Did opioid overdose deaths in West Virginia fall by 8.5%?

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., offered a note of optimism about her state’s struggle with opioid addiction in a Jan. 22 tweet.

Capito tweeted, “Thanks to successful federal, state, and local efforts, preliminary statistics show opioid overdose deaths are down 8.5% in West Virginia. Awesome news!”

Is this statistic correct? Capito’s office did not respond to several inquiries, but we were able to find data that addresses the question.

Her tweet links to a USA Today article about newly released data on opioids published the same day as the tweet. Accompanying that article is a link to a related article that summarizes the state-by-state data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the breakdown, West Virginia’s predicted 12-month number for overdose deaths from all drugs fell from 1,047 in 2017 to 958 in 2018. That’s a decrease of 8.5 percent, as Capito said.

However, we should note a couple caveats.

First, a different cut of the CDC data actually shows even stronger declines in West Virginia. Preliminary, 12-month statewide data for overdose deaths shows an 18.7 percent decline for reported deaths between July 2017 and July 2018, and a 32 percent decline for predicted deaths over the same period.

Second, the 8.5 percent decline refers to overdose deaths from all drugs, not “opioid overdose deaths,” as Capito said.

The report doesn’t break down the data for opioid deaths by state. However, other data shows patterns for different drugs, and those serve to complicate Capito’s optimism.

A CDC report detailing annual figures for 2016 and 2017 found that in West Virginia, there was a decrease in prescription opioid overdose deaths by almost 13 percent between those two years. However, during the same time period, the deaths from all opioids, including heroin and methadone, rose more than 14 percent, and the death rates from synthetic opioids other than methadone increased by more than 42 percent.

In other words, a reduction in the deaths from prescription opioids masked how fast deaths from all opioids and synthetic opioids rose over that period.

“The opioid overdose epidemic continues to worsen and evolve because of the continuing increase in deaths involving synthetic opioids,” the CDC reported, according to a Dec. 28, 2018 article in the Register Herald of Beckley, W.Va.

Our ruling

Capito tweeted, “Thanks to successful federal, state, and local efforts, preliminary statistics show opioid overdose deaths are down 8.5% in West Virginia.”

This number appears in a USA Today article that summarized CDC data, and other CDC data shows even sharper declines. That’s the good news.

However, Capito misidentified the figure as opioid overdose deaths specifically, rather than overdose deaths from all drugs. In addition, a more detailed analysis shows that while prescription opioid overdose deaths are down, overdose deaths from synthetic opioids are up. This suggests a more complicated outlook for the state’s overall overdose problem.

We rate the statement Half True.

Fact-checking Donald Trump's rally in Huntington, W.Va.

Donald Trump continued his cross-country politicking on Nov. 2, just days before the midterm elections, with a stop in Huntington, W.Va., where he…

Donald Trump continued his cross-country politicking on Nov. 2, just days before the midterm elections, with a stop in Huntington, W.Va., where he supported Patrick Morrisey, the Republican challenger to Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin.

Trump used the podium to attack Democrats who he accused of being soft on illegal immigration, while also touting some of the positive economic achievements on his administration’s watch.

Here’s a rundown of a few of the statements Trump made at the rally.

“We lifted 4.3 million Americans off of food stamps.”

The number of Americans collecting food stamps decreased by 3.76 million between January 2017 and July 2018. Trump appears to be counting back to November 2016, when he won the presidency. Starting the count then raises the number to 4.26 million. However, that’s a stretch because November 2016 was before he was in office and able to enact any policies.

It’s also worth noting that the decline began with the recovery that gained steam during the presidency of Barack Obama, years before Trump took office. So it’s a stretch to attribute sole credit to Trump or his policies.

“The Democrats want to invite caravan after caravan.”

We rated False a similar claim about the caravan of migrants moving north through Mexico.

Democrats have largely remained silent about the caravan, focusing on other issues as Election Day nears. Some Democratic leaders have said that immigrants should be allowed go through the asylum application process, which is available under law. But it’s a stretch for Trump to say that’s an invitation for caravans to come to the United States.

“Nearly 100 percent of heroin in the United States enters through the southern border.”

