the judge to schedule any proceedings.

Abbvie went first, filing its lawsuit July 22 in the Eastern District&nbsp; — 10 days after Gov. Mike Parson declined to sign the bill and instead&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/12/missouri-governor-allows-flawed-bill-on-drug-discounts-to-become-law/">allowed it to become law</a>&nbsp;despite his misgivings. The other three cases are filed with the Western District, which includes Jefferson City.

The lawsuits name Attorney General Andrew Bailey and members of the state Board of Pharmacy, which is responsible for enforcing the law. The board is given authority to investigate violations of the law and the attorney general has enforcement powers through the state Merchandising Practices Act.

“It is difficult to convincingly argue that doing what a federal program requires is an irreparable harm,” Maria Lanahan, deputy solicitor general in the attorney general’s office, wrote in a filing arguing against a preliminary injunction in the Novartis lawsuit. “To the contrary, when Novartis complies with S.B. 751, it is helping covered entities that serve vulnerable populations.”

Bailey’s office did not respond to an email seeking comment on the cases.

The board is relying on Bailey to respond to the lawsuit. The law is self-enforcing and while the board could write rules about how it is to be followed, Executive Director Kimberly Brinston said.

“The board does not have a timeline to promulgate rules and has not made a decision on whether rules would be promulgated,” she said.

The Missouri Hospital Association and the Missouri Primary Care Association have asked to intervene in the Novartis lawsuit and will likely seek to join the other three, hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon said Monday.

“We are evaluating each case and intend to reinforce the work done by the General Assembly on behalf of Missouri’s hospitals, other providers and the communities they serve,” Dillon said.

The 340B program was created in 1992. It had two components — drug manufacturers had to deliver their products at a discount to eligible providers and eligible providers could only use the program to provide prescriptions to patients they treated directly.

Eligible providers included children’s hospitals, as well as hospitals that were sole providers in their community or designated “critical access hospitals” by providing care that would otherwise be absent, and those serving large numbers of indigent patients known as “disproportionate share hospitals.”

Other qualifying providers include federally qualified health care centers — clinics that receive grants to support operations so they can base charges on ability to pay — as well as clinics that serve AIDS patients, black lung victims and other debilitating diseases.

The use of contract pharmacies started in 1996, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services began allowing one contractor per provider as recognition that many providers did not have in-house pharmacies. But a change to allow unlimited contracting increased the number of contract pharmacies from 2,321 in 2010 to 205,340 in 2024, according to data from PhRMA provided to The Independent in June.

Nationally, pharmaceutical manufacturers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/updates/2022-340b-covered-entity-purchases" target="_blank">sold nearly $100 billion in discounted drugs</a>&nbsp;in 2021 and 2022. Discounts averaged 60% from regular wholesale prices, the lobbying organization stated.

The pharmaceutical companies focus their criticism on the disproportionate share hospitals, who often contract with for-profit pharmacies to dispense the drugs. Those hospitals account for about 80% of all drugs purchased through the 340B program, $41.8 billion in 2022 and $34.3 billion the year before.

Pharmaceutical companies complain that the discounts are rarely passed on to patients. Instead, insurance companies and consumers pay retail prices and the extra profit is often split between the pharmacy and the provider.

“Make no mistake, the boom in contract pharmacies has been fueled by the prospect of outsized profit margins on 340B-discounted drugs,” AstraZeneca’s lawyers wrote in the complaint filed last week. “In short, the widespread proliferation of contract pharmacy arrangements since 2010 has transformed the 340B program from one intended to assist vulnerable patients into a multi-billion-dollar arbitrage scheme.”

The drugmakers have fought the expansion of contract pharmacies in a variety of ways. When Novartis sought in 2020 to limit the contracts to pharmacies within 40 miles of an eligible provider, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice that it considered the limit a violation of the program’s rules.

An&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/340B-AO-FINAL-12-30-2020_0.pdf" target="_blank">advisory opinion on contracting</a>, later withdrawn, said the 340B program required delivery to a pharmacy on “the lunar surface, low-earth orbit, or a neighborhood…”

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania ruled in January 2023 in a case against the federal agency that pharmaceutical companies&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/213167p.pdf" target="_blank">could impose limits</a>&nbsp;on the number of pharmacies they would allow to purchase the discounted drugs.

