Cardinals' sudden 3-game tailspin has turned their once solid playoff hopes into a long shotThe world’s economic reckoning with the incoming Trump administration kicked off in earnest this week, with the U.S. Federal Reserve flagging fewer rate cuts, a resignation in Canada over budgeting for tariffs and heightened focus on cryptocurrencies. The Fed cut rates as expected on Wednesday amid a busy year-end run of central bank meetings from Ottawa and Frankfurt to Tokyo and London that showed heightened uncertainty ahead of Donald Trump entering the White House in the new year. Indeed, Fed officials not only dialed back projections for rate cuts in the face of stubborn inflation, Chair Jerome Powell said some in the bank were also trying to judge how Trump’s planned tariffs, lower taxes and immigration curbs might affect policy. The upshot was U.S. central bankers penciled in estimates for higher growth next year than previously estimated, but also notably higher inflation. That left Powell repeatedly urging “caution” around additional rate cuts from here, which triggered a slide in stock prices and a recalibration of market estimates for further easing. Just a single Fed rate cut is now priced in for 2025. “Some people did take a very preliminary step and start to incorporate highly conditional estimates of economic effects of policies into their forecasts at this meeting,” Powell said when asked if Trump’s policies factoredinto officials’ thinking. “Some people said they didn’t do so, and some people didn’t say whether they did or not. So we have people making a bunch of different approaches to that but some did identify policy uncertainty as one of the reasons for their writing down more uncertainty around inflation.” In Asia, The Bank of Japan on Thursday kept ultra-low interest rates as the threat of Trump’s policies cast a shadow over the export-reliant economy. “Uncertainty surrounding Japan’s economy and prices remains high,” the BOJ said in a statement announcing the decision. A Reuters survey of Japanese businesses published last week showed nearly three-quarters expect Trump to have a negative effect on their operating environment, something BOJ officials may have to reckon with as the world’s lone developed central bank still trying to tighten policy. Ahead of the Fed decision, rates had already been lowered last week by the European Central Bank and Bank of Canada, with both expected to deliver some additional easing in 2025 amid weakening outlooks. While ECB President Christine Lagarde was vague about further rate cuts, she went out of her way to emphasize downside risks to growth, including from prospective trade tensions with the United States under Trump. Rate decisions are still due in the coming hours from central banks in Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom. Although Trump may have been just at the periphery of officials’ thinking at the Fed, he was a central focus in Ottawa when Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland quit after clashing with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on how to handle possible U.S. tariffs under the next U.S. administration. Freeland said the threat of new U.S. tariffs represented a grave danger after Trump last month warned he would issue levies on goods imported from Canada and Mexico of 25% unless the two neighbors limit the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the U.S. “That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford,” she wrote in a letter to Trudeau posted on X. Meanwhile, crypto market enthusiasm for Trump’s notion of establishing a strategic reserve of bitcoin was dealt a setback when Powell said the Fed had no legal authority to hold it, adding declaratively that it had no plan to seek a change in the law so that it could. “That’s the kind of thing for Congress to consider, but we are not looking for a law change at the Fed,” Powell said. The remark contributed to a broad slide in crypto-related assets, including a 5% drop in bitcoin itself, its largest decline in more than three months. Source: Reuters (Reporting by Dan Burns and Howard Schneider; additional reporting by Leika Kihara in Tokyo; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Sam Holmes)New Repeat Orders for QUADRA High-Throughput Metrology System from Leading Semiconductor Manufacturer Fills Up Nearfield Instruments’ 2025 Order BookRenuka Rayasam | (TNS) KFF Health News In April, just 12 weeks into her pregnancy, Kathleen Clark was standing at the receptionist window of her OB-GYN’s office when she was asked to pay $960, the total the office estimated she would owe after she delivered. Clark, 39, was shocked that she was asked to pay that amount during this second prenatal visit. Normally, patients