This is close to the mark.

Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.

“Mexico, and to a lesser extent, Colombia, dominate the U.S. heroin market, because of their proximity, established transportation and distribution infrastructure, and ability to satisfy US heroin demand,” the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration wrote in its National Drug Threat Assessment of 2015.

“Republicans will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.”

We can’t predict the future, but we have concluded that Republican candidates who voted for a congressional repeal bill or signed on to a repeal lawsuit now pending don’t have little standing to argue that they’re working to safeguard pre-existing condition protections. None of the past or current legislative proposals that would replace the Affordable Care Act offer the same degree of protection for patients with pre-existing conditions.

“We’ve added half a million manufacturing jobs — soon to be 600,000 — since the election, including 32,000 in just the last month.”

This is a modest exaggeration.

From November 2016 to October 2018, the U.S. economy added 446,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s not 500,000, but it’s not far off. Trump is correct about the 32,000 rise between September and October of this year.

We’ll note that manufacturing jobs are only slowly recovering the ground they have lost since the 1980s, and especially after the Great Recession in 2008 and 2009.

To the extent that manufacturing employment has been increasing, it’s been doing so at a fairly steady — if modest — rate since 2010, including more than six years on Obama’s watch.

“But I can tell you, they will shut down your coal mines. They want to take away your good health care and essentially use socialism to turn America into Venezuela.”

Socialism refers to the government owning (or at least controlling) the means of production. No mainstream Democrat has called for a government takeover of businesses.

While some might describe Medicare or Medicaid as socialism, because the government is providing health insurance to citizens, the health industry remains in private hands, said Sean D. Ehrlich, a Florida State University political science professor.

“The government doesn’t control the production of health care,” Ehrlich said, “they merely regulate some elements and reimburse providers and consumers for their health care costs.”

University of Miami professor Merike Blofield, an expert in Latin American and comparative politics, said that by the standards of other wealthy liberal democracies with public, universal health care, typical Democratic policy proposals are conservative.

“Democrats want to totally open the borders.”

During the 2016 presidential election, Trump charged Democrat Hillary Clinton with favoring open borders. As we have reported, experts say that making it easier for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is not the same as getting rid of enforcement and allowing open borders.

There actually is a long history to “open borders.” The United States essentially had them for 85 years, the libertarian Cato Institute has said. “From 1790 to 1875,” the institute says, any “immigrant from any country could legally enter, live and work in the United States.”

There “are no members of Congress who support ‘open borders’ or anything that even approaches it,” Cato analyst Alex Nowrasteh has told us.

Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who authored a 2008 book on federal actions to tighten U.S. borders after 9/11, added that he sees it as “a derogatory term that doesn’t have a whole lot of analytical meaning. It’s not even in the conversation in Washington,” where the focus since the 1990s has been on strengthening border security.

“Democrats want to abolish (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They want to turn America into a giant sanctuary for criminal aliens, drug dealers, and MS-13 killers.”

A few Democrats seem to want the agency shuttered, but most — including congressional leaders — talk of restructuring or a new focus.

In July, we found six additional Democrats in the House and Senate who have said they want to “abolish,” “dismantle” or replace ICE.

Rep. Mark Pocan, of Wisconsin, said he planned to introduce legislation to abolish ICE, because the Trump administration had “so misused ICE that the agency can no longer accomplish its goals effectively.”

But that’s hardly all Democrats, and it’s not an invitation for mass migration of criminals and killers.

“We hit $1.6 billion, and then another $1.6 billion, and then another $1.6 billion and then we’re gonna build that wall all at the same time.”

This is an exaggeration.

There are projects underway to replace fencing along the border in San Diego and further east in Calexico. Those call for new and taller, bollard-style barriers, which include a comb-like array of steel posts that border patrol agents can see through, some of which were planned long before Trump ran for office.

A recent appropriation by Congress of $1.6 billion allows for the replacement of the old fencing, but not for the construction of any sort of concrete wall prototype as Trump requested.

“We gave our great warriors … the largest pay raise they’ve had in more than a decade.”

That’s an exaggeration. The increase of 2.4 percent in 2018 represented the biggest bump since 2010, which was eight years ago.