After the 2023 ruling, Novartis tightened its rules to allow only one contracted pharmacy per covered provider, but only if the provider did not have an in-house pharmacy. Other manufacturers have imposed variations on the Novartis policies.

State efforts to counter the limits have ramped up in the past two years. Missouri is one of eight states to pass laws requiring drugmakers to deliver discounted medications to contract pharmacies.

Arkansas was one of the first. In March, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis upheld the Arkansas law requiring drugmakers to allow covered providers to have an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.

In the motion to dismiss the Novartis lawsuit, the Missouri attorney general’s office relied heavily on that ruling, writing that it shows federal law does not prevent Missouri from passing a similar law.

The four lawsuits use a variety of legal theories to assail Missouri’s new law. Along with allegations of interfering with interstate commerce and regulating in an area reserved for federal action, the Abbvie lawsuit argues that its property rights are being violated.

“These abuses of the federal 340B program raise obvious concerns because the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing the transfer of property at confiscatory prices to private parties for their own private benefit,” the lawsuit states.

In the filing seeking to intervene in the Novartis case, the hospitals and primary care associations argued that the revenue from profits on 340B medications are essential support for their operations.

“Reducing access to those savings,” the filing states, “means hospitals are unable to underwrite critical but under-reimbursed services lines.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/10/1572037176389.png" alt="File photo -Missouri is being sued over a new law requiring drugmakers to deliver prescriptions discounted under the 340B program to any pharmacy contracting with a qualified provider.&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>File photo -Missouri is being sued over a new law requiring drugmakers to deliver prescriptions discounted under the 340B program to any pharmacy contracting with a qualified provider.&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Four lawsuits filed since mid-July argue that the state has intruded on interstate commerce and violated federal property rights protections</h2>By RUDI KELLER&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>Three major pharmaceutical companies and their national lobbying organization are suing Missouri to block&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/13/billions-at-stake-as-national-battle-over-drug-pricing-plays-out-in-missouri/">enforcement of a new state law</a>&nbsp;requiring them to give medical providers unlimited access to discounted drugs for their pharmacies.In four federal lawsuits filed over the past month, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Abbvie and PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry, argue that Missouri lawmakers unconstitutionally intruded into interstate commerce with&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=186" target="_blank">the bill passed this year</a>.Under the bill, drugmakers must accept orders to deliver medications to providers eligible for discounts under&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/opa" target="_blank">the 340B program</a>, named for the section of law where it is authorized. The bill allows eligible providers to have an unlimited number of contracts with pharmacies to dispense their prescriptions of drugs purchased under the program.“Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Missouri has no authority to define who has access to 340B-priced drugs,” states the lawsuit filed last week by PhRMA in the Western District of Missouri.The law takes effect on Wednesday. The plaintiffs in each case have asked for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement, but no hearings on the requests have been scheduled and only one case, filed Aug. 2 by Novartis, has had enough activity for the judge to schedule any proceedings.Abbvie went first, filing its lawsuit July 22 in the Eastern District&nbsp; — 10 days after Gov. Mike Parson declined to sign the bill and instead&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/12/missouri-governor-allows-flawed-bill-on-drug-discounts-to-become-law/">allowed it to become law</a>&nbsp;despite his misgivings. The other three cases are filed with the Western District, which includes Jefferson City.The lawsuits name Attorney General Andrew Bailey and members of the state Board of Pharmacy, which is responsible for enforcing the law. The board is given authority to investigate violations of the law and the attorney general has enforcement powers through the state Merchandising Practices Act.“It is difficult to convincingly argue that doing what a federal program requires is an irreparable harm,” Maria Lanahan, deputy solicitor general in the attorney general’s office, wrote in a filing arguing against a preliminary injunction in the Novartis lawsuit. “To the contrary, when Novartis complies with S.B. 751, it is helping covered entities that serve vulnerable populations.”Bailey’s office did not respond to an email seeking comment on the cases.The board is relying on Bailey to respond to the lawsuit. The law is self-enforcing and while the board could write rules about how it is to be followed, Executive Director Kimberly Brinston said.“The board does not have a timeline to promulgate rules and has not made a decision on whether rules would be promulgated,” she said.The Missouri Hospital Association and the Missouri Primary Care Association have asked to intervene in the Novartis lawsuit and will likely seek to join the other three, hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon said Monday.