receive the bill after insurance has paid its part, and for pregnant women that’s usually only when the pregnancy ends. It would be months before the office filed the claim with her health insurer. Clark said she felt stuck. The Cleveland, Tennessee, obstetrics practice was affiliated with a birthing center where she wanted to deliver. Plus, she and her husband had been wanting to have a baby for a long time. And Clark was emotional, because just weeks earlier her mother had died. “You’re standing there at the window, and there’s people all around, and you’re trying to be really nice,” recalled Clark, through tears. “So, I paid it.” On online baby message boards and other social media forums , pregnant women say they are being asked by their providers to pay out-of-pocket fees earlier than expected. The practice is legal, but patient advocacy groups call it unethical. Medical providers argue that asking for payment up front ensures they get compensated for their services. How frequently this happens is hard to track because it is considered a private transaction between the provider and the patient. Therefore, the payments are not recorded in insurance claims data and are not studied by researchers. Patients, medical billing experts, and patient advocates say the billing practice causes unexpected anxiety at a time of already heightened stress and financial pressure. Estimates can sometimes be higher than what a patient might ultimately owe and force people to fight for refunds if they miscarry or the amount paid was higher than the final bill. Up-front payments also create hurdles for women who may want to switch providers if they are unhappy with their care. In some cases, they may cause women to forgo prenatal care altogether, especially in places where few other maternity care options exist. It’s “holding their treatment hostage,” said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation . Medical billing and women’s health experts believe OB-GYN offices adopted the practice to manage the high cost of maternity care and the way it is billed for in the U.S. When a pregnancy ends, OB-GYNs typically file a single insurance claim for routine prenatal care, labor, delivery, and, often, postpartum care. That practice of bundling all maternity care into one billing code began three decades ago, said Lisa Satterfield, senior director of health and payment policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . But such bundled billing has become outdated, she said. Previously, pregnant patients had been subject to copayments for each prenatal visit, which might lead them to skip crucial appointments to save money. But the Affordable Care Act now requires all commercial insurers to fully cover certain prenatal services. Plus, it’s become more common for pregnant women to switch providers, or have different providers handle prenatal care, labor, and delivery — especially in rural areas where patient transfers are common. Some providers say prepayments allow them to spread out one-time payments over the course of the pregnancy to ensure that they are compensated for the care they do provide, even if they don’t ultimately deliver the baby. “You have people who, unfortunately, are not getting paid for the work that they do,” said Pamela Boatner, who works as a midwife in a Georgia hospital. While she believes women should receive pregnancy care regardless of their ability to pay, she also understands that some providers want to make sure their bill isn’t ignored after the baby is delivered. New parents might be overloaded with hospital bills and the costs of caring for a new child, and they may lack income if a parent isn’t working, Boatner said. In the U.S., having a baby can be expensive. People who obtain health insurance through large employers pay an average of nearly $3,000 out-of-pocket for pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker . In addition, many people are opting for high-deductible health insurance plans, leaving them to shoulder a larger share of the costs. Of the 100 million U.S. people with health care debt, 12% attribute at least some of it to maternity care, according to a 2022 KFF poll . Families need time to save money for the high costs of pregnancy, childbirth, and child care, especially if they lack paid maternity leave, said Joy Burkhard , CEO of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, a Los Angeles-based policy think tank. Asking them to prepay “is another gut punch,” she said. “What if you don’t have the money? Do you put it on credit cards and hope your credit card goes through?” Calculating the final costs of childbirth depends on multiple factors, such as the timing of the pregnancy , plan benefits, and health complications, said Erin