Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” the latest on the dustup between the state attorney general and members of the Joint Finance Committee. A closer look at the 7th Congressional District as Congressman Sean Duffy announces his departure. An inside look at the price diabetics in the state are paying to stay healthy. And just in time for Labor Day, a new report on the status of the Wisconsin workforce. It’s “Here & Now” for August 30.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at the practical implications of the lame duck laws limiting the authority of the governor and the state attorney general as they came into full view last week. That’s when Attorney General Josh Kaul appeared before the Joint Finance Committee seeking to get approval, as required under the new law, to resolve or reach settlements in state lawsuits, of which there are some 15 awaiting JFC approval. The process broke down when legislators on the committee at first refused to sign confidentiality agreements. By week’s end, the Republican co-chairs of the JFC hired a lawyer to sign the secrecy order on the committee’s behalf and said they stood ready to approve any settlements that are in the state’s interest. All of this unfolding as Kaul told lawmakers he had a case of tremendous importance to the state that demanded quick attention. One possibility on that? Major pharmaceutical companies are reportedly in settlement talks with multi-state litigants related to the opioid crisis. Later in the week, Kaul’s office said a hurry-up deadline to act was no longer in play. Here’s what Republican co-chairs said about all of this late Thursday. “Despite the attorney general’s obvious efforts to undermine state law, the committee on Joint Finance has authorized counsel to sign the confidentiality agreement proposed by the attorney general. The attorney general’s demand is contrary to his prior practice, including when discussing settlements with the governor, and is an obvious effort to undermine the law by delaying the committee’s work.” For his part, Attorney General Kaul responded that, “We are assessing the co-chairs’ proposed confidentiality agreement. We will continue attempting to reach agreement on this issue, as we began attempting to do more than six months ago. Our interest remains in ensuring that Wisconsinites are represented as effectively as possible and that the enforcement of our environmental, consumer protection and other laws is not impeded by partisan gamesmanship.” Wisconsin Public Radio Capitol reporter Laurel White has covered this developing story and she joins us now from the state Capitol.

Laurel White:

Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So does this strike observers and reporters that Josh Kaul is pushing the partisan envelope to highlight his disfavor with the new rules?

Laurel White:

So I think it’s difficult for some folks to forget that Attorney General Kaul has been very vocal in his opposition to this law since it was passed. He’s talked about how it’s unconstitutional. He’s talked about how it gives lawmakers too much power over something the attorney journal in the past has seen sort of unilaterally control over. So lawmakers and others are kind of pointing to the attorney general highlighting some of these practical roadblocks as they may be related to that kind of overarching argument against the law in principle.

Frederica Freyberg:

And yet on the other side, could it be viewed as the opposite, that Republicans are playing the partisan power card?

Laurel White:

Republicans certainly have a lot of power in this scenario. They passed this law because of their strong majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and it’s the law of the land. The attorney general really doesn’t have a choice in whether or not he follows it unless of course the law is repealed or it’s struck down by a court.

Frederica Freyberg:

This could be the practical outcome really of rules that require Justice to get legislative approval to resolve cases which are dynamic, especially in the midst of settlement talks.

Laurel White:

Absolutely. We heard about the case this week. Actually the reason the committee was called in on such short notice was a tight deadline in a particular case. We know that particular deadline is gone now. But that’s not to say that another deadline might emerge in this case or a similar case or other cases down the road. So lawmakers and the attorney general certainly need to come up with a process for handling these lawsuits because they sometimes require quick action.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. So if in this case the urgency is off, as the Justice Department now says, what’s left is for it to be determined whether a Republican lawyer can sign a confidentiality agreement on behalf of the committee members. What do we know about whether this passes muster?

Laurel White:

So we know that certainly Republican lawmakers that hired the private lawyer believe that this is going to be sufficient to meet the attorney general’s confidentiality requirements. We also know that a memo came out from the Legislative Reference Bureau, which is the legislature’s non-partisan research office that kind of calls that into question. So what we’re waiting for now is an official opinion from the attorney general, who of course has more information about the sort of binding legal agreements he’s entered into with the different parties that he’s negotiating settlement agreements. So whether or not he finds these — you know, this new provision from Republican lawmakers, this hiring of a private lawyer, sufficient to meet his needs.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yes. As you say, Attorney General Kaul says he’s now reviewing this situation, but it sounds like we’re going to see everything right back in Joint Finance, with maybe some of the same disputes.

Laurel White:

Absolutely. We know that, as you mentioned, Joint Finance is facing more than a dozen of these cases. There’s a backlog of cases waiting approval from lawmakers. Again another urgent deadline can emerge. These cases are very dynamic and sometimes move very quickly. So we could be back having the same conversation very soon.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile, the lame duck laws themselves are in the courts. What’s the status of those cases?