“We are evaluating each case and intend to reinforce the work done by the General Assembly on behalf of Missouri’s hospitals, other providers and the communities they serve,” Dillon said.The 340B program was created in 1992. It had two components — drug manufacturers had to deliver their products at a discount to eligible providers and eligible providers could only use the program to provide prescriptions to patients they treated directly.Eligible providers included children’s hospitals, as well as hospitals that were sole providers in their community or designated “critical access hospitals” by providing care that would otherwise be absent, and those serving large numbers of indigent patients known as “disproportionate share hospitals.”Other qualifying providers include federally qualified health care centers — clinics that receive grants to support operations so they can base charges on ability to pay — as well as clinics that serve AIDS patients, black lung victims and other debilitating diseases.The use of contract pharmacies started in 1996, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services began allowing one contractor per provider as recognition that many providers did not have in-house pharmacies. But a change to allow unlimited contracting increased the number of contract pharmacies from 2,321 in 2010 to 205,340 in 2024, according to data from PhRMA provided to The Independent in June.Nationally, pharmaceutical manufacturers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/updates/2022-340b-covered-entity-purchases" target="_blank">sold nearly $100 billion in discounted drugs</a>&nbsp;in 2021 and 2022. Discounts averaged 60% from regular wholesale prices, the lobbying organization stated.The pharmaceutical companies focus their criticism on the disproportionate share hospitals, who often contract with for-profit pharmacies to dispense the drugs. Those hospitals account for about 80% of all drugs purchased through the 340B program, $41.8 billion in 2022 and $34.3 billion the year before.Pharmaceutical companies complain that the discounts are rarely passed on to patients. Instead, insurance companies and consumers pay retail prices and the extra profit is often split between the pharmacy and the provider.“Make no mistake, the boom in contract pharmacies has been fueled by the prospect of outsized profit margins on 340B-discounted drugs,” AstraZeneca’s lawyers wrote in the complaint filed last week. “In short, the widespread proliferation of contract pharmacy arrangements since 2010 has transformed the 340B program from one intended to assist vulnerable patients into a multi-billion-dollar arbitrage scheme.”The drugmakers have fought the expansion of contract pharmacies in a variety of ways. When Novartis sought in 2020 to limit the contracts to pharmacies within 40 miles of an eligible provider, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice that it considered the limit a violation of the program’s rules.An&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/340B-AO-FINAL-12-30-2020_0.pdf" target="_blank">advisory opinion on contracting</a>, later withdrawn, said the 340B program required delivery to a pharmacy on “the lunar surface, low-earth orbit, or a neighborhood…”The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania ruled in January 2023 in a case against the federal agency that pharmaceutical companies&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/213167p.pdf" target="_blank">could impose limits</a>&nbsp;on the number of pharmacies they would allow to purchase the discounted drugs.After the 2023 ruling, Novartis tightened its rules to allow only one contracted pharmacy per covered provider, but only if the provider did not have an in-house pharmacy. Other manufacturers have imposed variations on the Novartis policies.State efforts to counter the limits have ramped up in the past two years. Missouri is one of eight states to pass laws requiring drugmakers to deliver discounted medications to contract pharmacies.Arkansas was one of the first. In March, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis upheld the Arkansas law requiring drugmakers to allow covered providers to have an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.In the motion to dismiss the Novartis lawsuit, the Missouri attorney general’s office relied heavily on that ruling, writing that it shows federal law does not prevent Missouri from passing a similar law.The four lawsuits use a variety of legal theories to assail Missouri’s new law. Along with allegations of interfering with interstate commerce and regulating in an area reserved for federal action, the Abbvie lawsuit argues that its property rights are being violated.“These abuses of the federal 340B program raise obvious concerns because the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing the transfer of property at confiscatory prices to private parties for their own private benefit,” the lawsuit states.In the filing seeking to intervene in the Novartis case, the hospitals and primary care associations argued that the revenue from profits on 340B medications are essential support for their operations.“Reducing access to those savings,” the filing states, “means hospitals are unable to underwrite critical but under-reimbursed services lines.”

Drugmakers sue to block Missouri law on federal prescription discounts

BY&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

Missouri’s Planned Parenthood affiliates are asking the state administrative hearing commission to block a new law that prohibits the organization from being reimbursed for serving Medicaid patients.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/28/missouri-looks-to-mirror-arkansas-law-that-forced-planned-parenthood-to-turn-away-patients/">law</a>&nbsp;goes into effect on Wednesday.