Duffy , a health policy researcher at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. The final bill for the patient is unclear until a health plan decides how much of the claim it will cover, she said. But sometimes the option to wait for the insurer is taken away. During Jamie Daw’s first pregnancy in 2020, her OB-GYN accepted her refusal to pay in advance because Daw wanted to see the final bill. But in 2023, during her second pregnancy, a private midwifery practice in New York told her that since she had a high-deductible plan, it was mandatory to pay $2,000 spread out with monthly payments. Daw, a health policy researcher at Columbia University, delivered in September 2023 and got a refund check that November for $640 to cover the difference between the estimate and the final bill. “I study health insurance,” she said. “But, as most of us know, it’s so complicated when you’re really living it.” While the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover some prenatal services, it doesn’t prohibit providers from sending their final bill to patients early. It would be a challenge politically and practically for state and federal governments to attempt to regulate the timing of the payment request, said Sabrina Corlette , a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. Medical lobbying groups are powerful and contracts between insurers and medical providers are proprietary. Because of the legal gray area, Lacy Marshall , an insurance broker at Rapha Health and Life in Texas, advises clients to ask their insurer if they can refuse to prepay their deductible. Some insurance plans prohibit providers in their network from requiring payment up front. If the insurer says they can refuse to pay up front, Marshall said, she tells clients to get established with a practice before declining to pay, so that the provider can’t refuse treatment. Related Articles Health | Which health insurance plan may be right for you? Health | California case is the first confirmed bird flu infection in a US child Health | Your cool black kitchenware could be slowly poisoning you, study says. Here’s what to do Health | Does fluoride cause cancer, IQ loss, and more? Fact-checking Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims Health | US towns plunge into debates about fluoride in water Clark said she met her insurance deductible after paying for genetic testing, extra ultrasounds, and other services out of her health care flexible spending account. Then she called her OB-GYN’s office and asked for a refund. “I got my spine back,” said Clark, who had previously worked at a health insurer and a medical office. She got an initial check for about half the $960 she originally paid. In August, Clark was sent to the hospital after her blood pressure spiked. A high-risk pregnancy specialist — not her original OB-GYN practice — delivered her son, Peter, prematurely via emergency cesarean section at 30 weeks. It was only after she resolved most of the bills from the delivery that she received the rest of her refund from the other OB-GYN practice. This final check came in October, just days after Clark brought Peter home from the hospital, and after multiple calls to the office. She said it all added stress to an already stressful period. “Why am I having to pay the price as a patient?” she said. “I’m just trying to have a baby.” ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Percentages: FG .226, FT .714. 3-Point Goals: 6-31, .194 (Grullon 3-10, Zuzic 2-6, Faloppa 1-1, Bukumirovic 0-1, Niang 0-1, Salaridze 0-1, Trnka 0-1, Williams 0-1, Guinyard 0-2, Hopkins 0-3, Cortijo 0-4). Team Rebounds: 7. Team Turnovers: 5. Blocked Shots: None. Turnovers: 13 (Cortijo 2, Faloppa 2, Grullon 2, Salaridze 2, Bukumirovic, Guinyard, Hopkins, Niang, Trnka). Steals: 7 (Salaridze 3, Faloppa, Grullon, Radakovic, Trnka). Technical Fouls: None. Percentages: FG .476, FT .800. 3-Point Goals: 10-37, .270 (Lanier 4-13, Zeigler 3-10, Dubar 1-4, Gainey 1-4, Milicic 1-5, Mashack 0-1). Team Rebounds: 3. Team Turnovers: None. Blocked Shots: 9 (Okpara 4, Milicic 2, Phillips 2, Gainey). Turnovers: 11 (Gainey 2, Milicic 2, Okpara 2, Phillips 2, Zeigler 2, Boswell). Steals: 6 (Zeigler 2, Boswell, Mashack, Milicic, Phillips). Technical Fouls: None. .One of my top shows of 2024 actually premiered in 2021. That’s because it took a couple of years for the Australian series “The Newsreader” to make its way Stateside. Alas, it was only legal to stream in the U.S. for a handful of weeks in September and then — pffft! — it was gone before most people had even heard of it. Well, I have great news. The show will be available once again, this time via Sundance Now (accessible through the AMC+ streaming platform), which has licensed the first