arc sport betting President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to run the sprawling government agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act marketplace — celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz — recently held broad investments in health care, tech, and food companies that would pose significant conflicts of interest. Oz’s holdings, some shared with family, included a stake in UnitedHealth Group worth as much as $600,000, as well as shares of pharmaceutical firms and tech companies with business in the health care sector, such as Amazon. Collectively, Oz’s investments total tens of millions of dollars, according to financial disclosures he filed during his failed 2022 run for a Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat. Trump said Tuesday he would nominate Oz as administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The agency’s scope is huge: CMS oversees coverage for more than 160 million Americans, nearly half the population. Medicare alone accounts for approximately $1 trillion in annual spending, with over 67 million enrollees. UnitedHealth Group is one of the largest health care companies in the nation and arguably the most important business partner of CMS, through which it is the leading provider of commercial health plans available to Medicare beneficiaries. UnitedHealth also offers managed-care plans under Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for low-income people, and sells plans on government-run marketplaces set up via the Affordable Care Act. Oz also had smaller stakes in CVS Health, which now includes the insurer Aetna, and in the insurer Cigna. It’s not clear if Oz, a heart surgeon by training, still holds investments in health care companies, or if he would divest his shares or otherwise seek to mitigate conflicts of interest should he be confirmed by the Senate. Reached by phone on Wednesday, he said he was in a Zoom meeting and declined to comment. An assistant did not reply to an email message with detailed questions. “It’s obvious that over the years he’s cultivated an interest in the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry,” said Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group. “That raises a question of whether he can be trusted to act on behalf of the American people.” (The publisher of KFF Health News, David Rousseau, is on the CSPI board .) Oz used his TikTok page on multiple occasions in November to praise Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including their efforts to take on the “illness-industrial complex,” and he slammed “so-called experts like the big medical societies” for dishing out what he called bad nutritional advice. Oz’s positions on health policy have been chameleonic; in 2010, he cut an ad urging Californians to sign up for insurance under President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, telling viewers they had a “historic opportunity.” Oz’s 2022 financial disclosures show that the television star invested a substantial part of his wealth in health care and food firms. Were he confirmed to run CMS, his job would involve interacting with giants of the industry that have contributed to his wealth. Given the breadth of his investments, it would be difficult for Oz to recuse himself from matters affecting his assets, if he still holds them. “He could spend his time in a rocking chair” if that happened, Lurie said. In the past, nominees for government positions with similar potential conflicts of interest have chosen to sell the assets or otherwise divest themselves. For instance, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Attorney General Merrick Garland agreed to divest their holdings in relevant, publicly traded companies when they joined the Biden administration. Trump, however, declined in his first term to relinquish control of his own companies and other assets while in office, and he isn’t expected to do so in his second term. He has not publicly indicated concern about his subordinates’ financial holdings. CMS’ main job is to administer Medicare. About half of new enrollees now choose Medicare Advantage, in which commercial insurers provide their health coverage, instead of the traditional, government-run program, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Proponents of Medicare Advantage say the private plans offer more compelling services than the government and better manage the costs of care. Critics note that Medicare Advantage plans have a long history of costing taxpayers more than the traditional program. UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna are all substantial players in the Medicare Advantage market. It’s not always a good relationship with the government. The Department of Justice filed a 2017 complaint against UnitedHealth alleging the company used false information to inflate charges to the government. The case is ongoing. Oz is an enthusiastic proponent of Medicare Advantage. In 2020, he proposed offering Medicare Advantage to all; during his Senate run, he offered a more general pledge to expand those plans. After Trump announced Oz’s nomination for CMS, Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said he was “uncertain about Dr. Oz’s familiarity with health care financing and economics.” Singer said Oz’s Medicare Advantage proposal could require large new taxes — perhaps a 20% payroll tax — to implement. Oz has gotten a mixed reception from elsewhere in Washington. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, the Democrat who defeated Oz in 2022, signaled he’d potentially support his appointment to CMS. “If Dr. Oz is about protecting and preserving Medicare and Medicaid, I’m voting for the dude,” he said on the social platform X. Oz’s investments in companies doing business with the federal government don’t end with big insurers. He and his family also hold hospital stocks, according to his 2022 disclosure, as well as a stake in Amazon worth as much as nearly $2.4 million. (Candidates for federal office are required to disclose a broad range of values for their holdings, not a specific figure.) Amazon operates an internet pharmacy, and the company announced in June that its subscription service is available to Medicare enrollees. It also owns a primary care service , One Medical, that accepts Medicare and “select” Medicare Advantage plans. Oz was also directly invested in several large pharmaceutical companies and, through investments in venture capital funds, indirectly invested in other biotech and vaccine firms. Big Pharma has been a frequent target of criticism and sometimes conspiracy theories from Trump and his allies. Kennedy, whom