www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-09 13:18:00
A new report reveals that the Biden administration’s \$42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program has yet to start construction, hindered by red tape and nonstatutory requirements. In response, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration released new guidelines removing barriers and promoting flexibility across technologies like fixed wireless, fiber, and satellite. U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., praised the changes, crediting his SPEED for BEAD Act for streamlining deployment. The revised approach aims to accelerate broadband expansion, especially in underserved areas, by cutting costs, eliminating regulatory burdens, and encouraging competition through a technology-neutral, results-focused strategy.
(The Center Square) – Not a single shovel went into the ground from the Biden administration’s $42 billion high-speed broadband Internet access program, a new report says, and key congressmen from North Carolina and Kentucky are praising the changes closing the digital divide.
New guidelines have been released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, unlocking a stalled effort for fast, reliable broadband to homes across the country. The $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program was thought to do that in all 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia.
The NTIA report says, “Instead of ensuring the swift and efficient use of these funds, the Biden administration imposed significant nonstatutory burdens and red tape that increased taxpayer costs, limited marketplace competition, and diverted resources away from actual deployment. As a result of these counterproductive Biden administration burdens, the BEAD Program has failed to put a single shovel in the ground since IIJA’s passage in 2021 – leaving many Americans unconnected.”
IIJA is the acronym for the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
David Zumwalt is president and CEO of WISPA, one of many entities in favor of change.
In a statement, he said, “The new guidance opens the door to all qualified technologies that deliver reliable broadband – fixed wireless, fiber, satellite, and others – ensuring that unserved Americans can get connected faster and more affordably. As a result, it will accelerate the deployment of connectivity to many who’ve long waited on the wrong side of the digital divide. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, this guidance will provide the flexibility to choose the right technology for individual community’s unique broadband needs.”
U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C.
Hudson.House.gov
The acronym WISPA is for Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.
“Thanks to our SPEED for BEAD Act, the Trump administration just cleared Biden’s red tape blocking $42 billion in broadband funding,” U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., wrote Monday on social media. “States can finally move forward – and in places like North Carolina, shovels will hit the ground soon. We’re closing the digital divide.”
Hudson is chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee from within the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce.
A statement from the committee attributed to Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said in part, “These new guidelines will accelerate deployment and provide certainty to states, as we continue our work to connect every American to fast and reliable broadband.”
Hudson authored and on March 5 filed the SPEED for BEAD Act, known also as House Resolution 1870. The acronym is Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment for BEAD Act.
“I’m thrilled to see the NTIA implement so many of my recommendations for the BEAD Program,” he said. “Americans deserve better connectivity without burdensome requirements.”
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and his staff led a review of the BEAD Program among their first endeavors.
“The department is ripping out the Biden administration’s pointless requirements,” Lutnick said. “It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide internet access for the lowest cost.”
Hudson’s significant emphasis in his bill was to clarify that the “program can utilize all technologies to close the digital divide; ensures that funds are used for deployment and workforce development; allows providers more flexibility in the projects they choose to bid on; eliminates the burdensome conditions imposed by the Biden administration, including those related to labor, climate change, and rate regulation, that made deployment more expensive and participation less attractive.”
Hudson’s bill was supported by ACA Connects; the Fiber Broadband Association; INCOMPAS; NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association; USTelecom; WISPA; and NCTA – The Internet & Television Association. Respectively, acronyms for those include America’s Communications Association; INCOMPAS is formerly known as COMPTEL and is a trade association; National Tile Contractors Association; and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning
The article presents a clear ideological stance that is critical of the Biden administration’s management of the BEAD broadband program. It frames the administration’s actions as bureaucratic overreach with “significant nonstatutory burdens and red tape,” which allegedly delayed progress and increased costs. The language highlights praise for Republican lawmakers, such as U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson and Chairman Brett Guthrie, and positions their legislative efforts (like the SPEED for BEAD Act) as positive corrective measures to “streamline” or “rip out” burdensome regulations. This framing suggests a bias favoring conservative or Republican viewpoints by emphasizing criticism of Democratic policies and amplifying Republican initiatives and endorsements. The article lacks balancing perspectives or supportive statements from the Biden administration, reinforcing its right-leaning slant.