Referring to Manchin, “a vote for Joe is a vote for (Democratic Senate Leader Chuck) Schumer. … These are anti-coal people. … And frankly that’s what you’re getting. And if that’s what you end up with, it’s your fault, not mine. Remember that. Joe will never be with us in terms of the vote.”

Manchin has usually been a strong supporter of coal, which is a major West Virginia industry and something that the state’s elected officials are loath to criticize.

Manchin actively opposed the two biggest efforts backed by President Barack Obama that drew coal industry opposition — the cap-and-trade bill and the Clean Power Plan. He also pursued other legislative and regulatory efforts that aided the coal industry, such as supporting a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to reverse the “Waters of the U.S.” rule, arguing that it would “impact the coal mining in West Virginia.”

This story was originally published by PolitiFact.

West Virginia GOP Largely Accurate About Food Stamp Decline

In a recent tweet, the West Virginia Republican Party praised President Donald Trump for his role in reducing the number of Americans who rely on food stamps.

“Thanks to President Trump and Republican leadership, the number of people collecting food stamps has declined by more than two million. Our economy is (in) recovery and more jobs are available! #WVGOP,” the party tweeted Aug. 1.

Is this correct?

We looked at the official data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the program formally known as SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

When Trump took office in January 2017, there were 42.7 million Americans on food stamps. By May 2018, there were 39.3 million Americans collecting food stamps. That’s a decrease of 3.4 million — an even bigger decrease than the tweet had touted.

Measured another way, the number of households with at least one food-stamp recipient declined over the same period by almost 1.5 million.

But the tweet drew a connection between Trump’s policies and the downward trend. Is there one?

That’s less clear.

Food stamp usage peaked in late 2012 and has been declining ever since — under both Trump and his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

The Agriculture Department wrote in an April 2018 report that the decline in 2017 “in large part” reflected “the continued improvement in economic conditions in recent years. Because eligibility for SNAP is based largely on a person’s financial situation, program participation is countercyclical, expanding during economic downturns when people lose their jobs and see their incomes fall, and contracting during periods of economic growth when unemployment falls and people’s incomes rise.”

The department’s report noted that in 2017, the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent, well below the 7.4 rate in 2013. And the share of Americans with incomes below the poverty line fell, from 14.8 percent in 2013 to 12.7 percent in 2016.

Michael Wiseman, a professor of Public Policy at George Washington University said the biggest reason for the drop to “the ongoing economic recovery that begin in the first year of the Obama administration.”

No president can be fully credited with (or blamed for) economic conditions on their watch, but to the extent that a president can reasonably claim a share of the credit, both Obama and Trump can. There was no sudden turnaround after Trump took office.

Another likely reason for the decline in food stamp usage was a tightening of restrictions on SNAP participation by those who fall into the category of “able bodied adults without dependents.” Childless adults, aged 18 to 50, who aren’t employed or in a training program for at least 20 hours a week may only receive SNAP benefits for up to three months.

However, these restrictions began before Trump took office.

“While the Trump administration has proposed various restrictions on SNAP access, none have been implemented,” Wiseman said.

Our ruling

The West Virginia Republican Party tweeted, “Thanks to President Trump and Republican leadership, the number of people collecting food stamps has declined by more than two million.”

That’s actually an undercount — the number of Americans collecting food stamps has decreased by 3.4 million. But the decline began years before Trump took office, so it’s a stretch to attribute sole credit to Trump or his policies.

We rate the statement Mostly True.

This report was written by a student at West Virginia University’s Reed College of Media as part of a semester-long collaboration between the college, Politifact and 100 Days in Appalachia. It was originally published by Politifact.

With Media Trust Low, PolitiFact Rolls into 'Trump Country' to Foster Conversation

President Donald Trump’s continued cries of “fake news” come at a time when his approval rating hovers just below 40 percent nationwide. Still yet, his supporters remain vigilant and carry with them a strong distrust in the news media. But, it’s not just Trump supporters losing faith in the news media — Gallup polling shows trust in the media is down across party lines and other demographics. With that in mind, PolitiFact — known best for its fact-checking ratings system The Truth-o-Meter — is looking to dive right in to the places that supported Trump the most and foster a conversation. 