Nearly one in five Planned Parenthood patients in Missouri is insured through MO HealthNet, the state’s Medicaid program that serves low-income and disabled residents and has long banned funding for abortion.

The complaint to the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission was filed after Missouri’s two Planned Parenthood affiliates say they received notifications of their termination from Medicaid, effective Wednesday.

“Despite an already overburdened health care safety net for Missouri Medicaid patients,” Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers wrote in a joint press release, “lawmakers prioritized the legislative ‘defunding’ of Planned Parenthood this last session, harming Missourians with low incomes and forcing them to search for other providers.”

It’s the third — and Republicans hope final — attempt to end Medicaid reimbursements to any health centers affiliated with abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood alleges the state’s new restrictions violate federal Medicaid law, which protects patients’ right to choose their health care providers.&nbsp;

The Missouri Department of Social Services, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Abortion has been banned in Missouri since 2022, but Planned Parenthood clinics in Illinois and Kansas continue to perform the procedure. In Missouri, Planned Parenthood clinics provide services such as contraceptive care, STI testing, cancer screenings and wellness checks.

Critics of the law have argued it would primarily harm low-income Missourians who could be forced to find a new provider through the state’s already strained public health safety net if Planned Parenthood cannot foot the bill for these patients long-term. This could delay critical and potentially life-saving care.

In Missouri, women on Medicaid are 10 times more likely to die within one year of pregnancy than those on private insurance, according to an August multi-year report on maternal mortality published by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.

“The impact of defunding efforts will only further destabilize Missouri’s fragile safety net,”&nbsp; said Michelle Trupiano, executive director of Missouri Family Health Council in Monday’s press release, “by straining providers, extending wait times, and unnecessarily creating additional barriers for people accessing basic healthcare services.”

Planned Parenthood clinics in Missouri have been without Medicaid reimbursements for more than two years as prior attempts by Republicans to pass similar restrictions through the state budget were litigated and struck down in court.&nbsp;

Planned Parenthood says it will&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/09/missouri-planned-parenthood-medicaid-parson-law/">continue to serve Medicaid patients</a>&nbsp;despite the new law.

Some clinics, including Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, have offset the cost of care with private fundraising, according to the press release.

“Planned Parenthood’s doors remain open so patients can get the affordable, accessible care they rely on,” said Richard Muniz, interim president &amp; CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, “as we challenge the state’s latest, illegal attempt to exclude us from participating in the Medicaid program.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/3/1648771341385.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>BY&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>Missouri’s Planned Parenthood affiliates are asking the state administrative hearing commission to block a new law that prohibits the organization from being reimbursed for serving Medicaid patients.&nbsp;The&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/28/missouri-looks-to-mirror-arkansas-law-that-forced-planned-parenthood-to-turn-away-patients/">law</a>&nbsp;goes into effect on Wednesday.Nearly one in five Planned Parenthood patients in Missouri is insured through MO HealthNet, the state’s Medicaid program that serves low-income and disabled residents and has long banned funding for abortion.The complaint to the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission was filed after Missouri’s two Planned Parenthood affiliates say they received notifications of their termination from Medicaid, effective Wednesday.“Despite an already overburdened health care safety net for Missouri Medicaid patients,” Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers wrote in a joint press release, “lawmakers prioritized the legislative ‘defunding’ of Planned Parenthood this last session, harming Missourians with low incomes and forcing them to search for other providers.”It’s the third — and Republicans hope final — attempt to end Medicaid reimbursements to any health centers affiliated with abortion providers.Planned Parenthood alleges the state’s new restrictions violate federal Medicaid law, which protects patients’ right to choose their health care providers.&nbsp;The Missouri Department of Social Services, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.Abortion has been banned in Missouri since 2022, but Planned Parenthood clinics in Illinois and Kansas continue to perform the procedure. In Missouri, Planned Parenthood clinics provide services such as contraceptive care, STI testing, cancer screenings and wellness checks.Critics of the law have argued it would primarily harm low-income Missourians who could be forced to find a new provider through the state’s already strained public health safety net if Planned Parenthood cannot foot the bill for these patients long-term. This could delay critical and potentially life-saving care.In Missouri, women on Medicaid are 10 times more likely to die within one year of pregnancy than those on private insurance, according to an August multi-year report on maternal mortality published by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.“The impact of defunding efforts will only further destabilize Missouri’s fragile safety net,”&nbsp; said Michelle Trupiano, executive director of Missouri Family Health Council in Monday’s press release, “by straining providers, extending wait times, and unnecessarily creating additional barriers for people accessing basic healthcare services.”Planned Parenthood clinics in Missouri have been without Medicaid reimbursements for more than two years as prior attempts by Republicans to pass similar restrictions through the state budget were litigated and struck down in court.&nbsp;Planned Parenthood says it will&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/09/missouri-planned-parenthood-medicaid-parson-law/">continue to serve Medicaid patients</a>&nbsp;despite the new law.Some clinics, including Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, have offset the cost of care with private fundraising, according to the press release.“Planned Parenthood’s doors remain open so patients can get the affordable, accessible care they rely on,” said Richard Muniz, interim president &amp; CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, “as we challenge the state’s latest, illegal attempt to exclude us from participating in the Medicaid program.”

