The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original
production. >> A strong Republican
majority here, passing a good budget for the state of
Wisconsin and looking forward to the governor
signing it. >> After months of stop and
go negotiations. >> Clerk will open the roll.
[MUSIC] >> The legislature swiftly
passes the state budget, and Governor Evers signs it soon
after. Good evening. I'm Zach Schultz, filling in for
Frederica Freyberg tonight on "Here& Now". Governor
Tony Evers joins us to discuss the final passage of
the state's biennial budget. Then, after 30 years on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, retiring Justice Ann Walsh
Bradley reflects on her career. And we look at what
happens when you can't afford your prescription
medication. In our series uncovered. It's "Here& Now"
for July 11th. >> Funding for Here and Now
is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and
Friends of PBS Wisconsin. >> Wisconsin has a new state
budget signed in the dead of night last week by Governor
Tony Evers. It's the first budget to have bipartisan
support since 2007. Joining us now is Governor Evers.
And thanks for your time, sir.
>> So this has additional funding for special
education child care providers and the UW system
in exchange for tax cuts. It sounds like it's an actual
compromise budget. >> Yeah, I would say it was.
And I'm glad it was that way myself. Over the last year
or so, a couple of years, I get out and talk to people
all the time. That's what I spend most of my time doing.
And all across the state, I heard that a lot. You know,
the idea that it'd be great that, you know, everybody
knows we're a purple state, that we actually do work on
compromise. And so we were able to do that. We had some
wins and some things that didn't. But I guess that's
kind of the way the politics work. If you're if you're a
purple state like Wisconsin. >> Now let's go back to the
last budget where you used your veto pen to create an
ongoing $325 per pupil increase in public
education. But that increase isn't funded in this budget.
And property taxes will taxpayers will pay for it if
the school districts decide to levy that amount that
they can. Was that a priority for you to try and
get Republicans to fund that, or were there just too
many other places for the money?
We wanted both, obviously, but at the at the end of the
day, we, you know, we put together a package that was
I want to say it's $1.4 billion in spendable money.
And also as you likely remember, part of the
problem in the past was the amount of money that school
districts had to backfill into special education. And
so now that is less of an issue for them. And so we
put we have the largest increase ever in, in, in
that arena. And so I think it was a good start. Is it
solving all the problems. No. And that's the nature of
working with the legislature. And you know,
we're a purple state. And so we're not going to get
everything. But it was a good start. We had good
starts in several areas. But education we were we made
some huge increases in, in in the money for special
education. That helps out in a couple different areas. Is
it solving every problem? No, but it was a step
forward. Yes. >> Now negotiations with
Republicans stopped and started a few times
throughout this process. And at one point it looked like
they were going to go their own way as they've done the
last few budgets. What were out to them? Were you
waiting for them to figure out them and come back to
the table? >> That it was a ladder?
Clearly the two houses weren't on the same page.
And after a while that became less of an issue. And
so they came back and we ended up solving it. And,
you know, we had some really significant wins. Also. I,
you know, I know the importance of having, you
know, both sides having some wins, having, you know, some
things didn't work. But for example, our ability to get
more money for our hospitals in the state of Wisconsin,
that was huge. That was a win. That was a complete win.
And because, as you likely remember, we had two
hospitals in Eau Claire closed in one, you know, one
year. And this keeps our hospitals all across the
state in a much better place.
>> Now, one reason Republicans did need to
compromise. You talked about the difference in the houses
is the Senate couldn't afford to lose any votes in
the Republican Party, and that's because Democrats
picked up seats in the last election. So how much does
redistricting play into what happened in this budget?
>> Absolutely. This budget would not have looked
anywhere near as positive if it if it wasn't for that,
having good maps that are reflective of actually what
happens on the ground, that was huge. And so we'll and
we'll, we'll continue to do a good job as far as taking
not taking advantage of it, but actually reflecting
that. But you know, from my side to, from the Democratic
side, just because we are we have better maps doesn't
mean that we can run roughshod over the other
side either. It just won't work. We're we're as purple
as they come in our state as compared to other states,
and we recognize that. >> Let's talk about the
Donald Trump's b-b-b big, beautiful bill. What will be
the impact of that bill in Wisconsin?
