After finding success investing in the more obviously lucrative corners of American medicine — like surgery centers and dermatology practices — private equity firms have moved aggressively into the industry’s more hidden niches: They are pouring billions into the business of clinical drug trials.

To bring a new drug to market, the FDA requires pharmaceutical firms to perform extensive studies to demonstrate safety and efficacy, which are often expensive and time-consuming to conduct to the agency’s specifications. Getting a drug to market a few months sooner and for less expense than usual can translate into millions in profit for the manufacturer.

That is why a private equity-backed startup like Headlands Research saw an opportunity in creating a network of clinical sites and wringing greater efficiency out of businesses, to perform this critical scientific work faster. And why Moderna, Pfizer, Biogen, and other drug industry bigwigs have been willing to hire it — even though it’s a relatively new player in the field, formed in 2018 by investment giant KKR.

In July 2020, Headlands announced it won coveted contracts to run clinical trials of covid-19 vaccines, which would include shots for AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer.

In marketing its services, Headlands described its mission to “profoundly impact” clinical trials — including boosting participation among racial and ethnic minorities who have long been underrepresented in such research.

“We are excited,” CEO Mark Blumling said in a statement, to bring “COVID-19 studies to the ethnically diverse populations represented at our sites.” Blumling, a drug industry veteran with venture capital and private equity experience, told KHN that KKR backed him to start the company, which has grown by buying established trial sites and opening new ones.

Finding and enrolling patients is often the limiting and most costly part of trials, said Dr. Marcella Alsan, a public policy professor at Harvard Kennedy School and an expert on diverse representation in clinical trials, which have a median cost of $19 million for new drugs, according to Johns Hopkins University researchers.

Before covid hit, Headlands acquired research centers in McAllen, Texas; Houston; metro Atlanta; and Lake Charles, Louisiana, saying those locations would help it boost recruitment of diverse patients — an urgent priority during the pandemic in studying vaccines to ward off a disease disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans.

Headlands’ sites also ran, among other things, clinical studies on treatments to combat Type 2 diabetes, postpartum depression, asthma, liver disease, migraines, and endometriosis, according to a review of website archives and the federal website ClinicalTrials.gov. But within two years, some of Headlands’ alluring promises would fall flat.

In September, Headlands shuttered locations in Houston — one of the nation’s largest metro areas and home to major medical centers and research universities — and Lake Charles, a move Blumling attributed to problems finding “experienced, highly qualified staff” to carry out the complex and highly specialized work of clinical research. The McAllen site is not taking on new research as Headlands shifts operations to another South Texas location it launched with Pfizer.

What impact did those sites have? Blumling declined to provide specifics on whether enrollment targets for covid vaccine trials, including by race and ethnicity, were met for those locations, citing confidentiality. He noted that for any given trial, data is aggregated across all sites and the drug company sponsoring it is the only entity that has seen the data for each site once the trial is completed.

A fragmented clinical trials industry has made it a prime target for private equity, which often consolidates markets by merging companies. But Headlands’ trajectory shows the potential risks of trying to combine independent sites and squeeze efficiency out of studies that will affect the health of millions.

Yashaswini Singh, a health economist at Johns Hopkins who has studied private equity acquisitions of physician practices, said consolidation has potential downsides. Singh and her colleagues published research in September analyzing acquisitions in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology that found physician practices — a business with parallels to clinical trial companies — charged higher prices after acquisition.

“We’ve seen reduced market competition in a variety of settings to be associated with increases in prices, reduction in access and choice for patients, and so on,” Singh said. “So it’s a delicate balance.”

Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called private equity involvement in trials “concerning.”

“We need to make sure that patients” know enough to provide “adequate, informed consent,” he said, and ensure “protections about the privacy of the data.”

“We don’t want those kinds of things to be lost in the shuffle in the goals of making money,” he said.

Blumling said trial sites Headlands acquired are not charging higher prices than before. He said privacy “is one of our highest concerns. Headlands holds itself to the highest standard.”

Good or bad, clinical trials have become a big, profitable business in the private equity sphere, data shows.

Eleven of the 25 private equity firms identified by industry tracker PitchBook as the top investors in health care have bought stakes in clinical research companies, a KHN analysis found. Those companies have been involved in studies ranging from covid vaccines to treatments for ovarian cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s.

Contracted firms also analyze patient data and prepare materials to secure approval from regulatory agencies, in hopes of getting more drugs to market faster. And a big draw for investors: Clinical research companies make money whether or not a drug succeeds, making it less risky than investing in a drug company.

The number of clinical trials has exploded to more than 434,000 registered studies this year as of late November, more than triple the number a decade ago.

Still, most trial sites are physician practices that don’t consistently perform studies, according to a presentation by Boston-based investment firm Provident Healthcare Partners.

“Independent sites are being purchased by private equity, and they’re moving into larger site groups of 30, 40, and then their game plan is to roll that up into a business and then sell it again,” said Linda Moore Schipani, CEO of Clinical Research Associates, a Nashville-based company that worked on covid vaccine trials for AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Pfizer. “That’s kind of the endgame.”

Headlands is a prime example. It announced in November 2019 that it would acquire six centers in the U.S. and Canada, including three sites in Texas and Louisiana owned by Centex Studies that would help improve participation among Hispanics and African Americans.

It has made other acquisitions since then and opened new sites in areas with “extremely limited trial options,” something Blumling says distinguishes his company.

“I’m not an evangelist for private equity,” Blumling said. “The ability of KKR to be willing to invest in something that is a three- to five-year return versus a one- to two-year return is something that you won’t see out there.”

A research center in Brownsville, Texas — a stone’s throw from the U.S.-Mexico border and where 95% of the population is Hispanic or Latino — is one of several where it is partnering with Pfizer to boost patient diversity.

To recruit patients, Headlands “is really going beyond what a lot of sites do, which is social media,” Blumling said in an interview. “It’s going within churches, community fairs, really getting out into as much as possible the broader community.”

Headlands closed the Houston and Lake Charles sites because of staffing issues, Blumling said, and finished or moved their studies elsewhere. Blumling said the decision to close those locations “did not have anything to do with the speed of trials.”

Similarly, he said, Headlands is moving the McAllen site’s operations to Brownsville “because it had a larger population of trained personnel.”

“We want to continue to grow sites and do great work,” Blumling said. “If we can’t find the people in order to do that at the quality that we demand, which is at the highest level, then it doesn’t make sense to keep those sites.”

‘The Writing to Me Was on the Wall’

In 2006, Devora Torrence co-founded Centex Studies, which she described as “my little mom and pop business” in a 2021 podcast about female entrepreneurs in science. She said a flurry of interest from private equity came at the end of 2018. The appeal was evident: Drug companies were relying on bigger clinical trial networks.

“The thing is speed, getting it to market. With a bigger network, you get that speed,” Torrence said on the podcast. “The writing to me was on the wall that either I get some outside investment and scale up myself, or kind of listen to these guys and see if maybe now would be the right time to exit.”

Joining Headlands had its benefits during the pandemic because she could “lean on” its other sites with experience running vaccine trials. “Had we not gotten those … we may not still be here,” Torrence said.

Torrence, whose LinkedIn profile said she left the company in 2021, didn’t respond to messages from KHN.

Lyndon Fullen, a health care consultant and former Centex employee, said private equity provides funding that allows companies to add study sites.

“I completely support it,” he said. “If it’s about reaching that large patient population, it’s of course better to have larger groups with that funding.”

Opportunity in Long Covid

Contract research organization Parexel saw opportunity in the covid pandemic — millions of people were developing long covid after infection and there were few, if any, meaningful treatment options.

The company, which employs more than 19,000 people, was acquired in 2021 by EQT Private Equity and Goldman Sachs’ private equity arm for $8.5 billion, billions more than the $4.5 billion that private equity firm Pamplona Capital Management paidwhen it took Parexel private in 2017.

A growing body of research shows the debilitating effects of long covid, including a recent study of tens of thousands of patients in Scotland where nearly half had not fully recovered months later. But treatments addressing its root causes could be years away. “It’s a huge number of people,” said Dr. Nathalie Sohier, who leads Parexel’s infectious diseases and vaccines franchise. “There’s a lot of need.”

Long covid represents the promise and peril of the work to develop new drugs: Millions of patients create a potentially lucrative market for drug companies, and yet researchers and industry experts say they are reluctant to jump in. In part, that’s because “it’s not a well-defined disease, and that really makes it highly risky for companies to invest in research,” said Cecil Nick, a vice president for Parexel.

“How are we going to be able to tell the FDA that our drug works? We can’t count the number of people who died; we can’t count the number of people in the hospital,” said Dr. Steven Deeks, a University of California-San Francisco professor who is running an observational study on long covid patients.