Planned Parenthood challenges new Missouri law blocking Medicaid payments to its clinics

Farm Credit System institutions made almost 133,000 loans to young, beginning, or small U.S. producers in 2023, delivering on their critical mission to support rural communities and agriculture. A new Farm Credit Administration Report underscores Farm Credit’s commitment to the next generation of agricultural producers through strategic lending and support initiatives. 

Farm Credit System institutions made almost 133,000 loans to young, beginning, or small U.S. producers in 2023, delivering on their critical mission to support rural communities and agriculture. A new Farm Credit Administration Report underscores Farm Credit’s commitment to the next generation of agricultural producers through strategic lending and support initiatives.

Farm credit delivers support to young, beginning, and small farmers

(Radio Iowa) - Waterloo School board members will vote tonight (Monday) to either withdraw a 165-million-dollar plan to merge the city’s high schools or put it on the November ballot for voter approval. 

Waterloo Superintendent Jared Smith says significant updates are needed to address the old buildings and to provide easier access to the district's career center. The merger plan was to be funded with an existing statewide sales tax that didn’t require voter approval when the school board passed it in July, but voters brought a petition to the board two weeks ago asking the plan to be put on the ballot. 

Smith says the merger would improve graduation rates because more students would have easier access to the career center. The plan would have all 10th through 12th graders go to one high school that’s currently serving as Central Middle School.

(Radio Iowa) - Waterloo School board members will vote tonight (Monday) to either withdraw a 165-million-dollar plan to merge the city’s high schools or put it on the November ballot for voter approval. Waterloo Superintendent Jared Smith says significant updates are needed to address the old buildings and to provide easier access to the district's career center. The merger plan was to be funded with an existing statewide sales tax that didn’t require voter approval when the school board passed it in July, but voters brought a petition to the board two weeks ago asking the plan to be put on the ballot. Smith says the merger would improve graduation rates because more students would have easier access to the career center. The plan would have all 10th through 12th graders go to one high school that’s currently serving as Central Middle School.

Vote is tonight on proposal to merge Waterloo's high schools

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/megcunningham/">MEG CUNNINGHAM</a>

Evergy confused and angered its Missouri customers in 2023 when it rolled out time-of-use rates that meant prices would run highest when people use the most electricity.

Missourians, especially those on fixed incomes, complained of high costs and having to choose between things like groceries and their medications or powering their homes during peak hours.

Now, Evergy Missouri West, which has a monopoly on service for much of the western part of Missouri outside of Kansas City, is heading back to its regulator to ask for more from the 340,000 users in the region. (<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/08/26/evergy-west-rate-increase-2025/" target="_blank">Here’s how you can weigh in</a>.)

Evergy wants the Public Service Commission to OK a 13.99% increase in electric rates, giving the company up to&nbsp;<a href="https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/42672-evergy-files-rate-request-with-missouri-regulators/" target="_blank">$104.5 million more in revenue&nbsp;</a>a year. In 2023, the company reported&nbsp;<a href="https://investors.evergy.com/news-releases/news-release-details/evergy-announces-2023-results-declares-quarterly-dividend-and" target="_blank">$731 million</a>&nbsp;in earnings.

“As people do we pick between: are we eating, or are we paying our power bill?” said Kelly Smith, who showed up to testify at a&nbsp;<a href="https://psc.mo.gov/VideoDetail.aspx?Id=6753" target="_blank">public hearing</a>&nbsp;in St. Joseph on the proposed rate hike. “My bill is just shy of $300. I work all the time. I’m hardly ever home.&nbsp; … My thermostat is set to 75 degrees.”