>> Yeah, I don't think it's going to be good. You know,
clearly, issues that they feel strongly about is not
necessarily good for Wisconsin passing this bill
kind of makes them all legal. I think in the past
there was some concern that on my part and others that
what was what was happening in the new administration
was very difficult and frankly, not shouldn't have
been able to do that because the Congress has not weighed
in. Well, they've weighed in now. And so all those things
that that we were against, that were happening,
happened. And so, yes, I think it's going to be it's
going to be a really difficult time for us. And,
you know, whether it's schools, whether it's just
about anything, you know, I'm sure we'll have
thousands of people in Wisconsin that no longer
have the health care. They they had before.
>> One area that's still up is your corrections plan. As
far as the prisons, you vetoed the deadline to close
the green Bay facility. Can you use the experience
negotiating the bill, the budget, to figure out how to
negotiate that plan? >> Yeah, absolutely. We
should. And we have to. I mean, we green Bay is going
to close. I get that whether it's in 2029 or whenever it
is closing. But in order to allow that to happen,
there's all sorts of steps. We put together a plan
several months ago, I think it was a rational plan. And,
you know, there are some people that want to do
different things. But the start. It's like a dance. We
have to do this first and then this first and this
first. I'm willing to talk to any, any Republican, any
Democrat on this issue. We just have to get it done. Do
I think we will? Yes. We have to.
>> It's tradition for the governor to wait until after
the budget is signed to announce whether they'll run
for another term. What is the timeline for your
decision, and do you have any announcements you'd like
to make today? any.
>> Today, but I'll tell you it'll happen shortly. I
would say a week or so. >> All right, governor Tony
Evers, thanks for your time today.
>> Appreciate it. >> The Wisconsin Supreme
Court has completed its term by releasing decisions in a
number of high profile cases, including A43
decision to overturn Wisconsin's 1849 abortion
ban. The end of the term also means the end of the
career of chief Justice Ann Walsh. Bradley, who decided
to retire after 30 years on the High Court. I sat down
with the Chief justice recently to discuss her
career and the future of the court. Madam Chief Justice,
thanks for your time. >> Pleasure to be here.
Zach. >> Let's go back to the
start. Can you imagine what yourself in 1995 would think
of where you are today, all these years later?
>> Well, it's been a journey and the journey, of course,
has been traveled by me. But with surrounded by family
and friends and colleagues. To answer your question, I
don't think I would have seen myself as I am today.
30 years ago. That's right. >> So Shirley Abrahamson was
the first woman appointed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
But you were the first elected. How far have we
come in that? It's been mostly women on the court
today, and most people in the modern era. This think
of it's natural for women to sit on the bench.
>> Well, it's been we've come a long ways. You know,
that's a perhaps a worn out phrase, but it holds some
truth to it. When I got on the circuit court in
Marathon County, there were only ten women judges in the
entire state, and I was one of three north of Madison.
And Milwaukee. When I became an attorney and went to
Wausau, I remember that very first day being welcomed by
my supervisor with this, he said, I want you to know I
have no problem with a woman trying to do a man's job. So
it has been a journey from the first days of being an
attorney and then being a circuit court judge. And
till now we have six of the seven members on our court
are serving as women. So that's a that's a long way.
>> So it was just a couple of years ago, the night that
Janet Protasiewicz was elected to be a member of
the court. I happened to interview you, and I said,
you're up next. Have you thought about whether you
want to run? And you told me, I'm going to run and I'm
going to win. >> Yes.
>> Take us from that moment to your decision that this
was going to be the end of your time on the bench.
