 |
|
|
|||||
UnitedHealth Group spent nearly $1.7 million on security for its top executives in 2024, the healthcare conglomerate disclosed on Monday, months after the fatal shooting of senior executive Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December. The company also paid $207,931 on behalf of certain family members of the executives to provide them with personal and home security services, it said. The security spending disclosures, absent from UnitedHealth’s previous annual filings, underscore how the December shooting is prompting companies to reassess the risk of targeted violence against top management. U.S. drugmakers Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly also increased spending on security for their top executives in 2024, regulatory filings showed last month. “We believe that these security services are appropriate and necessary given the risks associated with executive officer positions at the company,” UnitedHealth said in the filing. Brian Thompson, the former CEO of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance unit UnitedHealthcare, was shot dead on December 4 outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel where the company was holding an investor conference. The filing also showed UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty’s total compensation for 2024 was $26.3 million, compared with $23.5 million a year ago. The conglomerate spent $150,951 towards Witty’s security, while $926,989 was paid for Heather Cianfrocco, the CEO of the company’s health services unit Optum. Following Thompson’s murder, health insurers removed pictures of their executives from corporate websites. In January, organizers at a major San Francisco healthcare meeting increased security for attendees inside and outside the venue. In past years, healthcare and pharmaceutical companies have typically covered the use of private jets and provided limited security-related compensation, according to earlier filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Sriparna Roy, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
U.S. health officials said they plan to phase out eight petroleum-based artificial colors from the nation’s food supply, triggering an overhaul of scores of brightly hued products on American store shelves. Details of the plan are expected to be announced Tuesday afternoon by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, who have advocated the change as part of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. The officials are expected to spell out a regulatory path for removing the color additives, a process that typically requires public notice and agency review. It would be a sweeping change for U.S. food producers, who would likely replace the dyes with natural substitutes. Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children. The FDA has maintained that the approved dyes are safe and that the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives. The FDA currently allows 36 food color additives, including eight synthetic dyes. In January, the agency announced that the dye known as Red 3 used in candies, cakes and some medications would be banned by 2028 because it caused cancer in laboratory rats. The dyes Kennedy wants to remove are used widely in the U.S. foods. In Canada and in Europe where artificial colors are required to carry warning labels manufacturers use natural substitutes. Some U.S. states, such as California and West Virginia, recently enacted laws that ban artificial colors and other additives from school meals, and in some cases, the broader food supply. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Jonel Aleccia and Matthew Perrone, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. I’m surprised this is the hill to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, citing the county’s diverse population and Maryland’s history as a haven for Catholics. The county school board introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district’s diversity. Parents sued after the school system stopped allowing them to pull their kids from lessons that included the books. The parents argue that public schools cannot force kids to participate in instruction that violates their faith, and they pointed to the opt-out provisions in sex education classes. The schools said allowing children to opt out of the lessons had become disruptive. Lower courts backed the schools, prompting the parents’ appeal to the Supreme Court. Five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system’s lawyers wrote. In Prince and Knight, two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. In Uncle Bobbys Wedding, a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married. His partner is a man. Love, Violet deals with a girls anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. Born Ready is the story of a transgender boys decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. Intersection Allies describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents’ group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers’ group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name. Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer. Mark Sherman, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||