The Public Service Commission held several hearings across Evergy’s coverage area in late July. Dozens of Missourians, including lawmakers, showed up to argue against the rate hike. They shared stories of $700 bills, finding every energy-efficient upgrade to their home they could and making tough choices about which bills to pay.

Just because the company asked for a rate increase doesn’t mean it’ll get what it asked for. The commission started an 11-month review in February. It will decide in December how much rates might go up starting Jan. 1.

Why is Evergy asking for a rate increase?

Evergy argues it needs the higher rates to recoup money it spent on two natural-gas plants and for a range of upgrades to withstand severe weather and surges of demand for electricity.

The upgrades in the grid have already been made, said Gina Penzig, a spokesperson for Evergy.

“We make the investments and the power grid, and then we go to the commission and ask to recover those investments,” Penzig said.&nbsp; “So we are asking for money that the company has already spent.”

The company is asking for funds to aid in its purchase of part of a natural-gas plant in Pleasant Hill to generate more electricity for the region. It’s also reupping its longtime request to make back some of the cost of transporting power from a natural-gas plant in Mississippi to Missouri, a request the state regulators have previously denied.

Evergy has conducted studies that show transmitting the energy from Mississippi to Missouri is the most cost-effective method of serving some customers. If they can’t recover those costs, Evergy may have to revisit the issue in the future to find another way to transmit that energy, Penzig said.

The rate hike request alarmed some Evergy customers, which drew the attention of lawmakers. They’d already been hearing complaints about the time-based plans&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/missouri-overhauls-electric-rates-raising-rewards-and-risks-for-customers/" target="_blank">mandated</a>&nbsp;by the commission.

“They said that the average customer was supposed to have a rate decrease,” said Rep. Dean VanSchoiack, a Republican who represents parts of the state north of St. Joseph. “I’ve not met that average customer yet.”

He takes issue with how Evergy is passing along the costs of its upgrades to customers, who don’t have the choice of simply switching providers if they can’t keep up with the bill.

“From what I understand right now — 13.99% — it’s mostly to cover the expenses they did upgrading their poles and lines,” VanSchoiack said. “I was in business. You have to make money…but there are certain costs of doing business that you don’t get to expense right away.”

But because utility companies are monopolies, they aren’t faced with the same burdens of a typical business in a free market.

“Utilities are basically glorified construction companies,” said Geoff Marke, the chief economist at the Missouri Office of Public Counsel, a sort of ombudsman. “When they build assets, they make a return on it. So they have a perverse incentive to build as much as they can.”

Evergy says its rates lag its peers across the country. But the OPC said that lacks context.

When Evergy was formed in 2018 from the merger of Kansas City Power and Light Co. and Westar, regulators froze its rates for five years.

In 2018, the Missouri General Assembly passed a law that allowed&nbsp;<a href="https://themissouritimes.com/four-years-after-sb564s-grid-investments-electric-rates-stagnant/" target="_blank">utilities to access plant-in-service accounting</a>, which spreads out the cost of investments over years. Those costs are typically passed on to the consumer.

“I’d say it’s much less ‘We didn’t ask for anything,’” said John Clizer, the senior counsel for the Office of Public Counsel, “and much more about ‘We delayed asking for a lot of things, but you are still going to pay for all of that.’ They may not have gotten the rate increases, but you’re also seeing all these other increases to certain charges.”

The Public Service Commission’s options&nbsp;

The Public Service Commission consists of five members and has the power to approve the rate increase as is, deny it or respond with a rate different than what Evergy asked for. The commissioners are appointed by the governor. Gov. Mike Parson has appointed all but one of the current members, who have a staff of over 200 at their disposal.

The commission is&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/01/24/kansas-city-energy-bills-regulation-utility-commissions/" target="_blank">structured like</a>&nbsp;its regulatory counterpart in Kansas, the Kansas Corporation Commission. The KCC has three members, also appointed by the state’s governor. They approved a&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2023/11/21/kansas-regulators-give-evergy-a-smaller-electrical-rate-hike-than-it-asked-for/" target="_blank">rate increase in November</a>&nbsp;for Evergy’s central Kansas customers, also to cover costs associated with power plant investments and new infrastructure.