On Tuesday night in Charleston, reporters and editors from the outlet will host a forum at the Kanawha County Public Library, wrapping up two days of meetings with local GOP leaders and others disenchanted by the news media. That stop marks the third and final one on a mini-tour for the outlet.

We spoke with PolitiFact senior correspondent Louis Jacobson about the event and some of the wider issues at play with media in the Trump era.

Below is a transcript of that conversation, which was edited for clarity and length. 

Tuesday’s forum in Charleston is the third and final stop on this mini tour, so to speak, for PolitiFact. There were stops in Mobile, Alabama and Tulsa, Oklahoma. These places, like Charleston, were picked specifically for their heavy support of Donald Trump. But, I should mention that a Rasmussen poll back in September of last year — towards the end of the campaign season — showed that 88 percent of Trump supporters don’t believe fact checking organizations such as yours and don’t trust the media. Tell us a little bit about making the choices of these specific spots and what you’ve learned so far.

Well, I’m glad you cited that figure because that was really kind of a motivating factor for us in deciding to do this. We got a little bit of grant money for the Knight Foundation, which funds journalism projects. And, you know — as a fact check organization we want to get factual — trustworthy information out there and it’s kind of depressing and disturbing for us if a large chunk of the country just doesn’t want to hear what we have to say.

So, we’d like to kind of bridge the divide with these trips and these are, you know, three solidly red states. I think a big motivation for me and wanting to do this is to sort of reach out to people who might not even know we exist — or if they do know that we exist, to try to get them to trust us more — and that can really only be done on a face to face basis.

So much of the political discourse today is totally online, often anonymous. People are tempted and are able to throw darts at each other without seeing them in person. And so, we have set up meetings. We just finished one with a bunch of GOP officials here in Morgantown — about half dozen people — as a sort of a free-wheeling conversation about their about their concerns on the media, about us in particular — but, also just in general, the media and what they do and don’t like and ways that we can sort of address their concerns.

One of the big things with PolitiFact is the Truth-o-Meter. If you’ve paid attention to media over the past few years, you’ve seen it somewhere. One of the things I’m curious about is the methodology behind that — not only how the fact checking takes place but also the choices the statements made by President Trump and other public officials. How are those decisions made and could you walk me through that entire process?

So let’s start with the choosing of statements to check. We look through speeches and transcripts of TV appearances by major politicians.We also just sort of automatically hear things that everybody’s talking about we just know you have to fact check — everybody’s wondering about it and then we also get a lot of tips from our readers who e-mail us to say ‘Hey, you know, I saw this in my Facebook feed. Can you check this out?’ It might be a meme or it might be some other questionable posting.

So, we sort of sift through all these and figure out, first of all, a very basic question: ‘Is this checkable? Is this something which is a factual question or is it something that is an opinion or maybe a prediction?’ Which makes it very hard, if not impossible, to fact check. So, we choose a particular segment of that quote — we don’t check entire speeches, we don’t check entire paragraphs.

We’ll check about one sentence or maybe two at most, because we want to zero in on something which is narrow and tangible and we want to be able to sort of not get a statement that we check where it’s got three or four different parts going in different directions and ‘how you rate it in the end?’ So, we find a suitable statement to check and then we do just regular journalism, pretty much. We talked to experts, we find documents, we do data queries and databases. After four or five hours of work — sometimes more if it’s a complicated story — we will write it up and the editor will do a first edit. The writer of the story proposes a rating on our six-point scale –which I should say is: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire.

And the writer suggests one of those. The editor can agree with that or not. But, then, the actual decision on the final rating goes to what’s called the Star Chamber. It’s that first editor joined by two totally new editors to that story. The writer usually sits in but they don’t have a vote. It’s basically the three editors vote and you know sometimes it’s going to be really easy and it might take two minutes because it’s a very clear-cut fact check. But, sometimes, it gets to be a bit of a knock-down, drag-out battle between one editor who thinks that should be mostly false and two who think it should be half true. Often, the power of persuasion, that third person can be convinced to come along on the other’s rating. Sometimes it’s as simple as changing some of the language to maybe give greater emphasis to a certain point that the person who wanted mostly false was trying to make. But, generally speaking, it gets worked out and the final ruling holds. That said, you know, I kind of consider the rating to be equivalent to the headline of a news story. It’s a summary. It’s our best distillation of what we think we found. And just as you wouldn’t want to only read the headline and not read the story, if you want to fully understand something, you also don’t want to just see our rating and then not read the story.