As of August, among more than 4,400 covid studies, only 304 focused on long covid. A third of those were related to drug development, Sohier said.

Sohier said “there are few” companies in its long covid program. That hasn’t stopped Parexel from pitching itself as the ideal partner to shepherd new products, including by doing regulatory work and using remote technology to retain patients in trials. Parexel has worked on nearly 300 covid-related studies in more than 50 countries, spokesperson Danaka Williams said.

Michael Fenne, research and campaign coordinator with the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, which studies private equity investments, said Parexel and other contract research organizations are beefing up their data capacity. The aim? To have better information on patients.

“It kind of ties into access and control of patients,” Fenne said. “Technology makes accessing patients, and then also having more reliable information on them, easier.”

KHN senior correspondent Fred Schulte and Megan Kalata contributed to this report.

The defendant in a high-profile fraud trial involving the theft of more than $431,000 from the city of West Haven was found guilty Friday of two federal crimes.

After roughly five hours of deliberations, a 12-member jury convicted John Trasacco, a Branford resident, of wire fraud and a federal conspiracy charge.

West Haven

CT Mirror’s investigation into the use of federal COVID relief funds in West Haven

---

The jurors found Trasacco guilty after listening to days of testimony from West Haven officials, federal agents and Michael DiMassa, a former state lawmaker and West Haven employee who conspired with Trasacco to submit phony invoices to the city.

The trial was focused solely on Trasacco and how he used two of his companies to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the city.

But over the course of two weeks, the jurors learned how DiMassa, Trasacco and two other defendants stole a combined $1.2 million from the West Haven taxpayers. They also got to hear about an allegedly illegal gambling ring, wads of cash stuffed into DiMassa’s pocket and how DiMassa walked checks out of city hall.

After the jurors read the verdict aloud, the federal prosecutors in the case immediately asked for Trasacco to be placed into custody while he awaits his sentencing hearing.

U.S. District Judge Omar Williams then listened to more than an hour of arguments from the prosecutors and Trasacco’s defense attorneys about whether he should be allowed to remain free pending his sentencing.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Sheldon argued that Trasacco was a flight risk and a “danger to the community.”

Sheldon and the other federal prosecutors were barred during the trial from making any reference to organized crime or the mob. They were also blocked from discussing Trasacco’s criminal history, which includes assault.

The prosecutors, however, reminded the judge that during the six days of testimony in the trial, witnesses told the jury that Trasacco was involved in an allegedly illegal gambling ring that operated out of an Italian restaurant in Branford.

They noted how Trasacco had no job, no property and no “legal” income.

To drive home that point, they noted for the judge that Trasacco failed to file an income tax statement for nearly five years. And when he did, it was only to claim $1 in income so that he could receive a COVID stimulus payments from the federal government.

Sheldon also highlighted how Trasacco had spent more than $23,000 at the Foxwoods Casino in the time between his indictment in February and November, when the trial started.

“There is literally nothing to hold him,” Sheldon said.

The prosecution team also highlighted the testimony of DiMassa, the former state lawmaker, who told the jury that he was afraid of Trasacco.

While he was on the stand, DiMassa recalled several moments where he became concerned about his safety with Trasacco.

That included a call he got from Trasacco after he was arrested. DiMassa testified that Trasacco said he was thinking about DiMassa and that he wanted to send some food over to his house.

After that happened, Dimassa testified that a doorbell camera on his home captured a hooded man showing up at his front door — without any food.

The public defenders who represented Trasacco, however, pushed back against the government’s motion.

Attorney Tracy Hayes argued that DiMassa was lying about feeling threatened, and he noted how Trasacco did not seek to intimidate the witnesses in any way during the trial.

Hayes said Trasacco “remained professional.” He didn’t “glare” or make any “comments or gestures,” Hayes said.

He also didn’t seek to make any contact with the various West Haven officials and other witnesses who took the stand, Hayes said.

“We’re not running from anything,” Hayes said. “He’s not a danger to anyone in the West Haven community.”

“What this boils down to is the government going after Mr. Trasacco because he exerted his right to a trial,” Hayes said.

In the end, the judge chose to increase Trasacco’s unsecured bond from $100,000 to $200,000.

Trasacco could not immediately obtain that bond, so he was taken into custody by federal marshals until a hearing can be scheduled at a later date.

An inveterate networker, Gov. Ned Lamont had a good trip to Washington, D.C. He shared a table at a state dinner Thursday with President Joe Biden’s chief of staff and met Friday with his transportation secretary.

“A lot of life is these relationships,” Lamont said in a telephone interview Friday, shortly before boarding a plane to return to Connecticut. “That’s what the last 24 hours has been.”

He took his wife, Annie, to the White House dinner honoring the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and his top transportation officials, Joseph J. Giulietti and Garrett Eucalitto, to meet with the secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg.

Lamont said the trio made a pitch to Buttigieg about how Connecticut, with an aging infrastructure and a share of one of the nation’s busiest commuter rail systems, can showcase the administration’s investments in transportation.

Connecticut is line for a significant share of billions earmarked for modernizing the northeast rail corridor that passes through the state, used by Amtrak and the Metro North commuter railroad. But it also is seeking competitive grants.

“You know, a lot of things are discretionary. They think about where the money would be best put with the most impact, where they can tell a story,” Lamont said. “And we can tell what that means to the state of Connecticut.”

Giulietti, the former Metro North president, is retiring as the commissioner of ConnDOT in January, to be succeeded by his deputy commissioner, Eucalitto, who did a stint in D.C. as transportation coordinator for the National Governors Association.

Lamont said he also met with Steve Ricchetti, the White House counselor and long-time Biden confidant who negotiated the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal that will provide $550 billion into transportation, broadband and utilities.

The first governor to endorse Biden’s campaign for president, Lamont became acquainted with Ricchetti during the campaign and spoke with him the night Biden won the Democratic nomination.

“I think the flesh and blood is a big part of business in my previous life and politics in my current life,” Lamont said.

Paul Mounds, who is departing as Lamont’s chief of staff in January at the start of the governor’s second term, said Lamont’s personal touch has been evident in the attention paid Connecticut by the Biden administration.

Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and several cabinet secretaries have visited the state in the first two years of the Biden administration.

“That’s on a par with larger states like California and New York,” Mounds said. “And that flows from how Ned Lamont is as a person.”

Mounds and the deputy who will succeed him, Jonanthan Dach, said the governor habitually seeks information and perspectives from outside government.

“Being a principal like the governor can be isolating if you only get briefed on things by your senior staff,” said Dach, who worked in the Obama administration as an aide in the State Department. “I think the governor recognizes the dangers of that. And that’s why he spends a lot of time doing what seems like networking.”

Lamont was one of five governors at the state dinner. The others were John Carney of Biden’s home state of Delaware, plus John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, Philip Murphy of New Jersey and Jay Pritzker of Illinois.

Buttigieg attended with his husband, Chasten. The Lamonts spent time with another cabinet official, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, and his wife, Marissa. Cardona was Lamont’s first commissioner of education.

“He’s great. He’s a very good friend,” Lamont said.

The guest list was drawn from the worlds of politics, diplomacy, business and entertainment. One of the attendees was Stephen Colbert, who interviewed Lamont during the 2006 Senate campaign on his old Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report.

Jon Batiste, the Grammy winner who recently left his role as bandleader on Late Night with Stephen Colbert, provided the music. 

Seated at the Lamonts’ table was Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, and Klain’s wife, Monica Medina, the assistant secretary of state for environmental and scientific affairs.

“I sat with Ron Klain at the dinner,” Lamont said. “That’s not a bad relationship to have. As you’re having a glass of wine and listening to Jon Batiste, you’re also talking about what’s happening in Connecticut. So that’s pretty helpful to get to know him.”

Lamont hastened to add, “It’s also a hell of a lot of fun.”

The Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority (CHESLA) released a study on Thursday that concluded it has created 597 jobs, increased the total of all borrowers’ income by more than $72 million and increased state Gross Domestic Product by $74 million over a six year period.

CHESLA’s study, which surveyed the work of the authority between 2015-2021, also found that students who finish their college education have a lifetime earning potential of $1.2 million more than residents who graduated with a high school diploma. Increasing income levels across Connecticut will have a positive impact on the state because it will lead to more tax revenue, the study concluded.

CHESLA helps Connecticut students 18 and over who have exhausted financial aid, scholarships, and Direct Subsidized/Direct Unsubsidized federal student loan options. It serves as a final resort to getting student loans.

In the past six years, CHESLA’s loans and scholarships totaled $148 million, which has created more than $3.3 billion in income for the state. For every $1 distributed via loans or scholarships, more than $22 has been returned to the state, the study found. CHESLA expects to see more short and long term income produced from this work in the future.