>> It was a difficult decision. A decision that
took me many months. I had engaged services of someone
who was going to be helping me run the campaign. But
ultimately, as I reflected, I made lists of as most
people or many people would do of yes, I want to run or
no, I should not run. And the it was just time to pass
the torch. I've been on the court for 30 years, I'm told
I have participated in 28,000 cases. 2400 oral
arguments, 600 or so opinions. And it was time to
pass the torch to begin a new chapter of my life. I
don't look at this as retirement because I have a
number of things I want to do and accomplish, but it's
a new chapter. >> When you first ran for
the court, there wasn't nearly the public attention,
certainly not the money or even the partisan
involvement. You ran as a nonpartisan and criticize
accepting endorsements from from conservative
politicians. How how do you view the elections that
occur today? Even your successor had to court the
Democratic Party received millions in fundraising. And
yet has to try and claim judicial independence when
she takes the robes. How has that altered how the
justices see themselves and how the public sees the
court? >> In 1995, when I ran that
first race, I had as my co-chairs, Tony Earl, who
was the former Democratic governor, and Sue Ann
Thompson, who was the then first lady. Her husband,
Tommy Thompson, serving as my co-chairs. I had strong
bipartisan support, and I've had strong bipartisan
support in all of my campaigns. But it's harder
to get this is labeled as a nonpartisan race. It's in
April, right? That's when we have the nonpartisan
elections. And I am concerned about the influx
of partisanship in judicial races. That's of great
concern to me because I think that it has a couple
of effects. Number one, it has an effect on the public
trust and confidence in an independent judiciary. And
being independent not only in substance but also in
impression is important for the public trust and
confidence of the people. So I think the influx of
political parties and the great amount of money is of
concern. >> The legal landscape
surrounding the court has changed as well. The amount
of groups that exist only to file lawsuits with the best
hand-picked cases and plaintiffs involved in order
to find a crack in precedent to overturn something. How
how does that change how you react from the bench when
you know that this was, you know, hand-selected just in
order to try and reach the opposite conclusion?
>> Your question brings to mind something my husband
once said to me, because I mentioned, you know, being
involved in 28,000 cases and all the oral arguments. He
said, well, hasn't it all been decided already? You
know, there are so many cases, but the answer is no.
I get thrilled by the presence of good arguments
and good attorneys because they really help the court
develop the law. And when new arguments are brought
up, then we take a look at the issue in the way it's
framed, citing different cases and different issues.
>> Do you support change in the Constitution to
eliminate elections or alter elections, or you talked
about what other states do? There's a lot of options out
there. Do you have a proposal that you would
any proposal that I support, but I do support looking at
all sorts of different options. As I know, groups
and legislators are doing right now because we have a
challenge before us. And the challenge is to make the
selection of justices and the campaigns. If we
continue with campaigns, better not for the sake of
making a campaign better, but for the sake of the 5.8
million people who call Wisconsin home, they deserve
a judiciary, that they have trust and confidence in.
>> How might that have changed you becoming a
member of the Supreme Court? Because back in 1995, you
may not have been either selected to become on a list
or appointed to this process. You had to push
your way onto it. >> That's right. And about
three weeks ago, I was on an international webinar
regarding election of justices around the world.
Now, there are not many countries that elect their
state supreme court justices, or however they
divide, whether it's a province or an area. United
States is one of the few. And I made the comment then
to this webinar attendees that I probably wouldn't be
on the Supreme Court if it were not through election. I
was not one of the favored people. I mean, I didn't
have inside track information or path, right?
It was good old fashioned retail campaigning around
the state. And I won. So I am not quick to say, let's
get rid of elections. Not at all. I am quick to say,
let's see how they can become better. And if we
can't make them what they should be, then let's look
at other options. >> Chief Justice Ann Walsh
Bradley, thank you for your time.
>> Thanks. >> Zach.