Laurel White:

So there are four lame duck lawsuits that are out there. Actually, one of them has already been resolved. A state-level lawsuit received a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this summer. They ruled in favor of Republican lawmakers. There’s another state-level lawsuit that’s awaiting arguments in front of the Supreme Court. There are two federal cases that are both in stages of opinions being issued by judges any day. So we could hear on those soon.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Laurel White, thank you very much and thanks for your reporting on this.

Laurel White:

Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

In major election news in Wisconsin, Republican Congressman Sean Duffy announced this week he is stepping down effective September 23. Duffy made his announcement in a Facebook post saying, in part, “Recently we have learned that our baby, due in late October, will need even more love, time and attention due to complications, including a heart condition. With much prayer,” he says, “I have decided that this is the right time for me to take a break from public service in order to be the support my wife, baby and family need right now.” Duffy was first elected to represent Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District in 2010. He became a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump. In tonight’s closer look, we check in with UW-Superior Political Science Professor Alisa Von Hagel to discuss the implications. Thanks very much for being here.

Alisa Von Hagel:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Of course, the circumstances of Congressman Duffy’s departure are difficult for him personally, but you believe it’s part of a trend. How so?

Alisa Von Hagel:

So you see that prior to the 2018 midterm elections and following the midterm elections, there’s been a wave of Republicans resigning, retiring, leaving office or declaring that they will not seek public office again in the future. And so part of this is just their looking to the future, seeing — or at least in 2018, leading up to the midterms, there wasn’t obviously high hopes for the Republicans to hold onto the majority in the House. And so being in the minority and sort of seeing that vision of being in the minority in the future is not fun for legislators or is not something that allows them to really accomplish the goals that they set out to do. So you just see a wave of Republicans across the country that have been resigning or retiring since then.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel as though the turbulence of the Trump administration has anything to do with the Republican kind of mini exodus?

Alisa Von Hagel:

It certainly has played a role, no doubt. Even those who are staunch allies of the president or support the administration’s agenda, you know, there’s just always a controversy or some gaffe, something that happens, and legislators are often hounded by news reporters to be asked about the latest tweet or whatnot. And it’s just a lot of more tension, more conflict they have to deal with, even if they are still very supportive of the president and his goals.

Frederica Freyberg:

The first thought many had on hearing that Sean Duffy was resigning was he’d be throwing his hat in the ring for U.S. Senate or even governor. What’s your sense of that?

Alisa Von Hagel:

Yeah. That speculation was — has been made even before this resignation at this time. He was — there was talk of him running for — challenging Tammy Baldwin in 2018 for her seat, but it was sort of determined that her support was just too strong in the state and it wouldn’t be worth it. There’s talk of him running for Ron Johnson’s seat in the future. And whether or not this time off will help or hinder his ability to do that, he left office with about $2.4 million in his war chest, which doesn’t seems like — which seems like a lot of money, certainly, but — at least to myself, but it is for — running for public office, especially running for Senate at that level of office is really not nowhere near enough to really start making a solid run towards that office. And so it’s hard to say. It’s hard to say.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kind of scrum do you expect there to be as potential candidates to replace him line up to jump into the race?

Alisa Von Hagel:

There have been a number of candidates, state reps that have already been throwing their hat into the ring. I’ve heard names: Janet Bewley, even Nick Milroy who are Democrats in the area. Tom Tiffany is a Republican that right away I think jumped into the race, or that at least stated his intention in running. And so there will no doubt be more and more candidates coming forward as we have the special election date established and we get closer leading up to that date.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, Sean Duffy won that district by 20 percentage points last year, the same margin President Trump won it by in 2016. So is it a super solid Republican district following redistricting?

Alisa Von Hagel:

Well, you know, it’s hard to say. So the district has certainly moved to a more conservative bent since Sean Duffy has been in office, and despite that, when he resigned, the day after he resigned, the district in The Cook’s Political Report was classified as solidly Republican, was transferred to leaning Republican. And so there’s already signs that given the larger nationwide trends of the controversy with the administration, with the continued presence of the Democratic majority in Congress that this may not be a good upcoming year for Republicans. And so it certainly is going to be a tough battle for whoever decides to run.

Frederica Freyberg:

Okay. Might be in play. Alisa Von Hagel, thanks very much.

Alisa Von Hagel:

Thank you very much.

Frederica Freyberg:

This month, the governor signed an executive order creating a task force on reducing prescription drug prices in Wisconsin. Tonight, we have an inside look at how for diabetics the cost of life-saving insulin has gone through the roof more than tripling since 2002. For patients in Wisconsin, new legislation, even apart from the task force, could provide hope for curbing those costs. As Marisa Wojcik reports from Appleton, that would be welcome news for a woman there who cannot afford the high price of insulin sold in the United States.