Since CHESLA’s inception in 2015, it has distributed about $11 million in loans. These loans have helped nearly 6,000 Connecticut residents attend higher education institutions. 

CHESLA Executive Director Jeanette Weldon said the organization helps drive economic and workforce development throughout the state. 

“This report demonstrates that CHESLA’s investments in Connecticut residents and their families offer a substantial return that very few investments can be compared to,” Weldon said. 

Connecticut was left out of the mix to become an early primary state for Democrats in the 2024 presidential election as President Joe Biden and others in the party gravitated toward elevating South Carolina and granting early status to two states in the South and Midwest.

Related Stories

---

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee convened in Washington, D.C., on Friday to start the high-profile consideration of how to reshuffle the presidential primary calendar, which is poised to get a vote on Saturday. The issue will go to another vote at a later date by the full DNC.

Early reports indicated that Connecticut was no longer in contention, which was confirmed by the time the meeting began on Friday morning. Minyon Moore, a co-chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, read Biden’s letter about the primary lineup that “early states must reflect the overall diversity of our party and our nation — economically, geographically, demographically.”

Moore also read the proposed new calendar of the first five primary states for 2024 that kicks out Iowa — which previously held its caucuses first — and adds Georgia and Michigan. The proposal recommends holding South Carolina’s primary on Feb. 6, both New Hampshire and Nevada primaries on Feb. 13, Georgia’s on Feb. 20 and Michigan’s on Feb. 27.

“We feel strongly that this window that reflects our values, paints a vibrant picture of our nation and creates a strong process that will result in the best Democratic nominee,” Minyon said, adding that there needs to be “a system that works and provides stability for future presidential campaigns.”

“The logistics of this window will be something we need to navigate as a committee, but I agree with the president that this is a bold window that reflects the values of our party,” she added.

While the changes are not final, most members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee appeared supportive of Biden and the recommendations — even some from states, like Connecticut, that vied for an earlier primary date but did not make the cut.

But committee members from New Hampshire — which was Connecticut’s biggest competition — and Iowa expressed frustration. A member from Iowa said he would not support the proposal, while another from New Hampshire indicated that the state will still go first regardless of the decision. New Hampshire law stipulates that the state hold the first-in-the-nation primary.

States, however, will likely be able to apply for waivers to allow them to move up their primaries before Super Tuesday — the first Tuesday in March when the largest number of states hold their nominating contests.

The decision to potentially reshuffle Democrats’ primary calendar stemmed from criticisms that some of the early states did not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the party’s voters in addition to the chaos that ensued during Iowa’s caucuses in 2020.

Connecticut was one of 16 states and one territory that competed for an earlier slot in the primary calendar. State officials and lawmakers delivered a presentation in June, arguing that Connecticut’s compact size and a demographic makeup more closely resembling the U.S. provided an advantage for Democrats as they select their next presidential nominee in 2024.

Nancy DiNardo, chairwoman of the Connecticut Democratic Party, argued early-state status would generate more excitement among voters and would also be an economic boon since presidential candidates, voters and reporters would be traveling and staying in the state. DiNardo delivered the presentation before the committee over the summer along with Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas and U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th District.

DiNardo issued a statement Friday expressing disappointment about the expected outcome.

“We’re disappointed that Connecticut is not among those recommended by President Biden for an early primary. As we said in our application, we believe our state offers great opportunities for candidates to campaign in easily accessible, diverse communities and would have given Connecticut a far greater voice in the choice of a Presidential candidate,” DiNardo said. “We also understand that in any process like this one, some states will be chosen, and others will not. We’ll respect the DNC’s final decision, while holding out hope for a different outcome than has been reported.”

During Connecticut’s presentation, officials argued that the state has racial representation as well as its geographic diversity with cities, suburbs and rural areas. They also touted advertising and fundraising as other advantages since the state has an affordable media market and is close to New York City and other major metropolitan areas.

“Connecticut is a small state geographically, but we are truly a microcosm of the country,” Thomas said during the presentation. “One of our biggest assets is having all of that diversity within a two- to three-hour drive, making it a win-win for the electorate and candidates alike.”

But Connecticut faced tough regional competition from New Hampshire since the party wants to ensure there’s a balance of regional representation. Plus, as a Democratic stronghold in presidential races, Connecticut is not a swing state in general elections in the same way as New Hampshire.

The Connecticut Mirror/Connecticut Public Radio federal policy reporter position is made possible, in part, by funding from the Robert and Margaret Patricelli Family Foundation and Engage CT.

During the 2019-2020 academic year, 42% of all suspensions and expulsions in Connecticut public schools were the result of “school policy violations.” Unlike what you might assume, these policy violations did not include fighting, personally threatening behavior, or physical and verbal confrontation. Nor did that 42% include drug, alcohol or tobacco use, property damage, sexual misconduct, theft, violent crimes, and weapons. What, then, are these school policies that result in close to half of suspensions and expulsions in Connecticut? 

The state defined school policy violations in 2006 as behaviors such as insubordination, disrespect, obscene language and/or behavior, attendance violations, possession of electronic devices, trespassing, personal threats, academic violations, school threats, and other school policy violations.

Is it fair to punish students for getting caught on their phone in class with an out-of-school suspension, the same punishment that students receive for fighting in the hallway? In both instances, students are missing valuable class time and are far more likely to fall behind.

In reality, such harsh punishments in schools only serve to increase the likelihood of future under-education, unemployment, and incarceration among students. These types of zero-tolerance policies in Connecticut schools increase the number of offenses a student can be punished for while simultaneously increasing the severity of those punishments.

Not only are these policies often arbitrary and overly punitive, they also disproportionately target students of color. It was reported that during the 2019-2020 school year that while 1 in every 34 white students received at least one suspension, 1 in 10 Black students were suspended at least once. A 2008 study found that though Black and Latinx students made up only 24% of the student body in West Hartford, they experienced 63% of arrests by school resource officers that year. Furthermore, in three of four cases, it was found that Black and Latinx students were punished more severely — such as being given an out of school suspension or expelled — than their white peers for similar misconduct.

The most recent data collected in 2019 reveals that throughout the state, suspensions and expulsions resulting from school policy violations have gone down from the previous five years. During the 2015-2016 academic year, 62% of expulsions and suspensions resulted from these school policy violations. However, the fact remains that 29,414 incidents reported in 2019 were still labeled as school policy violations. 

In June of 2015, the state of Connecticut passed Public Act 15-96, which prohibited out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for students in preschool, as well as kindergarten through second grade. The only exception that would warrant such a punishment for children so young was behavior “of a violent or sexual nature that endangers persons.”

Believe it or not, in the 2014-2015 school year, prior to this bill being passed, 2,365 preschoolers through second graders in Connecticut had received a suspension or were expelled. However, data from 2019 demonstrates a 72% decrease in out-of-school suspensions for Connecticut students in preschool through second grade after the enactment of Public Act 15-96 when such punishments were reserved for only the most severe misconduct.

Why can’t Connecticut enact similar legislation that would extend its application to grades three through 12? School administrators and officials should no longer have the ability to suspend and expel students for misconduct that is not “of a violent or sexual nature that engagers persons.” Getting rid of the arbitrary and expansive zero-tolerance policies that disproportionately target students of color will benefit Connecticut public schools and their students throughout the state. Therefore, it is imperative that the Connecticut state legislature extends Public Act 15-96 to Connecticut students of all ages and grades to prevent detrimental long-term consequences for the state’s youth. 

Taylor Fleming is a senior at Trinity College majoring in Public Policy and Law. 

Lawmakers are targeting the rising cost of health care as a key issue they plan to tackle this upcoming legislative session, after hearing from hospital executives, representatives of insurance and pharmaceutical companies and other industry officials Thursday.

“It’s no secret that health care is unaffordable and that the health care industry is not meeting the needs of Connecticut’s families and small businesses,” said Sen. Matthew Lesser, D-Middletown, a co-chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee. “Customers are expected to pay more and more for the same essential health services.

“It’s leaving parents and seniors to further stretch household budgets and to wait on seeking care, which raises the risk of worse health complications down the road. … Without reining in costs, we are blocking families across Connecticut from achieving a better quality of life and the ability of businesses to grow.”

Thursday’s hearing, which covered hospital expenses, the underlying costs of insurance and other issues, was prompted by double-digit rate increases sought and approved this year for many fully insured health plans, including those on the state’s insurance exchange, Access Health CT.

Insurance carriers in July asked for an average rate hike of 20% on 2023 individual health plans, an increase far higher than any requested or approved in recent years. The state signed off on a 13% average hike.

Insurers also asked for a 15% average increase on small group plans; the state approved 8%. Residents, small business owners and health care advocates criticized the requests.