[What we try to do] is to be thorough in the evidence we provide — and we provide all of our sources that are listed on the right-hand side of the page and the source list and the story itself has the actual click links to the data that we used — and all of our comments are on the record from our sources. So, you know, if you disagree with our rating, that’s fine. We’re not the voice of God. We’re just three editors sitting in a room trying and trying our best to find the best way to summarize a point. 

If people want to disagree with the rating, that’s definitely their prerogative and certainly reasonable people can disagree on what the final rating should be. But, at the very least, what we do want people to experience is that they read the story that we’ve written and maybe click through some of the links to make sure we’re doing it right and feel ‘OK, you know, I’ve learned something from this. I might not agree with the final ruling on it, but you know I know more about this topic than I did and it seems like a reasonable argument.’

A lot of this conversation right now comes down to a wider distrust of news media. A recent Gallup poll shows trust in the media remains extremely low. A lot of people might argue that President Trump’s cries of ‘fake news’ play some role in that. In the same breath, though, we should point out that Gallup’s polling numbers on Trump’s approval rating also remain very low — somewhere hovering around just below 40 percent. How big of a factor is Trump’s rhetoric and media criticism playing into all of this with is low approval rating. Is there any explanation for how that sits together?

It’s a fair question. I don’t really know the answer to that. But, I will say that I think what the president has done with his rhetoric is [that] he’s really bolstered his own supporters in a sort of anti-media frame of mind. But, also, at the same time [he has] bolstered his opponents in more of a pro-media frame of mind. Unfortunately, it breaks down. It further sort of divides us between those who trust the media and those who don’t. I see that as unfortunate and I think that’s part of what we’re trying to do here during our visit.

We want people to have open minds and to be open to new arguments and factual arguments, factual data and not just simply brush it off as being untrustworthy without even giving it a chance. And we want to reach out to people, as we’ve been doing on this trip, who might not necessarily follow us currently or might be predisposed against us and try to present ourselves as, you know, real people who are trying our best to sort of navigate a difficult challenge in finding what’s true and trying to get people to give us a shot.

Finally, wrapping things up, knowing all this and with the news media also being hyper aware — we’re hyper aware here of West Virginia Public Broadcasting, as are other news outlets around the state and around the country — with Trump, the public’s perception of the media, all that — what is the answer moving forward? I mean I think there has been a larger push for transparency in reporting methods. Reporters are showing their work, there’s even more scrutinized sourcing of materials and documents, interviews and sources. We also saw the New York Times put out this big push about their social media rules and code of conduct. Recently, they opened that up to the public. Are these steps forward? If so, and either way — if it is or if it isn’t — what else needs to be done in improving this relationship between the media and its audience?

I think several of those steps are wise steps. I do like the idea of journalists on social media trying to avoid very opinionated statements. My own Twitter feed is pretty plain vanilla. I share my stories and I share a couple of stories that I think are good by other journalists and talk a little bit. Like today, I’m tweeting out about some of the things we’ve been doing here in West Virginia. So, I think that’s that’s probably a smart decision. I totally like the idea of transparency of sources. I mean, as I said we at PolitiFact are trying to be very transparent about that in terms of listing our sources and not using off-the-record comments or anonymous comments from sources.

I think, ultimately, while journalists and journalism in general can do useful things like that — small steps — I think over the longer term, it actually comes down to the education system and sort of making sure that young kids growing up today are open minded, intellectually curious and know how to navigate the World Wide Web in a way that they can know what is questionable information and what is trustworthy. It’s really kind of an issue that our K through 12, and even college education systems, need to start focusing on — so that kids have the tools that they need to figure out what is true and what is not in what’s kind of currently a Wild West of the internet.

Exit mobile version