SUMMARY: In Fairfield, Kentucky, 33-year-old Sarah Shelburne faces multiple charges after allegedly setting her home on fire to kill her mother and boyfriend. The Nelson County Sheriff’s Office responded to the fire on Little Union Road shortly before 9:40 p.m. Saturday. Shelburne admitted to intentionally starting the blaze following an argument with her mother. During questioning, she became belligerent and assaulted a deputy. She was taken to Nelson County Correctional Center and charged with first-degree arson, two counts of attempted murder, assault on an officer, terroristic threatening, and wanton endangerment. Local emergency services assisted at the scene.
SUMMARY: Central and Eastern Kentucky experienced hot August weather Tuesday with highs in the upper 80s to low 90s under mostly sunny skies. A cold front will bring scattered showers and thunderstorms midweek, with some storms possible late Tuesday night. Behind the front, temperatures will drop to the mid to upper 80s with lower humidity, providing more comfortable conditions for late August. The weekend will see another cold front bringing cooler air, with highs in the upper 70s to low 80s and lower humidity, offering an early taste of fall. Morning lows could dip into the 50s early next week.
UnitedHealth Group’s pharmacy benefit manager Optum Rx is suing five Kentucky counties—Anderson, Boyd, Christian, Nicholas, and Oldham—to bar them from joining national opioid litigation, claiming they violated Kentucky’s open meetings law. These counties seek to add Optum Rx to multidistrict opioid lawsuits alleging that PBMs contributed to the overdose crisis by failing to restrict opioid prescriptions. Legal experts criticize Optum’s move as a stalling tactic, while addiction recovery advocates warn it sets a dangerous precedent. Local counties argue procedural steps don’t require public meetings. Meanwhile, opioid settlements fund addiction treatment, emphasizing the ongoing community impact.
by Aneri Pattani, KFF Health News, Kentucky Lantern August 19, 2025
UnitedHealth Group’s multibillion-dollar pharmacy benefit manager, Optum Rx, is suing five Kentucky counties in an attempt to force them out of national opioid litigation against the company.
Pharmacy benefit managers, often called PBMs, act as middlemen that negotiate prescription drug prices between drug companies, insurance plans and pharmacies. Some lawyers and advocates say PBMs helped fuel the overdose crisis by failing to restrict the flow of opioid prescriptions.
As governments begin exploring potential lawsuits against PBMs — a step that could represent the next wave in opioid-related litigation — Optum Rx is attempting to shut down those efforts, in some cases before they even fully take shape.
In June, Optum Rx sued Anderson, Boyd, Christian, Nicholas, and Oldham counties in Kentucky for allegedly making decisions about participating in the new wave of national opioid lawsuits behind closed doors, violating Kentucky’s open meetings law. Optum Rx is asking courts to effectively force those counties to make their decisions again, this time in open meetings, potentially with the hope that some won’t bother because of the administrative burden. The result could be fewer claims against the company and possibly less money for it to pay in a future settlement.
But legal experts call Optum’s case “hypertechnical” and “frivolous,” and addiction recovery advocates say it could set a dangerous precedent for companies to evade accountability for their role in fueling the overdose crisis.
Christine Minhee says Optum’s suit reminds her of an adage among lawyers: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.” (Christine Minhee)
Christine Minhee — an attorney, national expert on opioid litigation and founder of OpioidSettlementTracker.com — said Optum’s suit reminded her of an adage among lawyers: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.”
“Right now, what we’re seeing is it pounding the table,” Minhee said of Optum Rx. The company is “desperately” trying “to find some kind of foothold” to get cases against it thrown out.
Minhee said these suits fit a pattern of Optum Rx using thin arguments to try to delay or evade opioid litigation nationwide.
Last year, Optum Rx, along with another PBM, asked a judge to throw out an opioid lawsuit filed by Los Angeles County, claiming during a December hearing that the county hadn’t shown harm. The judge appeared skeptical of the claims and ultimately rejected the companies’ request.
In April, the same companies tried to oust a federal judge overseeing national opioid litigation, claiming he was biased. Their argument was based partly on a Florida lawyer’s having said the judge was “plaintiff-oriented.” Their attempt failed.
Now, Optum Rx is working to keep five Kentucky counties out of that same sweeping opioid litigation.
That national legal undertaking began more than seven years ago, as jurisdictions saw overdose deaths climb. Many people who had become addicted to prescription painkillers were cut off by their doctors, and some transitioned to using deadlier heroin or fentanyl. Health care and public safety costs skyrocketed. Thousands of cities, counties, and states began suing health care companies for allegedly creating a public nuisance by aggressively marketing prescription painkillers and negligently distributing them.