The carriers attributed the increases to rising demand for medical services and the swelling cost of prescription drugs, among other trends. They have also pointed to an increase in morbidity and expected severity of claims because of delays in care during the pandemic.

Neil Kelsey, vice president and chief actuary for ConnectiCare, said Thursday that 84 cents of every dollar the company receives for monthly premiums goes toward members’ pharmacy and medical service costs.

“Hospital spending — both inpatient and outpatient — and retail pharmacy are the largest drivers of the health cost increases over recent years,” he said. “And prescription drugs have grown disproportionately.”

Thirteen cents of every dollar received for premiums covers internal expenses, such as taxes, assessments and fees, he said, and the remaining 3 cents are counted as surplus.

Higher utilization of medical services is driven by “lifestyle and behavior,” Kelsey said. “Unhealthy habits lead to illness and result in medical services.”

Roberta Wachtelhausen, interim president of ConnectiCare, echoed Kelsey’s remarks.

“A very, very large percentage of health care costs are driven by lifestyle behaviors,” she said. “Lifestyle — especially the American lifestyle, the high percentage of obesity in this country — really is at the root of medical cost. So this really comes down to human behavior as a factor in premium setting.

“The conversation today is all about sick care, and how do you lower the cost when someone is sick. We maintain that if you can work with someone on lifestyle and all the social support, you can actually keep people out of the system and keep them on a good path of health as a way to control medical costs.”

Unhealthy behaviors, coupled with social determinants of health — transportation, housing, access to nutritious food and dietary information, personal safety and employment — should be looked at when addressing health care costs, said Patrick Charmel, president and CEO of Griffin Hospital.

“Many communities are under-resourced, and you have a growing number of Connecticut residents who are either in poverty or who are working poor,” he said. “I actually have a hospital that’s in the lower Naugatuck River Valley; the two towns we sit in between — 50% of the people who live in those towns don’t earn enough to meet their basic living needs. Are they going to live healthy lifestyles in safe homes, eat nutritious food and afford their medications? No.

“We spend less on social services as a proportion of total health care spending … than any other industrialized country in the world. And if you’re saying that has more influence on the health of the population than what we do in medical care, we’ve got to change that. The problem is, where is that money going to come from?”

Rep. Kerry Wood, D-Rocky Hill, co-chair of the Insurance Committee, said members of her committee have already begun talking with industry officials to understand the drivers of medical costs.

“We’ve taken a step back on just putting forward legislation [to] really understand the costs that go into care,” she said. “I think it’s worth the time to dive into that, and you have my commitment going forward that that will be a priority in the next year. When we pass legislation, we want to pass something that’s effective and that does make the proper change.”

Gov. Ned Lamont did not offer specifics on what policy changes he might propose in the coming session, but he asked for support in tackling the escalating cost of care.

“I call on every party to join together to address this problem — hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical manufacturers and benefit managers, insurance carriers and large and small employers all have indispensable roles to play in tackling the high costs of health care,” he said. “The status quo cannot and must not continue if we are to ensure high-quality, affordable health outcomes for every resident of Connecticut.”

The debate over rewarding Connecticut’s essential workers for serving during the coronavirus outbreak largely is resolved.

The larger question — how to rescue working families from the economic shocks of the pandemic and a 40-year-high in inflation — has just begun to heat up at the Capitol.

A permanent state income tax credit for families with children, other tax relief and expanded investments in social services are at the top of an early to-do list for many legislators who still are wary of a global recession looming as soon as 2023.

“I don’t think our work is done in creating more equity in our state,” said Sen. Julie Kushner, D-Danbury. “These are long-term problems that didn’t happen overnight.”

Along with other members of the Labor Committee that she co-chairs, Kushner was tied to a year-long debate that wrapped this week with $105 million reserved for pandemic bonuses for nurses, child care providers, grocery store workers and others who staffed vital services when COVID-19 first struck Connecticut in 2020.

Labor advocates — who had hoped to see bonuses as large as $2,000 for each of these workers — settled for $1,000 for essential employees who earn less than $50,000 a year.

Those earning above that threshold but below $100,000 were eligible for anywhere from $800 to $200. Those making between $100,000 and $150,000 annually got $100.

Given the political challenges of publicly funding bonuses for private workers, Kushner said she is appreciative of her colleagues and of Gov. Ned Lamont for approving the money in special session this week.

But despite the headlines “Premium Pay” grabbed, it’s just one element of a much larger debate, Kushner added: how to lift all Connecticut families and businesses back to pre-pandemic prosperity or higher.

“Clearly the job is not done,” said Ed Hawthorne, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO. “Working families are hurting.”

Income tax cuts on the agenda for the 2023 session

One way to alleviate that pain, both Hawthorne and Kushner said, would be to create a permanent state income cut for low- and middle-income families with children.

Rep. Sean Scanlon, D-Guilford, who proposed a permanent, $600-per-child credit, had to settle this spring for a one-time, $250-per-child rebate that sent $82 million to Connecticut families this summer.

Scanlon, who will be sworn in as the new state comptroller in January, is expected to lobby his former colleagues to adopt ongoing relief.

When asked about the credit, Lamont has said he will assess the state’s fiscal health when he proposes his next budget to the legislature in February. The current budget, which runs through June 30, is on pace for a $2.85 billion surplus, equal to nearly 13% of the entire General Fund.

The Guilford lawmaker noted Thursday that when Congress allowed a temporary one-year expansion of the federal child tax credit to expire in January, thousands of Connecticut children were thrown back into poverty, or much closer to it.

According to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based policy think-tank, about 145,000 Connecticut children live in households that now receive less than the full $2,000-per-child credit. (The expansion has pushed many households up to $3,000 per child, or $3,600 for children younger than 6.)

That expansion “literally cut child poverty in this country in half in six months, and just about every study that I’ve seen about what that period was like [shows] an overwhelming net positive to American families,” Scanlon said.

With Washington showing no signs of expanding relief again, and with state finances remaining robust for now, Scanlon predicted a state child tax credit “is something there’s going to be a lot of support for.”

Ten states currently offer ongoing child tax credits, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, another Washington-based policy group.

The United Way of Connecticut has tried to raise awareness about the severity of wealth inequality here through the use of its ALICE methodology. An acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, the ALICE system attempts to calculate the cost of a basic survival budget in Connecticut.

It incorporates key elements like health and child care, transportation, utilities and other housing costs that aren’t major factors in other metrics, such as the Federal Poverty Level — a measure of income set annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

While the FPL concludes a family of four is above the poverty level once it earns more than $27,750 per year, the ALICE system says the same family needs slightly more than $90,000 annually to survive in Connecticut.

Too many families who qualify for little or no government assistance need more relief to stay in Connecticut, Bates said. 

“The [state] child tax credit is just a very clear example of a powerful tool that goes right to the heart of this issue,” she said, adding the concept likely would draw support from both sides of the aisle.

Republicans in the General Assembly argued for nearly double the $650 million state tax relief package Lamont and his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate majorities approved last spring. That package included ongoing assistance, including an expanded state income tax credit to offset property taxes and a lower cap on motor vehicle taxes. But roughly half of the relief was one-time.

And while the GOP’s biggest proposal — the first state income tax rate cut in almost two decades — was ongoing, many Republicans also have supported a new state income tax credit for families with children.

Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, has chastised Democrats for being too stingy with the tax relief, pointing to a 40-year high in the national inflation rate this past summer when it topped 9%. The Consumer Price Index still hovers just below 8%.

“We can do better,” Kelly said repeatedly on the Senate floor Monday when legislators voted to extend a gasoline tax holiday through April 30.

Shoring up holes in the social safety net

Community-based nonprofits that provide the bulk of state-sponsored social services have argued for years that Connecticut can do better when it comes to funding its safety net.

The CT Community Nonprofit Alliance two years ago analyzed the impacts of inflation on state payments that had stagnated since 2007. The alliance estimated then that the industry was losing $462 million annually due to this trend.

Since that report, legislators and Lamont have increased funding for contracts with community-based nonprofits by $330 million.

But while there have been significant investments to expand mobile crisis services and early childhood intervention and other new programs, a huge part of that increase is tied to salaries.

“We also have to recognize that nonprofits have costs relative to insurance, food, transportation and capital expenditures,” said Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, who co-chairs the legislature’s Appropriations Committee.

Osten isn’t the only budget leader in the legislature worried about the state’s social services.

Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, co-chair of the Finance Committee and one of the chief architects of a savings program that’s helped Connecticut pay down billions of dollars in debt in recent years, is willing to scale it back modestly to help more families access child care and early childhood development services. 

Nonprofit social service agencies, collectively, are still reeling from the first year of the pandemic, which forced them to curtail certain services and forfeit millions of dollars in revenue.