The proposed rate increase comes as many Republicans in Jefferson City are looking to regulate the regulator. After frustration over the time-based plans, some lawmakers want to add two more people to the commission and require more varied professions. &nbsp;Some proposed legislation looks to require some members to have farming or utility backgrounds.

Kayla Hahn is the current chair of the commission. She was most recently Parson’s policy director. Three other members previously served in the Missouri General Assembly. The most recent addition to the commission is John Mitchell, who spent over three decades in various roles at Burns &amp; McDonnell Engineering in Kansas City.

Renew Missouri, a group that advocates for the state to move toward cleaner energy sources, says the most recent appointment is breaking from the traditional model.

“Generally it’s been lawmakers and aides to the governor who are on there,” said James Owen, the group’s executive director. “I think it’s good to see different professions represented there.”

Some lawmakers, like VanSchoiack, want to see commissioners who aren’t necessarily politicians.

“They’re working too much for the power companies, not enough for the people,” VanSchoiack said.

Owen said the commission is “pro-utility.”

“They need to be confronted with the fact this is not just some line on a balance sheet,” Owen said. “It is actually real people who are struggling and suffering.”

VanShoiack isn’t confident that all of the legislature or Republican leadership sees the need to take another look at the structure of the commission.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/11/1669224062037.png" alt="Evergy headquarters in downtown Topeka, Kansas (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)." />
 <figcaption>Evergy headquarters in downtown Topeka, Kansas (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/megcunningham/">MEG CUNNINGHAM</a>Evergy confused and angered its Missouri customers in 2023 when it rolled out time-of-use rates that meant prices would run highest when people use the most electricity.Missourians, especially those on fixed incomes, complained of high costs and having to choose between things like groceries and their medications or powering their homes during peak hours.Now, Evergy Missouri West, which has a monopoly on service for much of the western part of Missouri outside of Kansas City, is heading back to its regulator to ask for more from the 340,000 users in the region. (<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/08/26/evergy-west-rate-increase-2025/" target="_blank">Here’s how you can weigh in</a>.)Evergy wants the Public Service Commission to OK a 13.99% increase in electric rates, giving the company up to&nbsp;<a href="https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/42672-evergy-files-rate-request-with-missouri-regulators/" target="_blank">$104.5 million more in revenue&nbsp;</a>a year. In 2023, the company reported&nbsp;<a href="https://investors.evergy.com/news-releases/news-release-details/evergy-announces-2023-results-declares-quarterly-dividend-and" target="_blank">$731 million</a>&nbsp;in earnings.“As people do we pick between: are we eating, or are we paying our power bill?” said Kelly Smith, who showed up to testify at a&nbsp;<a href="https://psc.mo.gov/VideoDetail.aspx?Id=6753" target="_blank">public hearing</a>&nbsp;in St. Joseph on the proposed rate hike. “My bill is just shy of $300. I work all the time. I’m hardly ever home.&nbsp; … My thermostat is set to 75 degrees.”The Public Service Commission held several hearings across Evergy’s coverage area in late July. Dozens of Missourians, including lawmakers, showed up to argue against the rate hike. They shared stories of $700 bills, finding every energy-efficient upgrade to their home they could and making tough choices about which bills to pay.Just because the company asked for a rate increase doesn’t mean it’ll get what it asked for. The commission started an 11-month review in February. It will decide in December how much rates might go up starting Jan. 1.<h2>Why is Evergy asking for a rate increase?</h2>Evergy argues it needs the higher rates to recoup money it spent on two natural-gas plants and for a range of upgrades to withstand severe weather and surges of demand for electricity.The upgrades in the grid have already been made, said Gina Penzig, a spokesperson for Evergy.“We make the investments and the power grid, and then we go to the commission and ask to recover those investments,” Penzig said.&nbsp; “So we are asking for money that the company has already spent.”The company is asking for funds to aid in its purchase of part of a natural-gas plant in Pleasant Hill to generate more electricity for the region. It’s also reupping its longtime request to make back some of the cost of transporting power from a natural-gas plant in Mississippi to Missouri, a request the state regulators have previously denied.Evergy has conducted studies that show transmitting the energy from Mississippi to Missouri is the most cost-effective method of serving some customers. If they can’t recover those costs, Evergy may have to revisit the issue in the future to find another way to transmit that energy, Penzig said.The rate hike request alarmed some Evergy customers, which drew the attention of lawmakers. They’d already been hearing complaints about the time-based plans&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/missouri-overhauls-electric-rates-raising-rewards-and-risks-for-customers/" target="_blank">mandated</a>&nbsp;by the commission.