Julia Flaherty:

I would do 267 minus 125 which is where I like to be. It’s my good target number and then I divide by 35.

Marisa Wojcik:

25-year-old Julia Flaherty has gotten good at mental math.

Julia Flaherty:

Yeah, I’ll do that in my head. It’s just like brushing my teeth. It’s become second nature. I hope I have good blood sugar. I’m a little high right now actually.

Marisa Wojcik:

Before every meal, she calculates what’s in the food she’s about to eat and how much fast-acting insulin she’ll need to give herself. Julia has Type 1 diabetes, a disease she’s been living with since she was ten years old.

Julia Flaherty:

I realized that even at ten, I was going to have to be very responsible and very aware of my body.

Marisa Wojcik:

She lives in Appleton and works as a digital marketing specialist, a steady job that includes health insurance benefits. Even so, the price of living with diabetes adds up.

Julia Flaherty:

I go to see my endocrinologist. That’s about $500 visit each time.

Marisa Wojcik:

There’s a different kind of mental math that Julia’s gotten good at.

Julia Flaherty:

$300, $200, $315, $75.

Marisa Wojcik:

By far the most cost prohibitive is the life-saving drug that regulates her diabetes: insulin.

Julia Flaherty:

For 90 days of Humalog, it would cost about $1800 in the U.S. whereas the same exact medication from Canada is about $315 for me. There’s no premium insulin. There’s no generic.

Marisa Wojcik:

In the United States, reports show the cost of insulin has tripled since 2002. While Julia gets some help from her insurance plan, she has a very high deductible, which means most costs come out of her pocket.

Julia Flaherty:

We don’t have a choice. We have to buy it or we die.

Marisa Wojcik:

All Type 1 and some Type 2 diabetics need insulin. Without it they face serious health risks, including death. But despite the serious dangers, a recent Yale study says one in four diabetes patients reported rationing their insulin due to high costs. For some diabetics including Julia, they’re turning to Canada for cheaper prescription drug prices.

Julia Flaherty:

I was kind of skeptical about it for a while. I was looking into if there was any legal implication or ramification that could come back at me.

Marisa Wojcik:

It wasn’t an easy process.

Julia Flaherty:

I had to go through a lot of forms and back and forth with the nurses and my doctor, but they were willing to work with me on that. So I was very appreciative. But that’s not a solution, you know. It’s a work-around.

Marisa Wojcik:

But new state legislation is hoping to change that. Modeled after a recent bill passed in Colorado, a Wisconsin Democratic bill aims to place a cap on the price of insulin insurance co-pays at $100 per month. So far the bill has no Republican support. The Wisconsin Association of Health Plans has said they’re still reviewing the proposal, but said, “Drug manufacturers are responsible for setting and regularly increasing the high list price for insulin. This proposal does nothing to address the actual and unsustainable price of insulin.” But Julia is still encouraged. She supports the cap and is using her digital marketing background to bring awareness online.

Julia Flaherty:

I would like to see costs be more affordable and accessible despite your socioeconomic status, not just in Wisconsin, but across the United States. There are petitions going up state by state every day on websites like change.org. I’m happy that the conversation is stronger around it. But this is really just the beginning.

Marisa Wojcik:

Reporting from Appleton, I’m Marisa Wojcik.

Frederica Freyberg:

To dig into the challenges people with diabetes face, as well as how legislation might curb the cost of insulin, we turn to Dr. LaShawn McIver of the American Diabetes Association, who joins us from Pennsylvania. And thanks very much for doing to.

LaShawn McIver:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

How concerning is it to you that people with diabetes might be rationing their insulin because of the high cost?

LaShawn McIver:

It’s extremely concerning. This is something that we hear now almost on a weekly basis from our constituents, that people are having to ration their insulin, go without their insulin or make hard life choices regarding utilities and housing expenses and other expenses for daily living because of the high cost of insulin. In addition, there are life-threatening consequences associated with a person not taking their medication as prescribed.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why is the price of insulin increasing so much?

LaShawn McIver:

So that’s something that the American Diabetes Association took a very long look at. In 2017, our board of directors commissioned a work group to study and examine what are the issues driving the high cost of insulin. And from that project, we learned that there are many things that are contributing to it, but one of the big issues we walked away from or conclusions is that there’s a lack of transparency in the insulin supply chain. What we do know is the high list price for insulin, it creates incentives throughout the insulin supply chain. So the higher the list price, the more that’s shared throughout the insulin supply chain. So we are hopeful that the state and federal bills that are addressing insulin pricing will help bring transparencies to the issue but more importantly reduce the cost for people with diabetes.

Frederica Freyberg:

As for the high cost, insurance companies we understand are kind of pointing the finger at drug manufacturers. Should the drug manufacturers be the ones held accountable?