Gian-Carl Casa, president and CEO of the alliance, said the extra funding the governor and legislators approved since 2021 has been “a lifeline, really for many — and then inflation came and ate it up.”

Connecticut is in the midst of a four-year plan to boost the minimum wage from $10.10 to $15 per hour by June 1, 2023. The wage currently is $14.

That has placed tremendous pressure on all employers to boost compensation.

And Casa said many private nonprofits, which traditionally have offered lower salaries than do state social service agencies, are struggling with vacancy rates of about 20%.

The alliance is working to update its annual state funding gap projection, but Casa said the shortfall certainly remains “in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

My emotional reaction to the great American journalist Ida B. Wells’ historic work Lynch Law in America is varied and deep. I am shocked and horrified to learn that lynchings took place before a mob and without trial of the alleged perpetrator. While the constitution states, “We the people,” it has been noted by people of color there is a clear difference in how they are treated as opposed to their white peers. This was also demonstrated throughout the essay: a white woman only needed to say she felt threatened by a Black man, and he would be put to death. This clearly shows the level of disparity that existed in that time. 

Throughout the essay, I experienced different emotions as a Black person; lynching was not only about physical harm but also set on breaking the receiver’s spirit by making them a public spectacle. It makes me sad as well as angry to see the lengths humans would go to, to denigrate, hunt, and terrorize an individual or group of people based on the color of their skin. Reading the article has opened my eyes to parts of history that I really have not thought of in a long time. Emotionally I am torn between being grateful for the opportunities I now have and the feeling of regret that past generations had to suffer. Annoyed, because these were allowed to happen for so long. Powerlessness, because as one person there is only so much you can do. Pained, just thinking about the suffering they endured.  

While the climate has changed with regards to lynching, white supremacy and injustice continue to exist in our society. Terrible abuse heaped on the Black community has continued throughout the years. There remains disparity in how justice is carried out, how investigations are conducted and whether we have the privilege of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as a race.

All the victims of lynching required was some sort of justice to be served, fairly and impartially so they could abide. Much like today, all Black communities are looking for is fairness in the execution of judgment.

History serves its purpose by helping us to understand transitions, change and growth. Through historical events like these, we can sometimes appreciate how far we have come as a race. 

Racism in the United States of America has always been prevalent. While it would appear to be based on individual experiences, at the core it is a systemic issue. Death by lynching is not widely or officially practiced in the 21st Century. However, African Americans are still being profiled, brutalized, and often murdered by the police in public — like some of the scenes described in lynching scenarios. The only thing that has changed over the decades is the mode of brutality. 

I personally think racism will always be a stain on America’s name as long as systemic inequality is allowed to continue. Where one group is marginalized, treated differently, or given fewer opportunities, then times really have not changed much since the days of lynching. A society where skin color continues to be seen as a weapon or where you are immediately thought of as less worthy has problems that are ingrained into members of society. There are obviously people who are not racist by their actions or interactions but until they are willing to trade places or stand up and be a voice of reason then we will continue to have this problem. 

In retrospect as I reflect on this era, I can only imagine the terror people of color lived with. Not knowing when they would be the next one accused and put to humiliation and death. Not having the resources to protect their families or being a target by simply existing.

I take this as an opportunity to remind myself that I stand on the shoulders of those who came before me, those who suffered, died, and dared to stand up to their oppressors when they were clearly outnumbered, so this generation and generations to come thereafter can thrive. 

Derriffee Graham is a freshman at Norwalk Community College majoring in computer science. Originally from Jamaica, he is also a member of the CT Air National Guard.

Read this story in English.

Traducción: Jorge Alatrista, Identidad Latina Multimedia

Desde que Connecticut aprobó la marihuana recreativa hace más de un año, el proceso de concesión de licencias y desarrollo del mercado estatal ha sido lento.

Pero los reguladores dijeron esta semana que las empresas de marihuana aprobadas están en camino de lanzar las ventas minoristas en los próximos meses, retrasadas con respecto a su cronograma original, de acuerdo con las estimaciones más recientes.

En un anuncio el martes, el Departamento de Protección al Consumidor dijo que la cadena de suministro estaba cerca de alcanzar los 250,000 pies cuadrados de espacio de cultivo y fabricación con licencia requerido por ley, para que comience la venta de marihuana recreativa.

“Dado este umbral, el inicio de las ventas de cannabis para uso de adultos depende de la conversión exitosa de los cuatro productores de marihuana medicinal existentes o el cultivo adicional para estar en línea”, se lee en el anuncio.

A partir de esta semana, tres de esos cuatro productores de marihuana medicinal existentes (Advanced Grow Labs, Connecticut Pharmaceutical Solutions y Curaleaf) han cumplido con los requisitos para obtener licencias híbridas, lo que les permite atender tanto al mercado médico como al recreativo. La cuarta solicitud se presentó hace dos semanas y está bajo revisión, según DCP.

Como era de esperar, la infraestructura de marihuana medicinal existente en el Estado sentó las bases para establecer la cadena de suministro para uso de adultos, pero las tarifas para convertir esas licencias fueron significativas: $1 millón para minoristas y $3 millones para productores. La tarifa se descontó para los operadores que formaron sociedades de “empresas conjuntas de capital” 50/50, con una persona o empresa que cumplió con ciertos requisitos de bajos ingresos y se encontraba en una comunidad que históricamente había sido perjudicada por la prohibición de la marihuana.

Siete minoristas médicos han sido aprobados para licencias híbridas y podrían estar listos para vender productos tan pronto como la producción alcance el umbral de 250,000 pies cuadrados. Muchos más han presentado solicitudes para convertir sus licencias, dijo DCP.

Los minoristas autorizados son:

• Affinity en New Haven

• Bluepoint Wellness of Connecticut en Branford

• C3 Torrington (Still River Wellness) en Torrington

• Fine Fettle Dispensary en Newington

• Fine Fettle Dispensary en Stamford

• Fine Fettle Dispensary en Willimantic

• Willow Brook Wellness en Meriden

DCP también ha estado evaluando solicitudes de licencia de nuevos participantes en el mercado. Había menos de 50 licencias disponibles en nueve categorías, desde cultivadores hasta fabricantes de productos, transportistas, minoristas y servicios de entrega, a través del proceso de lotería. Y la mitad fueron designados para solicitantes de “equidad social”, que están siendo seleccionados por sorteo.

Hasta la fecha, DCP ha emitido licencias provisionales a más de 40 productores y minoristas.

A diferencia de los negocios de marihuana medicinal que se basan en operaciones e infraestructuras existentes, los nuevos participantes ingresarán al mercado más lentamente durante el próximo año, más o menos. Los seleccionados a través de la lotería tienen que pedir una licencia antes de poder comenzar a trabajar en el lanzamiento de su negocio, un proceso costoso y lento en el mercado de la marihuana altamente regulado.

Federal prosecutors and defense attorneys delivered their closing arguments on Thursday as part of a high-profile criminal trial that included allegations about kickbacks, bogus invoices, shell companies and a massive level of fraud within the West Haven city government.

The jury will decide whether John Trasacco, a Branford businessman and city contractor, is guilty of wire fraud and a federal conspiracy charge for allegedly stealing more than $431,000 from West Haven taxpayers.

U.S. District Judge Omar Williams provided instructions to the jury on Thursday and advised them they would be called back into federal court to deliberate on Friday morning.

But before he issued those orders, the federal prosecutors and Trasacco’s defense attorneys delivered their final pitches to the jurors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Raymond Miller spent more than half an hour walking the jurors through the various evidence that was presented in the case. That included bank statements, casino records, financial documents from the city and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in allegedly bogus invoices that two of Trasacco’s companies submitted to West Haven.

Miller also reminded the jurors about the testimony delivered by various witnesses — including the insider account that was provided by Michael DiMassa, a former state Democratic lawmaker and West Haven employee.

DiMassa, who recently pleaded guilty to three separate conspiracy charges, was the prosecution’s star witness during the roughly two-week trial. He helped to weave the narrative presented by prosecutors and to fill in the gaps between the documents that were presented to the jury.

As part of that testimony, DiMassa told jurors that Trasacco provided him with phony invoices to submit to the West Haven finance department. He explained how he processed those phony invoices for Trasacco. And he testified under oath that Trasacco on at least two occasions slipped him wads of money in return for passing off the allegedly fake paperwork.

In his closing arguments, Miller repeatedly told the jury to ask themselves whether those actions sounded like the actions of a legitimate businessman or a fraudster.

Meanwhile, the defense team for Trasacco sought to present their client as a legitimate businessman.

“Do not convict my client because the city of West Haven lacked insight and financial management,” Lillian Odongo said.