>> For decades, the cost of prescription medication has
been ever increasing. At the same time, health coverage
for medication has been decreasing, forcing patients
to make harder decisions about their health. Over the
next few weeks, we bring you RX uncovered, a series from
“Here& Now” producer Marissa Wojcik that dives into the
complex systems driving these trends and the stories
of patients facing life or death choices. Our first
story is about a young man with asthma who suddenly had
to choose between affording his rent or his medicine.
>> Well, we got told, you know, just simply that he
would never wake up. >> Brill and Shanon
Schmidtknecht had just heard the worst news of their
life. >> That all I remember is
collapsing on him and the nurses sliding chairs behind
us. >> Their oldest son, Kohl,
suffered an asthma attack. His roommate rushed him to
the ER and his heart stopped beating two minutes before
they arrived. >> When he arrived at the
hospital, he was lifeless. Yeah. No pulse. They had to
resuscitate him. >> But the prognosis wasn't
good. >> They were no longer
seeing the brain activity. They were no longer seeing
any hope that there would be any type of recovery, that
essentially what we saw laying in the hospital of
our son was all that he would ever be.
>> The 22 year old laying in that hospital just days
earlier was happy and healthy. Bill and Shannon
were mystified. >> Yes. When I grab on to
him, like I just couldn't, you're like, this cannot be
happening. >> In the days that
followed, Bill and Shannon watched their son fulfill an
organ donation before watching him take his final
breath. >> Kohl had had asthma his
whole life. He was on a great that stabilized his
asthma for the past decade or more. So we were like,
this cannot be. >> Still in shock. They
didn't understand how this could have happened and why
Kohl didn't have his medication.
>> I will never forget that day.
>> Their quest for answers began as grieving parents.
More than a year later, they retell Kohl story, hoping
for change. >> We always felt there was
something that was unanswered.
was from Cole's best friend and roommate, who said Cole
did go to the pharmacy days earlier but couldn't get his
asthma medication refilled. >> His roommate had said, I
don't know. We tried to get it a few days ago and he
couldn't afford it. It was like $500 and we were like,
no, no, no, no. There has to be like something, something
happened. Like he didn't give.
managed the same chronic asthma their whole lives.
They used the same prescription inhaler and
they worked for the same company, meaning they had
the same health coverage. >> Probably a few weeks
later, texted her, say, hey, can you swing by the
pharmacy and grab my steroid medicine too?
>> I just remember walking in and she had it written
down on a piece of paper. No longer covered by insurance.
She worked her magic and made a phone call. Even
stayed after they were open and, you know, did what she
had to do to get something for me to take home so that
he had something. >> This was the first
glimpse into what may have happened in the days leading
up to Cole's death. Health coverage from the employer
had changed, and with it, the out-of-pocket cost.
>> They were told specifically as employees
that it would be a seamless transition. Pharmacy
benefits would be seamless. Prescription coverage would
be seamless. >> The unique thing, though,
is we stayed with the same pharmacy benefit manager.
>> What did change without their knowledge was their
prescription benefits formulary. The list of
preferred drugs covered by the health plan. These lists
are compiled of name, brand and generic medications
categorized into tiers. Tier one is the most preferred by
the plan and has the lowest co-pays. The higher the
tier, the more the patient pays out of pocket.
>> I will never forget that leaving that pharmacy and
being like, oh my God, this is what happened to Cole.
>> The preventative asthma medication that Cole relied
upon was moved to a higher tier that he suddenly could
not afford. >> We always assume that he
kind of ran some life choices and said, rent or
this, and thought he could do without it. Five days
after that, he texted me that he was having a hard
time breathing. >> The parallel details
around Bill and Cole's condition, medication and
health plan helped the Schmidtknecht understand how
Cole's pharmacy visit differed from Bill's.
>> The difference is he didn't have this pharmacist
or any caring independent pharmacist or whomever to
stop for five seconds. >> Bill's pharmacist made
sure he got the life saving medication he needed.
>> She was like, so we got to figure this out. You're
not leaving here with nothing for him, for Bill.