“They said that the average customer was supposed to have a rate decrease,” said Rep. Dean VanSchoiack, a Republican who represents parts of the state north of St. Joseph. “I’ve not met that average customer yet.”He takes issue with how Evergy is passing along the costs of its upgrades to customers, who don’t have the choice of simply switching providers if they can’t keep up with the bill.“From what I understand right now — 13.99% — it’s mostly to cover the expenses they did upgrading their poles and lines,” VanSchoiack said. “I was in business. You have to make money…but there are certain costs of doing business that you don’t get to expense right away.”But because utility companies are monopolies, they aren’t faced with the same burdens of a typical business in a free market.“Utilities are basically glorified construction companies,” said Geoff Marke, the chief economist at the Missouri Office of Public Counsel, a sort of ombudsman. “When they build assets, they make a return on it. So they have a perverse incentive to build as much as they can.”Evergy says its rates lag its peers across the country. But the OPC said that lacks context.When Evergy was formed in 2018 from the merger of Kansas City Power and Light Co. and Westar, regulators froze its rates for five years.In 2018, the Missouri General Assembly passed a law that allowed&nbsp;<a href="https://themissouritimes.com/four-years-after-sb564s-grid-investments-electric-rates-stagnant/" target="_blank">utilities to access plant-in-service accounting</a>, which spreads out the cost of investments over years. Those costs are typically passed on to the consumer.“I’d say it’s much less ‘We didn’t ask for anything,’” said John Clizer, the senior counsel for the Office of Public Counsel, “and much more about ‘We delayed asking for a lot of things, but you are still going to pay for all of that.’ They may not have gotten the rate increases, but you’re also seeing all these other increases to certain charges.”<h2>The Public Service Commission’s options&nbsp;</h2>The Public Service Commission consists of five members and has the power to approve the rate increase as is, deny it or respond with a rate different than what Evergy asked for. The commissioners are appointed by the governor. Gov. Mike Parson has appointed all but one of the current members, who have a staff of over 200 at their disposal.The commission is&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/01/24/kansas-city-energy-bills-regulation-utility-commissions/" target="_blank">structured like</a>&nbsp;its regulatory counterpart in Kansas, the Kansas Corporation Commission. The KCC has three members, also appointed by the state’s governor. They approved a&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2023/11/21/kansas-regulators-give-evergy-a-smaller-electrical-rate-hike-than-it-asked-for/" target="_blank">rate increase in November</a>&nbsp;for Evergy’s central Kansas customers, also to cover costs associated with power plant investments and new infrastructure.The proposed rate increase comes as many Republicans in Jefferson City are looking to regulate the regulator. After frustration over the time-based plans, some lawmakers want to add two more people to the commission and require more varied professions. &nbsp;Some proposed legislation looks to require some members to have farming or utility backgrounds.Kayla Hahn is the current chair of the commission. She was most recently Parson’s policy director. Three other members previously served in the Missouri General Assembly. The most recent addition to the commission is John Mitchell, who spent over three decades in various roles at Burns &amp; McDonnell Engineering in Kansas City.Renew Missouri, a group that advocates for the state to move toward cleaner energy sources, says the most recent appointment is breaking from the traditional model.“Generally it’s been lawmakers and aides to the governor who are on there,” said James Owen, the group’s executive director. “I think it’s good to see different professions represented there.”Some lawmakers, like VanSchoiack, want to see commissioners who aren’t necessarily politicians.“They’re working too much for the power companies, not enough for the people,” VanSchoiack said.Owen said the commission is “pro-utility.”“They need to be confronted with the fact this is not just some line on a balance sheet,” Owen said. “It is actually real people who are struggling and suffering.”VanShoiack isn’t confident that all of the legislature or Republican leadership sees the need to take another look at the structure of the commission.“We need to be looking at things that really do truly help people,” VanShoiack said. “I think we’d be better off if we did try to focus more on some of these issues and less on the political issues.”This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/08/26/evergy-west-2025-rate-increase/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Missouri</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<figure>
 <img src="https://thebeaconnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/iconbeacon-150x150.png?crop=1" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure><figure>
 <img src="https://thebeaconnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&amp;post=24033" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>

Kbct