Picture this: you’ve been summoned to court by your estranged spouse to fight for custody of your children. You have no idea what a probate and family court is or where it is. You can barely take the time off work to attend court, let alone pay for a lawyer. You realize that you must represent yourself to a judge. The only courtrooms you’ve seen are on TV, and you don’t know the first thing about the system. You’re scared and confused. What do you do? 

This scenario is not uncommon in the American civil trial court system. Unlike the criminal system, the civil system does not guarantee a right to an attorney if you cannot afford one. Because of this, many people are forced to become pro se litigants, or those who represent themselves. 

While it may appear to be more cost-effective, research shows that there are many downsides to acting as a pro se litigant. For example, pro se litigants are required to act like lawyers when they may have no legal background or understanding of the court system at all. Many judges expect them to adhere to the same guidelines as seasoned lawyers, and they must fill out the same paperwork and include the same briefs. Even if one manages to accomplish all of that, the chances of pro se litigants winning their case is drastically lower than people who have lawyers, especially if the opposing party has counsel.

This creates a significant level of inequity between those who can afford lawyers and those who cannot. Effectively, rich people can seek justice or recourse through the courts simply because they have the means to pay for it. 

I saw this imbalance every day in my summer internship with the Essex Probate Court in Massachusetts. In a civil court, probate and family matters usually include wills, estates, divorce, custody, and child support. People would come into the registry, where you file documents for your case, and would have no idea what to do or where to start. Many would cry tears of frustration or beg me to help them. Many would yell and demand we fill out the forms for them. Others did not speak English and could not understand my instructions.

Seeing these people in distress struck a chord. I was helpless behind the counter, because as a court employee I was not allowed to give them legal advice or even explain basic procedures to them. The only thing I could do was point to a sign that read “Lawyer of the Day” and explain that they could wait in line for free legal advice. But even that was often unhelpful for many of them. The lawyer was on Zoom three times a week for three hours at a time and could only meet with a limited number of people within that short time frame. That left hundreds of other people out of luck. 

In Connecticut, despite being another wealthy and liberal state, this is also an issue. In fact, Connecticut does not have a “lawyer of the day” program like Massachusetts. The only universal resource available is the Connecticut Judicial website containing FAQs and the “forms” section. This information is clearly insufficient to help average people who have never stepped foot in a courtroom before.

The state has tried to address the issue of inadequate legal counsel before. In 2016, a task force recommended a series of trial runs of legal counsel for eviction and restraining order cases. After a pilot program providing free legal counsel for some cases in the Waterbury courts a 2019 report recommended expanding the programs. In response, Connecticut created a right to counsel program for eviction or housing cases for those who financially qualify.

In addition to governmental support, the Connecticut Bar Association does offer online free legal answers, and Connecticut Legal Services will sometimes take cases pro bono depending on financial status, but they cannot take everyone, and their applicant waitlist is years long.

While the steps taken to correct this inequity are helpful, the state and non-profit actors still have strict financial threshold requirements that some people, although still considered poor, do not meet.

It seems clear that the system is unfair to the poor and even many middle income people. The best remedies here are not easy or cheap. The most progressive solution to this issue is Civil Gideon. Civil Gideon is named for Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case which mandated representation for all in criminal cases — it aims to extend that right to the civil courts. With this principle, states could begin to close the socioeconomic gaps seen in the legal system. Children would be better represented in custody and parental disputes. Poor people would finally get the justice they deserve.

In an ideal world, this approach would be the perfect solution to our problem. 

Sadly, the likelihood of getting legislators to spend millions of dollars on setting up lawyers in every state and every court across the country seems far-fetched. But shouldn’t states that claim to care for the poor finally put their money where their mouth is? 

I challenge Connecticut to be that state. To reevaluate the court systems and expand on their efforts from the 2016 pilot programs to develop a statewide initiative. Connecticut should be the first state to enact Civil Gideon. Because everyone deserves justice, no matter your pay grade. 

Natalie Caffrey is a senior at Trinity College, majoring in Public Policy & Law with a minor in French. 

A food pantry that started as a class project at the University of Connecticut’s Stamford location will soon feed hundreds of food-insecure students on four different campuses. It’s part of an effort to fight student food insecurity by feeding hundreds of people every week.

“We’ve long known that there’s food insecurity on campus, which got worse with COVID,” said Laura Bunyan, associate professor of sociology at UConn’s Stamford campus. “We didn’t yet have a permanent solution to address it. So we made it the class group project to start a food pantry on campus.”

Bunyan started a pop-up food pantry with her Sociology of Food class back in March to help students on the Stamford campus, where there are high numbers of first-generation and low-income students but no dining hall to feed them.

“We don’t have a meal plan — we just don’t have space on campus for a cafeteria — so those students are responsible for feeding themselves,” she said.

A recent UConn study found that about 45% of students experience some level of food insecurity. Students struggling with food insecurity, who are also more likely to be Black and Latino, demonstrate lower academic performance.

Although the project began as a temporary pantry, it’s become a permanent initiative, now called Husky Harvest. It’s made possible by collaborations with UConn’s administration, Connecticut Foodshare and other nonprofits and businesses.

Bunyan’s team now plans to open pantries in the remaining regional campuses in Groton, Hartford, and Waterbury. Faculty say they have been trying to open a food pantry for the Hartford campus for six years.

The Husky Harvest pantry on the Stamford campus is open Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. when classes are in session.

This story was originally published Nov. 29, 2022 by Connecticut Public.

Lately, children in the emergency department often wait hours before seeing a doctor. Those ill enough to be admitted might wait days for an available bed. Why? Pediatric emergency rooms and doctor’s offices across Connecticut are seeing a significant increase in sick patients due to a surge in a virus called RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).

Alongside climbing influenza cases, and the continued spread of COVID-19, hospitals are stretched thin.

This means children seeking help for any medical condition, including seizures, broken bones, or allergic reactions, must also wait longer to receive medical care. For sick children today, having an available caregiver nearby is especially invaluable.

This past week in clinic, I saw a 4-year-old boy who could not stop coughing. He wiped his runny nose on his sleeve. “He’s sleeping all day,” his mother shared. “He is up all night coughing. He won’t eat. He only drinks water or juice if I make him. I know he needs to stay home from school and rest, but… I really can’t afford to miss work.”

When the most important person in your life is sick, your whole world stops. But that shouldn’t mean your paycheck stops as well. When a child is sick, too many Connecticut parents face an impossible choice: stay home to care for their child or go to work to cover their cost of living.

Historically, Connecticut has prided itself on family-friendly policies. In 2011, we were the first in the nation to enact a statewide paid sick days policy. While groundbreaking at the time, today most of our workers are excluded from the program

Recent data shows that just 11% of our workforce is guaranteed the right to paid sick time under current law. How is that possible?

Today’s policy guarantees 40 hours, or five days, of paid sick time to workers if they (1) work for an employer of 50 or more employees, and (2) work for a job that falls under a lengthy definition of “service worker.” The law further requires workers to clock 680 hours at their job before using the time they’ve accrued.

These conditions exclude workers who are new, part-time, balancing multiple jobs, working for smaller employers, or whose jobs don’t fall under specific categories of “service worker.” These limitations especially disadvantage women and workers of color, who are overrepresented in low-wage jobs least likely to provide paid sick days.

For the 89% of workers excluded from this law, the decision to stay home to care for a child, take care of themself, or protect their community, quite literally costs them.

Connecticut’s children’s hospitals and clinics are overwhelmed by a surge in RSV cases while the number of people being hospitalized with influenza virus has more than tripled over the past month. Yet, despite the desperate need for a stronger policy, and proof of its efficacy in supporting both our economy and healthcare system, our current paid sick day law pushes 89% of our neighbors to go to work rather than provide care.

In short, the status quo only exacerbates our healthcare crisis.

“I make $350 a week,” my patient’s mother continued, “I can’t risk losing my paycheck.” I felt the weight of my words as I shared with my her that I’d recommend he stay home from school to heal. How can I continue asking the many families in this position to keep their children home, when it means giving up money needed to pay for basic necessities?

We cannot continue asking families to make this impossible choice. A child shouldn’t have to go to school sick because a parent can’t afford to stay home with them. And whether it’s your child who is sick or your child’s contagious classmate, everyone is impacted. Paid sick days are an essential investment to support Connecticut families.

Let’s continue to lead the country in prioritizing families. When the 2023 legislative session begins on January 4, lawmakers will have the opportunity to strengthen our current law and ensure that all workers in our state, regardless of their job title, the size of their employer, or how many hours they’ve worked, have access to paid sick days. We must ask that our elected officials prioritize this change as if our families are depending on it — because they are.

Dr. Alexandra Ashinoff is a resident in pediatrics at Yale New Haven Hospital.

The final witnesses in a federal criminal trial involving alleged fraud in West Haven took the stand on Wednesday, but one high-profile witness exited the courthouse without ever being called in front of the jury.