>> While no one can know for sure what happened to Cole
at the pharmacy that day, many, including bills
pharmacist, are convinced. >> Honestly, she believes
this is what contributed to that he didn't get his
medicine. Walking out of the pharmacy. You know, she she
can't make that judgment for sure, but she felt that way.
>> And you could tell he was the love of her life. One
day, him and I were laying in the yard looking up at
the sky. He looked at me and said, grandpa, when you eat
the heaven, would you save me a seat by you?
>> In March, Senate President Mary Felzkowski
reintroduced legislation that she and the
Schmidtknecht believe could medication. At some point,
somebody has to say enough is enough and put some
guardrails around this. >> The bill contains a
number of measures aimed at protecting independent
pharmacies and adding regulations against pharmacy
benefit managers, or PBMs. >> PBMs are essentially a
middleman hired by insurance companies to manage patient
prescription drug benefit programs. And they're
actually adversely driving up the cost of drugs and
controlling whether or not you get the medication
that's been prescribed to you.
>> Newly dubbed Cole's Act, this is the third time the
multi-pronged legislation has been authored.
>> I watched what happened with the first PBM bill. It
got really stripped down in the Assembly. We're not
going to allow that to happen this time around. We
are going to pass meaningful legislation.
deals specifically with drug formularies, saying a plan
cannot change a drug's tier except at the time of
coverage renewal. Historically, employer and
insurance groups have opposed this legislation,
fearing it will increase costs.
>> Marketplace events occur throughout throughout the
year that impact the price of prescription drugs by
implementing a frozen formulary. Payers and plans
will be limited in their ability to take advantage of
new reduced prices. Generic. >> We're going to work very
hard on showing them through data from other states that
have allowed that have the same legislation, where it's
actually lowered the cost of health care.
>> I can't believe it's been almost a year that he's gone.
Yeah, exactly. >> One year after Cole's
passing, his parents filed a negligence lawsuit against
the pharmacy benefit manager and the chain pharmacy where
Cole went to try and pick up his inhaler. The complaint
says no notification went out that the formulary had
changed, and the pharmacist should have offered a
generic alternative. It lists a number of points of
failure, many of which violate Wisconsin law. In a
motion to dismiss, the PBM argues that because Cole's
health plan is what's called self-funded, these types of
employer sponsored benefits are not technically health
insurance. They're largely not subject to state law,
and exclusively a federal concern.
>> We can't keep waiting for Washington. My constituents
can't afford to keep waiting for Washington on a number
of things. And I believe in states rights. And it's time
that the states need to step up. You know, we have the
fifth highest health care costs in the nation. And our
quality does not reflect that.
>> Congressional committees and federal agencies have
been sounding some alarm on practices rampant across the
industry. In January, the Federal Trade Commission
released its latest report investigating the top three
PBM companies for inflating drug prices, saying
UnitedHealth group's Optumrx, CVS Caremark and Cigna
Express Scripts increased prices hundreds or thousands
of times over, putting $7.3 billion back into their
pockets from 2017 to 2022. Amid a complex system.
Cole's parents believe more should have been done.
>> How will this bill have saved Cole?
>> I'm going to defer to Cole's dad for that.
>> The reality is, any portion of a bill that would
prevent the slowdown at the pharmacy counter. There's so
many Harry Dunn this. Or had he went to this type of
pharmacy, the ultimate thing, no matter what
happens, it was totally preventable. I mean, like,
it was preventable. Please don't let another parent
stand where we are today. >> We've just taken a
totally different look at so many things in life. It's
all because this cannot happen. This cannot happen
to another family. >> Reporting from Poynette.
I'm Marissa Wojcik for "Here& Now".
>> For more on this and other issues facing
at PBS wisconsin.org and then click on the news tab.
That is our program for tonight. I'm Zac Schultz.
Frederica Freyberg will be back next week. Have a great
weekend.
>> Funding for here and Now is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.