LaShawn McIver:

You know, when we did our project, what we found is that there’s a lack of transparency. So every stakeholder within the insulin supply chain said another entity was responsible for the high cost. But, as I said, there’s an incentive for a high list price, where that benefit is shared throughout. So we’re hoping through transparency we can understand where are areas that we can put forth long-term solutions to reduce the price of insulin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Julia in Appleton whom we just heard from said while she buys her insulin from Canada, she believes it’s not a long-term solution. Why wouldn’t that be?

LaShawn McIver:

So not everyone has the means to travel outside the country to try and solve this issue. What we’re focused on at the American Diabetes Association is solving this problem within our country. As you mentioned, Colorado and now Wisconsin are looking at solutions that would lower the cost of insulin for people with diabetes and that’s what we want to focus on, is how can we make insulin more affordable for people in the United States.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Thank you so much for your time, Dr. Mclver.

LaShawn McIver:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now to economic news and the new report on the status of workers in Wisconsin. As we look ahead to Labor Day, the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at UW-Madison offers what it calls its Facts and Figures Report on the state of working Wisconsin. Associate director at COWS, Labor Economist Laura Dresser joins us now. Thanks for doing so.

Laura Dresser:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So your report says there is good news.

Laura Dresser:

Yes. There is good news. And this is the familiar news of the kind of the great cloud of the great recession of 2007 has really lifted. We’ve had long-term, sustained unemployment at low levels, steady job growth. And so that picture I think is really clear in people’s head right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

There is bad news.

Laura Dresser:

Yes. So we sort of start with that, but I think one of the big mysteries of this moment is given all that good news, why do people — why is — why are these kind of questions of economic insecurity still so salient for people? So we tried to focus this report on these very long-term trends, 30 and 40 years long, that have undermined people’s sense of security, working Wisconsin’s sense of security. That’s the focus of the report.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to that focus, you talk about wage stagnation, that the median wage is only 73 cents higher than it was in 1979 adjusted for inflation.

Laura Dresser:

Yeah, so we’re basically at 18 bucks an hour now. And that’s just barely, like 63 cents an hour higher than it was in 1979 once you adjust for inflation. That stands out as a complete break from the way the economy worked, from the post-World War II into 1979. When the economy grew, wages grew. They were sort of locked together and workers saw the benefits of growth. What we’ve had in the 2000s especially is sort of this wage stagnation in the context of growth. So workers don’t see quite as much good news from low unemployment as they used to. ‘Cause they used to see higher wages too. And it’s just not as prevalent.

Frederica Freyberg:

What explains the stagnation?

Laura Dresser:

I think a lot of people spend a lot of time, but there’s certainly things. There are certainly institutional factors that matter a lot in my analysis or thinking the way I think about what we could do with policy. The state’s minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. The way it was a decade ago. That’s one thing that keeps wages down. Our labor movement, which has often served both through policy approaches and through its own bargaining to keep workers’ wages higher, has been decimated by public policy in this state. So I think we can see things where policy — you know, how do you make that better or why did this happen. We’ve moved away from some policies that actually held working people kind of closer to economic growth.

Frederica Freyberg:

You describe how productivity has grown by 70% during the same period. What is the implication of that?

Laura Dresser:

One way to think about it, like I was talking about that post-war period, across the post war period, if the economy grew by 70%, we’d see wages up by 70%. That would put the median wage today, which is $18 an hour, would be well over $25 an hour today if wages were still locked into productivity the way they were. And you see — that’s sort of this gap that’s growing, that if workers are making, you know, with an hour of labor they’re making 70% more goods and services and if they aren’t bringing home more in wages, then those wages are — that value is going and, as we know, in this economy they’re going to the top end, to owners and managers.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of the top end, you also point in this report to income inequality. The top 1% in Wisconsin is at nearly a million dollars, the rest of the 99% at $51,000? That’s quite a gap.

Laura Dresser:

That is quite a gap. On one of the measures of inequality in this state, we are back to levels that we haven’t seen since 1928. Inequality fell across from basically 1929 through the 1970s, but has been on the climb. And the rewards of economic growth continue to accrue at the very top. So you see a million versus $50,000 and that gap is just growing.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We leave it there. Thanks for your work, Laura Dresser.

Laura Dresser:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now for this update on a job transition for a Walker administration agency head who had continued to serve under Governor Tony Evers. Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO and Secretary Mark Hogan will step down next week. Under lame duck laws, Evers was not authorized to appoint his replacement until September. Hogan says he is proud of the successes achieved with Governor Evers and that he wants to help make the transition as seamless as possible. During Hogan’s four-year tenure, he became instrumental in securing the Foxconn deal. Evers is now considering Hogan’s successor.

Next week, Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm will be here, as will Marquette Law School Pollster Charles Franklin with results from his latest state-wide survey. That’s all for tonight’s program. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.