season. Premiering Dec. 19, it stars Anna Torv (“Fringe”) and Sam Reid (“Interview with the Vampire”) as TV reporters in Melbourne, circa 1986. At the outset, Reid’s character exudes big loser energy, which is such an amusing contrast to his work as Lestat. The show is unexpectedly funny and terrifically Machiavellian in its portrayal of small-time office politics, and I’m thrilled audiences in the U.S. will get another shot at watching it. Overall, 2024 offered a modestly better lineup than usual, but I’m not sure it felt that way. Too often the good stuff got drowned out by Hollywood’s pointless and endless pursuit of rebooting intellectual property (no thank you, Apple’s “Presumed Innocent” ) and tendency to stretch a perfectly fine two-hour movie premise into a saggy multi-part series (“Presumed Innocent” again!). There were plenty of shows I liked that didn’t make this year’s list, including ABC’s “Abbott Elementary” and CBS’ “Ghosts” (it’s heartening to see the network sitcom format still thriving in the streaming era), as well as Netflix’s “A Man on the Inside” (Ted Danson’s charisma selling an unlikely premise) and Hulu’s “Interior Chinatown” (a high-concept parody of racial stereotypes and cop show tropes, even if it couldn’t sustain the idea over 10 episodes). Maybe it just felt like we were having more fun this year, with Netflix’s “The Perfect Couple” (Nicole Kidman leading a traditional manor house mystery reinterpreted with an American sensibility) and Hulu’s “Rivals” (the horniest show of 2024, delivered with a wink in the English countryside). I liked what I saw of Showtime’s espionage thriller “The Agency” (although the bulk of episodes were unavailable as of this writing). The deluge of remakes tends to make me cringe, but this year also saw a redo of Patricia Highsmith’s “The Talented Mr. Ripley” on Netflix that was far classier than most of what’s available on the streamer. Starring Andrew Scott, I found it cool to the touch, but the imagery stayed with me. Shot in black and white, it has an indelible visual language courtesy of director of photography Robert Elswit, whether capturing a crisp white business card against the worn grain wood of a bar top, or winding stairways that alternately suggest a yawning void or a trap. As always, if you missed any of these shows when they originally premiered — the aforementioned titles or the Top 10 listed below — they are all available to stream. Top 10 streaming and TV shows of 2024, in alphabetical order: The least cynical reality show on television remains as absorbing as ever in Season 4, thanks to the probing questions and insights from the show’s resident therapist, Dr. Orna Guralnik. Everything is so charged. And yet the show has a soothing effect, predicated on the idea that human behavior (and misery) isn’t mysterious or unchangeable. There’s something so optimistic in that outlook. Whether or not you relate to the people featured on “Couples Therapy” — or even like them as individuals — doesn’t matter as much as Guralnik’s reassuring presence. Created by and starring Diarra Kilpatrick, the eight-episode series defies categorization in all the right ways. Part missing-person mystery, part comedy about a school teacher coming to grips with her impending divorce, and part drama about long-buried secrets, it has tremendous style right from the start — sardonic, knowing and self-deprecating. The answers to the central mystery may not pack a satisfying punch by the end, but the road there is as entertaining and absorbing as they come. We need more shows like this. A comedy created by and starring Brian Jordan Alvarez (of the antic YouTube series “The Gay and Wondrous Life of Caleb Gallo”), the show has a sensibility all its own, despite a handful of misinformed people on social media calling it a ripoff of “Abbott Elementary.” There’s room enough in the TV landscape for more than one sitcom with a school setting and “English Teacher” has a wonderfully gimlet-eyed point of view of modern high school life. I’m amused that so much of its musical score is Gen-X coded, because that neither applies to Alvarez (a millennial) nor the fictional students he teaches. So why does the show feature everything from Laura Branigan’s “Gloria” to Exposé’s “Point of No Return”? The ’80s were awash in teen stories and maybe the show is using music from that era to invoke all those tropes in order to better subvert them. It’s a compelling idea! It’s streaming on Hulu and worth checking out if you haven’t already. A one-time tennis phenom accuses her former coach of coercing her into a sexual relationship in this British thriller. The intimacy between a coach and athlete often goes unexplored, in real-life or fictional contexts and that’s what the show interrogates: When does it go over the line? It’s smart, endlessly watchable and the kind of series that would likely find a larger audience were it available on a more popular streamer. There’s real tenderness in this show. Real cruelty, too. It’s a potent combination and the show’s third and strongest season won it an Emmy for best comedy. Jean Smart’s aging comic still looking for industry validation and Hannah Einbinder’s needy Gen-Z writer are trapped in an endless cycle of building trust that inevitably gives way to betrayal. Hollywood in a nutshell! “Hacks” is doing variations on this theme every season, but doing it in interesting ways. Nobody self-sabotages their way to success like these two. I was skeptical about the show when it premiered in 2022 . Vampire stories don’t interest me. And the 1994 movie adaptation starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt wasn’t a persuasive argument to the contrary. But great television is great television and nothing at the moment is better than this show. It was ignored by Emmy voters in its initial outing but let’s hope Season 2 gets the recognition it deserves. Under showrunner Rolin Jones, the adaptation of Anne Rice’s novels is richly written, thrillingly inhabited by its cast and so effortlessly funny with a framing device — the interview of the title — that is thick with intrigue and sly comedy. I wouldn’t categorize the series as horror. It’s not scary. But it is tonally self-assured and richly made, rarely focused on the hunt for dinner but on something far more interesting: The melodrama of vampire existence, with its combination of boredom and lust and tragedy and zingers. Already renewed for Season 3, it has an incredible cast (a thrilling late-career boost for Eric Bogosian) and is well worth catching up with if you haven’t already. It’s been too long since the pleasures of banter fueled a romantic comedy in the spirit of “When Harry Met Sally.” But it’s all over the place in “Nobody Wants This,” one of the best shows on Netflix in recent memory. Renewed for a second season, it stars Kristen Bell as a humorously caustic podcaster and Adam Brody as the cute and emotionally intelligent rabbi she falls for. On the downside, the show has some terrible notions about Jewish women that play into controlling and emasculating stereotypes. You hate to see it in such an otherwise sparkling comedy, because overall Bell and Brody have an easy touch that gives the comedy real buoyancy. I suspect few people saw this three-part series on PBS Masterpiece, but it features a terrific performance by Helena Bonham Carter playing the real-life, longtime British soap star Noele “Nolly” Gordon, who was unceremoniously sacked in 1981. She’s the kind of larger-than-life showbiz figure who is a bit ridiculous, a bit imperious, but also so much fun. The final stretch of her career is brought to life by Carter and this homage — to both the soap she starred in and the way she carried it on her back — is from Russell T. Davies (best known for the “Doctor Who” revival). For U.S. viewers unfamiliar with the show or Gordon, Carter’s performance has the benefit of not competing with a memory as it reanimates a slice of British pop culture history from the analog era. The year is 1600 and a stubborn British seaman piloting a Dutch ship washes ashore in Japan. That’s our entry point to this gorgeously shot story of power games and political maneuvering among feudal enemies. Adapted from James Clavell’s 1975 novel by the married team of Rachel Kondo and Justin Marks, it is filled with Emmy-winning performances (for Anna Sawai and Hiroyuki Sanada; the series itself also won best drama) and unlike something like HBO’s far clunkier “House of the Dragon,” which tackles similar themes, this feels like the rare show created by, and for, adults. The misfits and losers of Britain’s MI5 counterintelligence agency — collectively known as the slow horses, a sneering nickname that speaks to their perceived uselessness — remain as restless as ever in this adaptation of Mick Herron’s Slough House spy novels. As a series, “Slow Horses” doesn’t offer tightly plotted clockwork spy stories; think too deeply about any of the details and the whole thing threatens to fall apart. But on a scene-by-scene basis, the writing is a winning combination of wry and tension-filled, and the cumulative effect is wonderfully entertaining. Spies have to deal with petty office politics like everyone else! It’s also one of the few shows that has avoided the dreaded one- or two-year delay between seasons, which has become standard on streaming. Instead, it provides the kind of reliability — of its characters but also its storytelling intent — that has become increasingly rare. Nina Metz is a Tribune critic.