West Haven Mayor Nancy Rossi, a Democrat who is serving her third term in office, sat in a hallway in the federal courthouse in Hartford for most the day, in the expectation that she would be called as a witness for the defense.

West Haven

CT Mirror’s investigation into the use of federal COVID relief funds in West Haven

---

But in the end, attorneys for John Trasacco, a Branford resident who is accused of conspiring to steal more than $431,000 from West Haven taxpayers, chose not to put Rossi under oath.

Instead, the public defenders representing Trasacco decided to wrap up the trial after presenting just three witnesses in defense of their client.

The small number of witnesses called by Trasacco’s attorneys stood in stark contrast to the list of people that federal prosecutors paraded in front of the jury over the course of five days.

Those witnesses included bank and casino employees, a federal agent, multiple officials from the West Haven government, and Michael DiMassa, a former state lawmaker and city employee who said he worked with Trasacco to pass off hundreds of thousands of dollars in phony invoices.

Federal prosecutors deployed DiMassa and the other witnesses over the past two weeks to lay out their case against Trasacco.

DiMassa, who already pleaded guilty to three federal conspiracy charges, testified that he approved phony invoices for two of Trasacco’s companies, which were paid to provide COVID supplies to the city and to sanitize several city buildings and public schools.

The West Haven officials who took the stand also told the jury that they never received any of the masks and other services Trasacco’s businesses were paid to deliver.

Despite that testimony, Trasacco’s attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Omar Williams on Wednesday to issue an acquittal and to toss out the case against Trasacco before it could be handed over to the jury.

They argued the federal prosecutors in the case had not met their burden of proof and did not provide enough evidence to prove a conspiracy between Trasacco and DiMassa.

In a likely preview of their closing arguments, the defense attorneys argued that Trasacco was a legitimate businessman with legitimate contracts with the city.

The fact that he failed to provide all of the supplies and services that were promised to West Haven, they said, did not mean that his actions were criminal.

“At most, this is a case of an underperforming contractor,” Andrew Giering, one of Trasacco’s attorneys told the judge.

DiMassa may have helped Trasacco get the contracts with the city because of their personal relationship, Giering said, but that was “par for the course” in West Haven.

“It was in no way unusual or suspicious,” Giering said. “Not in this city. Not at this time.”

But Williams, who was appointed to the federal bench late last year, denied the defense team’s request.

As a result, Trasacco’s legal team called several of their own witnesses to the stand. One of them was Trasacco’s friend, who testified that he maintained a warehouse in Branford and received sweatshirts and supplies in boxes there.

The other two witnesses were salesmen for companies that manufacture ultra violet lights to sanitize rooms and objects. One flew in from Florida for the trial. The other was from Wisconsin.

The defense team called on those witnesses in an effort to show the jury that Trasacco had been in contact with companies that could supply the tens of thousands of dollars in ultra-violet equipment that the city paid for.

After playing several promotional videos for those companies, the defense attorneys highlighted several emails from October and November 2021, which showed Trasacco inquiring about the ultra violet equipment the companies sold.

The federal prosecutors quickly pointed out, however, that Trasacco only contacted the companies after the federal investigation in West Haven became public knowledge.

The first time Trasacco called either of those companies was on Oct. 14, 2021, according to the emails.

That was a week after the FBI visited West Haven city hall to deliver a federal subpoena for records, and six days after Rossi posted a video on Youtube announcing publicly that she had identified fraud in the city’s COVID spending.

DiMassa testified earlier this week that the FBI’s presence in city hall prompted him to call Trasacco to alert him to the federal investigation.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Sheldon also got the two businessmen to acknowledge for the jury that Trasacco never actually purchased any equipment from their companies, despite being paid $184,000 to provide the cleaning services to the city.

Lawyers for the prosecution and defense are scheduled to deliver their closing remarks to jurors on Thursday.

It seemed inevitable that a celebratory press conference announcing a state and tribal partnership to develop a Native Studies curriculum for use in public schools in Connecticut would end on an awkward note.

Given the fraught history of the state’s indigenous tribes, ranging from the genocidal Pequot War of the 1630s to contemporary struggles over school mascot names like the Killingly Redmen, discomfort should have been expected.

Teachable moments, the governor calls them.

In the lobby of the office building that houses the state Department of Education, Gov. Ned Lamont stood Wednesday between ancient enemies, the Pequots and Mohegans, united in a desire to write their own story.

The tribes’ histories were framed by the European colonizers who nearly erased the dominant Pequots, first by epidemic, then by war and, finally, by the 1638 Treaty of Hartford. It banned uttering the Pequot name. 

There were no answers to reporters’ questions about how the story would be taught, not by the state’s chief academic officer and not by its governor. The curriculum is to be finished by January of 2024, offered, but not mandated, for use by local schools.

What of the Treaty of Hartford? What of John Mason, a Connecticut colony founder who led the dawn attack in 1637 on a fortified village in Mystic that killed 400 Pequots, including 175 women and children?

“I don’t know as much as I should have about the Treaty of Hartford, John Mason,” Lamont said. “I understand John Mason is incredibly offensive to at least one of our tribes and Native Americans. And we want to take a hard look at that.”

A marble statue of Mason stands in a niche above the north steps of the Capitol, clutching a sword and gazing over Bushnell Park. To its right, a stone frieze depicts the attack Mason led against the Pequot village.

Reporters kept pressing. What of the frieze that commemorates the slaughter and is blandly titled, “ATTACK ON AN INDIAN FORT?” Should it be removed? A push to move the statue has not succeeded.

One, two, three seconds passed with no answer from the governor.

“I don’t really know,” Lamont said, finally. “I can tell you probably a lot of those statues, you can point to a lot of history, and point to a lot of murals that are incredibly offensive. The question is, are they also learning moments? Or are they disqualified?”

From the back of the lobby, a Lamont staffer loudly said, “Thanks, everybody!”

The press conference was over.

But then a Mashantucket Pequot elder called Laughing Woman stepped forward. To start the press conference, she led a prayer in a mix of English and a Pequot language the tribe has struggled to revive.

“You have to let the old people speak,” said Laughing Woman, who is 81. “I’m reminding everyone today is a new day. We prayed. We asked for guidance. We asked the Creator to help us all to deal with a big word, two of them.”

She said one of them was “love,” the other “forgiveness.”

Laughing Woman was one of the members of the tribes who gathered at dawn some 30 years ago on the site of the massacre. She looked to Beth Regan, a social studies teacher and Mohegan leader, and said, “I went with your medicine person.”

Regan raised a hand to her heart and nodded.

They had prayed then by a statue of Mason erected on the massacre site in 1889, when the U.S. war on western tribes was fresh. They took steps to reconciliation, to recognition of an overlooked history.

“It will not wipe out history,” Laughing Woman said. “It still hurts us very much about the massacre of our people. We became the first slaves in America. It wasn’t the Blacks. It was Pequots that were sent everywhere. It was a form of genocide.”

African slavery actually came earlier, but the history of Pequot slavery rarely gets contemporary attention.

“Let’s tell it the way it was. It’s going to be hurtful. But it is important to speak the truth and not dress it up. It was not only the Mohegan tribe that helped with the massacre, or Mason,” she said.

There were other tribes. She said she can go down a list.

She looked to the governor.

“And so I feel sorry for you, because you were put on the hot seat here for a split moment, which is alright, because you can learn, too,” she said.

Lamont smiled. 

“So let’s pray for peace, for unity,” Laughing Woman said. “It doesn’t come easy. And this is a beginning, a new day.”

Early child care centers across Connecticut’s Northwest Corner and in eastern Dutchess County, N.Y., tell a common story: An emerging staffing shortage underscores challenges both old and new in the industry.

From a dearth of applicants to unreliable and sporadic state and federal funding, the current picture is of a chronically undervalued industry that fights hard to provide crucial services to underserved populations.

Providing both before- and after-school care to children ages 0-6, early child care centers occupy a challenging midway point between parents and the education system. They aim to afford parents the flexibility to work the jobs they need to support the family while educating children with social and developmental skills critical to their success in school.

“The reality [is that] we’re not just babysitters. We’re educators who help children get ready to go to school,” said Tonya Roussis, director of Housatonic Child Care Center in Salisbury.

In fact, according to Fran Chapell, executive director of Canaan Child Care Center: “It’s more like social work than child care. We also do food, quality lunches, make sure the children have clothing, boots, hats, mittens.”

Recently, however, these organizations have been hit with a staffing shortage that has left them unable to serve the number of families their capacities should allow.

Staffing shortages

“[It] started after we came back after COVID. Before COVID, when I was looking for people, I would get applications left and right,” said Roussis. “Then COVID happened, we shut down [for a while], then I lost some teachers because they didn’t want to come back and work in that environment. And from there, the past two years, it’s just been really hard to find people.”