Those cases were lassoed together into the giant multidistrict litigation, which has resulted in massive settlements. The first few waves of settlements involved opioid manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies, with companies such as Johnson & Johnson, CVS and Walgreens agreeing to pay state and local governments billions of dollars. The money is meant to be used for addiction treatment and prevention services — though its rollout has been controversial.
To add a new round of companies as defendants, jurisdictions must undertake a multistep process, said Peter Mougey, a Florida-based attorney who represents many local governments in the massive national litigation. The five Kentucky counties in question were in the early stages of that process, only having asked the judge to amend their complaint, he said. They hadn’t added Optum Rx yet.
If Optum Rx’s suits are successful, those counties would have the option of redoing the initial steps of the process in a public meeting, then continuing to add Optum Rx as a defendant, Mougey explained. The company may hope that some counties won’t undertake the extra administrative effort.
Optum Rx’s “goal is clearly just to wear down and tire out these small counties,” Mougey said. “They’re trying to have a chilling effect on the litigation.”
It’s not clear why Optum Rx targeted those five counties out of the many localities undertaking the process to add the company as a defendant. The Kentucky counties range from having fewer than 8,000 residents (Nicholas) to more than 70,000 (Christian). One is among the richest in Kentucky (Oldham), while others are poorer. Boyd County, in Appalachia, is one of the hardest hit, with a recent overdose rate twice the state average.
Optum Rx, in its filing against Boyd County, which was similar to claims against the other counties, said local authorities had taken official legal action by asking the judge to make a change in its case. The suit said such action must be done in a public meeting and that the county did not hold one.
Optum spokesperson Isaac Sorensen told KFF Health News that the company’s argument is not about “a technicality.”
It is “an important legal requirement designed to ensure accountability and transparency before a county takes legal action,” said the statement Sorensen provided. “We have found many counties ignored this requirement, alongside their duty to preserve relevant evidence, and Optum Rx will defend against these improper legal actions.”
The five Kentucky counties disagree with these assertions, according to court records. As of late July, all five had filed motions to dismiss Optum Rx’s claim.
Boyd County, like the others, argued in its motion to dismiss that asking a judge to amend its complaint was a routine, procedural step that did not require a public meeting. Optum Rx jumped the gun, the county argued, filing a case before any final action had been taken.
“No amended complaint has been filed. No new defendant, OptumRx included, has been added. No new lawsuit has been initiated,” Boyd County’s response said.
The county also pointed out that it held an open meeting in 2017 that kicked off its involvement in the national litigation and authorized future amendments to that litigation.
Hearings on the counties’ motions to dismiss Optum Rx’s suits are set for late August and early September, according to court records.
These cases are shaping up to be a Goliath-versus-David legal action. Although Oldham County is the wealthiest of the Kentucky counties that Optum Rx sued, its most recent budget is less than 0.1% of Optum Rx’s annual revenue, which the company reported as exceeding $133 billion in 2024.
Oldham County Attorney D. Berry Baxter
Oldham County Attorney D. Berry Baxter told KFF Health News he’d seen the impact of the opioid epidemic as a prosecutor working on a growing number of drug-related cases over the years. Now, as settlement money is arriving from other companies, it has funded increased addiction treatment in local jails. More settlement money from additional companies could expand such services, Baxter said.
If Optum Rx succeeds in kicking Kentucky counties out of the national litigation, it would set “a really horrific precedent” for other PBMs and health care companies to do something similar, said Tara Hyde, CEO of the statewide nonprofit People Advocating Recovery.
Hyde said she’s been in recovery for more than a decade from an addiction that began with prescription painkillers for a broken leg. She wants to see PBMs and other companies held accountable and made to change their processes to prevent future crises.
“Recovery doesn’t just happen overnight,” she said. “Without these dollars that have been a direct result of people being misled, mistreated and taken advantage of, we will still be detrimentally impacted.”
This story is republished from KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This content leans center-left as it emphasizes holding large healthcare corporations accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, highlighting the struggles of affected communities and recovery advocates. It critiques corporate legal strategies as attempts to evade responsibility, aligning with a perspective that supports government and legal intervention to address public health issues and corporate misconduct. The tone is factual but sympathetic to public health and social justice concerns, typical of center-left reporting.
