A LIFE OR AN ANCHOR

by GAIL RIECKEN, EDITOR OF THE CCO STATEHOUSE NEWS

Discussion over the payday lending bill, Senate Bill 613 is continuing April 9 despite Financial Institutions Committee members hearing a lot of negatives about this consumer credit bill.

Groups that have testified against the bill – the Institute for Working Families, veterans, churches, community groups, and consumers- all favor seeing it die.

So, why is SB 613 still alive?

I imagine one reason would be the Committee Chairman is convinced that he can find the “sweet spot” that would please both sides. Another reason could be that members have heard the same comments I heard when I was a member of this Committee. The comments were: “Gail, you have to understand there are issues people have getting credit, and when they need money, more likely an emergency, there isn’t any in reserve. If you can’t pay the light or water bill if the car breaks down and you can’t get to work or there is no money to pay book rental and you don’t qualify for help or the a/c breaks down in the summertime, what choice do you have”.

This may not be familiar to you and me but to families who are living one paycheck to the next, families who are at risk, it is a common fear.  People living at risk of losing everything should be a serious concern for us all. It isn’t just the right thing to be concerned, it is the smart thing.

No one can feel secure about the future of our economy knowing that over 43% of people in Evansville (39% in Indiana overall) are living near or on the poverty line, people who can’t afford the basics – housing, food, high electric  and water bills, health care, child care and transportation.

We can’t ignore the consequences of such a large number of people at risk.
Maybe it is time that the Governor calls for a commission to develop new strategies to address families at risk, similar to his call from the comprehensive report on the status of children in the Department of Child Services. And while the government is doing more that supports our economy and results in fewer families at risk and fewer payday borrowers, you and I can do something in a small way to help.

The legislature passed the law a few years back to encourage and “train”, if you will, people to save money. Called a Prize-linked savings account, it is a fun way that a family can save for an emergency.

Not just for a family, the account can be for a young person starting out – a newly graduated student saving money to move to her first real job or a young person aging out of foster care saving for the deposit on his first apartment. As examples: Attached below is a news release from FORUM Credit Union in Indianapolis explaining their Prize-linked savings program.

(https://www.forumcu.com/News/2019/FORUM-Credit-Union-Announces-2018-Member-Giveback)

Let’s encourage more credit unions and banks to establish their “Indiana Save to Win” program and encourage more people to sign up.

According to recent figures, the Indiana Save to Win program (prize-linked savings) is definitely a success.  As of the end of January, there are 20 credit unions in Indiana participating (6 of them in SW Indiana) and there have been more than 2,500 “Save to Win” accounts opened with $9.2 million saved so far. There have been almost 800 prize winners winning more than $85,000 in prize money.

In Indiana, the law allows for debt reduction and financial literacy programs to be a part of any Save to Win product.

Institute Senior Policy Analyst Erin Macy asked the question in her testimony before the Financial Institutions Committee last week. “ Is the best solution we can offer them [Hoosiers struggling with debts they have] is more and even higher-cost debt?  That’s not a lifeline”, she added, “It’s an anchor.”

“The Legislature most certainly deserves to be fully informed of the facts revealed in this litigation in order to continue its urgent efforts to fight this Public Health Emergency,” according to the motion.

Oklahoma District Judge Thad Balkman has not yet responded to the state’s motion to unseal the documents.

“Our Legislature, Governor, policymakers and doctors need to know the truth about how one particular company, J&J, inserted itself into our State and sought to influence every opioid-related decision the State made or considered—from scheduling to swallowing,” attorneys for Oklahoma wrote. The documents also would be made available to the public.

Among the questions Oklahoma wants answered is whether Johnson & Johnson’s marketing targeted children, veterans or the elderly. The motion also asks whether the company blocked legislation and regulatory action aimed at limiting opioid availability, whether it partnered with Purdue, and whether it paid “‘neutral’ third parties as part of its internal marketing plan.”

Hunter and the outside lawyers representing Oklahoma declined several interview requests.

In its own filing, Johnson & Johnson — which divested both Tasmanian Alkaloids and Noramco in 2016 — argues that Oklahoma’s goal in seeking to unseal the documents is to “batter Oklahomans with sensationalistic headlines and to poison potential jurors” against its opioid unit, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, in advance of the May 28 trial.

Janssen dismissed Oklahoma’s charge that the company’s ownership of poppy fields made it a conspirator in the opioid epidemic.

“As a supplier, we did not have any role in the manufacturing, development, sales and marketing of other manufacturers’ finished products,” Janssen said in a statement emailed by a spokesman to Stateline. “The allegations made against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated.”

The company also noted that it complied fully with strict U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration controls in importing poppy straw and other raw materials used to produce opioid anesthesia and pain medicines.

Legal experts said other states might follow Oklahoma’s lead, but that it will be difficult to prove that Johnson & Johnson’s poppy fields made it a major contributor to the opioid epidemic.

University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness called Oklahoma’s strategy “over the top.”

“The only way Oklahoma could win that case is to prove some kind of conspiracy. It looks more like they are trying to browbeat Johnson & Johnson into settling,” Ausness said.

“I can see why J&J would be particularly susceptible to that kind of pressure because they sell consumer products and they’re considered a family company,” he said. “If they’re painted as a villain, that’s obviously going to hurt them.”

Until recently, the state and federal opioid lawsuits across the country mostly targeted Purdue Pharma, the company that developed and profited from OxyContin.

But last month, Purdue Pharma’s president and chief executive, Craig Landau, told theWashington Post that the company might pursue a Chapter 11 bankruptcy claim, a maneuver that could halt litigation against it. Now, many of the plaintiffs in a consolidated national case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio — the National Prescription Opiate Litigation — also are suing the Sackler family, which owns the company.

Food Inspection Reports 4-4-19