This translates to child care centers like Housatonic and Canaan Child Care operating under capacity, serving fewer families than their facilities can accommodate. Housatonic Child Care Center, Roussis said, has capacity for 56 children — right now it’s only able to take on 40. This, coupled with the fact that regionally there is a higher demand for child care than there are centers with openings, means that waiting lists are longer, and families are turned away.

“I do have spaces in my toddler room, but I fear filling them with not being able to hire somebody because of the [state mandated] one-to-four teacher-child ratio. I’ve kept those rooms low in case we can’t find a teacher … and I do have a wait list.”

Figuring out what exactly has caused this staffing shortage, however, has proven elusive to Roussis. 

“I really can’t figure it out. I’m not sure if it’s the pay, the environment, the job itself. The applicants that do come in, they’re satisfied with what we start them out with. I’m a part of this group of directors that gets together every month, and we all have the same issue. We’re all boggled by it, by the fact that we can’t find teachers. It’s not just us, it’s across the board everywhere.”

According to Jeanne Wagner, executive director of the Child Care Council of Dutchess and Putnam, Inc., this systemic lack of applicants is occurring across Dutchess County as well. Wagner’s organization is the New York State designated Child Care Resource and Referral agency for both Dutchess and Putnam counties, and over an 18-month period, her organization had difficulty finding available openings, particularly for infant and toddler care. 

But to Wagner, an element of this puzzle comes down to something simple. 

“Money. Early childhood people should be paid on the level of public school teachers, and they aren’t at all. Affordable housing is a problem. Public transportation enters into it too.”

Longstanding funding woes

The issue of funding is a familiar one to Chapell who, having worked in the early child care industry for more than 20 years, has witnessed the ways that funding rises and falls.

“[At Canaan Child Care Center] we were getting $8,000 a year for 15 years [from the town], and then it was gone. And we were like ‘Whoa, what are we gonna do?’ But you know, Canaan is a low-income town and they just don’t have it in their budget.”

According to both Roussis and Chapell, this sort of funding unreliability plagues the industry, which makes it difficult to compensate their teachers and workers at the levels they’d want to, and that will retain them in the long-term.

A brief bright spot, however, came during the pandemic in the form of stopgap funding made available for child care centers through national and state programs. For Chapell, it allowed her to retain her staff and even make some much-needed improvements.

“Our playground before was basically just mud with a fence around it. During the pandemic, believe it or not, I was able to ask for a climber, and I got the funds for it.”

Such pandemic-era funding, however, has either dried up or is set to dry up soon. Once those funds are gone, directors like Chapell are left wondering how to move forward.

“The uncertainty is what makes you nervous. Right now I’ve got great staff and I’m able to pay them, but as soon as this money goes away — I’m looking at my board and saying: ‘OK, what’s our strategic plan? What are we gonna do to keep our staff?’ It’s a worry — but I’ve been there before. I’ve been in child care a long time, it’s always a struggle.”

Glimmers of hope in an embattled industry

A glimmer of hope, however, has taken the shape of an informal network of early child care center directors that formed during the pandemic in Connecticut’s Region One School District. The network was, according to Chapell, crucial to their ability to stay afloat.

“We’ve been fighting hard, all the directors. We call ourselves the Northwest Child Care Collaborative, all the child care centers in the region. We work together to help each other.

“Because it’s for the families, and you just want to do what you can, play your part in the communities, to keep all of it going.”

The Northwest Child Care Collaborative’s monthly meetings are organized by the Middlesex Coalition for Children, a nonprofit that seeks to improve the lives of children in Connecticut’s Middlesex County, and they count seven regional child care centers as members.

“It’s been super helpful. We got together to support each other, to get on the same page in terms of our pandemic policies and to try to come up with solutions,” Roussis said. “Anything we can do to support each other, to get through what we’re going through. More times than not, we’ve had the same situations in common. It’s a great group of women.”

This form of self-advocacy is one that Wagner sees occurring both in Dutchess County and on a national level, and as having the potential to make positive changes in the industry. 

For Chapell, such efforts raise the hope that, someday, the landscape of early child care might structurally improve for the better.

“You look at other countries that do [early child care] so well, and it’s like, why aren’t we doing this? There are different child care alliances that are looking at those models and saying, how can we make this work for us?”

But for now, Chapell knows what has to be done.

“You need to be scrappy. We have to constantly fundraise, constantly write grants. You really have to look anywhere and everywhere and say, who can help us? Just in order to make this place a quality center where the goal is for parents to be able to go to work and not have to worry about where their children are.”

Connecticut is one of the most expensive locations in the country to buy electricity.

According to data from the Energy Information Administration, Connecticut had the second-highest residential electric bills on average in 2021, only behind Hawaii.

That's due to the fact that United Illuminating and Eversource are two of the most expensive investor-owned utilities in the country based on a price per kilowatt basis.

Read more: Eversource, UI will cut electric rates for some, but not until 2024

Connecticut is one of the most expensive locations in the country to buy electricity.

According to data from the Energy Information Administration, Connecticut had the second-highest residential electric bills on average in 2021, only behind Hawaii.

That's due to the fact that United Illuminating and Eversource are two of the most expensive investor-owned utilities in the country based on a price per kilowatt basis.

Read more: Eversource, UI will cut electric rates for some, but not until 2024

Connecticut’s public and private sectors are working together to provide flexible and accessible loans to over 100 small business owners and nonprofit leaders across the state’s diverse communities.

The Small Business Boost Fund was designed to address financial and technical barriers that specifically impact small businesses and nonprofits from marginalized communities, said Director Sheila Hummel of CT Small Business Development Office.

“We’re trying to reach [residents] and get them help. Lots of times it’s technical assistance — helping you do your application or afterward too,” Hummel explained. “Maybe, after you get the loan, you’re having some cash flow problems or something else didn’t go the way you wanted it to. Now, you have someone to go to.”

The loans have a fixed 4.5% interest rate, ranging from $5,000 to $500,000 with 60- or 72-month repayment terms, depending on the loan amount. 

Eligible businesses and nonprofits must operate within Connecticut, have 100 or fewer full-time employees, an annual revenue of less than $8 million, and have been in operation for at least one year — although a small amount of financing is available for start-ups. 

“This fund was established to support small business owners who may have previously experienced barriers to accessing financial support and works with and through community lenders that are dedicated to equitable lending practices,” Gov. Ned Lamont announced in a July press release. 

The program’s $150 million budget consists of a $75 million investment from the state while $75 million is being raised, coming from donations made by local banks, Hummel said. 

The majority of the budget is lent to the program’s businesses and nonprofits while a smaller portion funds technical assistance to applying businesses and nonprofits. 

Over a thousand businesses and nonprofits have applied to the program since its launch this summer, according to Hummel. The pre-application portal asks residents about 18 questions to either match them with a lender or technical advisor. 

All of the fund’s applications are available in multiple languages, including Spanish. Residents may also speak with multilingual staff to learn about the program or when applying.

More than 100 organizations have been matched with a lender that assists residents with the application process. Applicants who are first matched with technical advisors, receive feedback and support to enhance specific aspects of their businesses or nonprofits before applying to the program. 

“There are numerous different [reasons] for why you might not get matched up,” such as low credit scores or disorganized financial records, Hummel explained. “So then, you have the option of matching with technical assistance to help you be able to qualify for a loan. They’ll work with you and see what’s going on.”

Currently, about 60% of loans from the Small Business Boost Fund have been given to marginalized business owners and nonprofit leaders, including entrepreneurs who are women, veterans, people of color, people with disabilities and members of LGBTQ+ communities. 

However, Hummel pointed out the importance of keeping intersectionality in mind, as her team increases that percentage. 

“Right now, we have nine Latino businesses that have been funded,” Hummel shared. “So, we want to increase that number and then look at where these loans are being funded. Maybe there’s not enough advertising [of the program] in Hartford … or Meriden.” 

The fund has worked with local chambers of commerce along with Hispanic and Latino nonprofit organizations to spread the word about its loans. 

“We’re constantly adjusting our outreach and marketing campaigns to reach a variety of diverse communities,” she said. “We’re doing ads in newspapers, radio spots in Spanish, we’re going to have [an informational] video in Spanish.”

A few of the program’s seven lenders and local community development financial institutions (CDFIs) are known for their decades of experience “serving historically under-resources and underbanked communities”, according to the press release. 

Participating CDFIs include Ascendus, HEDCO, NDC Community Impact Loan Fund, Pursuit Lending, Southeastern CT Enterprise Region (SeCTer), and Capital for Change. 

This story was originally published Nov. 22, 2022 by CTLatinoNews.