Trump has said he’ll nominate to be Health and Human Services secretary, is a longtime anti-vaccine activist. During the Biden administration, Congress gave Medicare authority to negotiate with drug companies over their prices. CMS initially selected 10 drugs. Those drugs collectively accounted for $50.5 billion in spending between June 1, 2022, and May 31, 2023, under Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit. At least four of those 10 medications are manufactured by companies in which Oz held stock, worth as much as about $50,000. Oz may gain or lose financially from other Trump administration proposals. For example, as of 2022, Oz held investments worth as much as $6 million in fertility treatment providers. To counter fears that politicians who oppose abortion would ban in vitro fertilization, Trump floated during his campaign making in vitro fertilization treatment free. It’s unclear whether the government would pay for the services. In his TikTok videos from earlier in November, Oz echoed attacks on the food industry by Kennedy and other figures in his “Make America Healthy Again” movement. They blame processed foods and underregulation of the industry for the poor health of many Americans, concerns shared by many Democrats and more mainstream experts. But in 2022, Oz owned stakes worth as much as $80,000 in Domino’s Pizza, Pepsi, and US Foods, as well as more substantial investments in other parts of the food chain, including cattle; Oz reported investments worth as much as $5.5 million in a farm and livestock, as well as a stake in a dairy-free milk startup. He was also indirectly invested in the restaurant chain Epic Burger. One of his largest investments was in the Pennsylvania-based convenience store chain Wawa, which sells fast food and all manner of ultra-processed snacks. Oz and his wife reported a stake in the company, beloved by many Pennsylvanians, worth as much as $30 million. ( KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.) ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.No. 2 Montana State Bobcats roll to Brawl of the Wild win over No. 9 Montana Grizzlies, complete 12-0 regular seasonNone

past behavior is now coming back to haunt him. In a recent sneak preview of the new A&E show, “Interrogation Raw: Celebrity Under Oath,” the Chicago rapper is seen butting heads with an attorney during a June 2021 deposition that was done over Zoom. In the clip, Michael Popok, one of the attorneys on the call notices that Ye is on his phone and asks him to not be on it during the legal procedure. In response, he says, “Due to my mental geniusness, in order to focus on this bullshit I need to be on a phone.” West’s attorneys then step in and try to convince their client to get off his phone and pay attention during the call. After accepting to get off the phone, he then takes off the hat he’s wearing and puts on a mask. When questioned why he was wearing the mask, the Chicago rapper states, “Because you don’t have the right to see my face.” Things get even more heated between Ye and Popok in another clip when he asks the “ ” rapper what room he’s in. A frustrated Kanye replies, “I’m not gonna tell you! You never gonna see me again!” Popok then asks if there’s anyone in the room with him and if there are any other items with him. Ye then says, “Are you stupid?! I’m not gonna tell you other things. I don’t have time to be talking about, ‘I got a chair in the room.’ You are talking to the richest Black person in the history of America!” The deposition was part of , who was accusing West of stealing technology from them for his popular Sunday Service show. They also claimed that he promised to invest nearly $10 million in the company and never did. Ye eventually settled with the company in September 2021, with both sides agreeing to a dismissal.VDH: The Immorality Of Illegal ImmigrationGeorgetown’s then-president, for example, listed a prospective student on his “president’s list” after meeting her and her wealthy father at an Idaho conference known as “summer camp for billionaires,” according to Tuesday court filings in the price-fixing lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court in 2022. Although it’s always been assumed that such favoritism exists, the filings offer a rare peek at the often secret deliberations of university heads and admissions officials. They show how schools admit otherwise unqualified wealthy children because their parents have connections and could possibly donate large sums down the line, raising questions about fairness. Stuart Schmill, the dean of admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in a 2018 email that the university admitted four out of six applicants recommended by then-board chairman Robert Millard, including two who “we would really not have otherwise admitted.” The two others were not admitted because they were “not in the ball park, or the push from him was not as strong.” In the email, Schmill said Millard was careful to play down his influence on admissions decisions, but he said the chair also sent notes on all six students and later met with Schmill to share insight “into who he thought was more of a priority.” The filings are the latest salvo in a lawsuit that claims that 17 of the nation’s most prestigious colleges colluded to reduce the competition for prospective students and drive down the amount of financial aid they would offer, all while giving special preference to the children of wealthy donors. “That illegal collusion resulted in the defendants providing far less aid to students than would have been provided in a free market,” said Robert Gilbert, an attorney for the plaintiffs. Since the lawsuit was filed, 10 of the schools have reached settlements to pay out a total of $284 million, including payments of up to $2,000 to current or former students whose financial aid might have been shortchanged over a period of more than two decades. They are Brown, the University of Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Yale. Johns Hopkins is working on a settlement and the six schools still fighting the lawsuit are the California Institute of Technology, Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame and the University of Pennsylvania. MIT called the lawsuit and the claims about admissions favoritism baseless. “MIT has no history of wealth favoritism in its admissions; quite the opposite,” university spokesperson Kimberly Allen said. “After years of discovery in which millions of documents were produced that provide an overwhelming record of independence in our admissions process, plaintiffs could cite just a single instance in which the recommendation of a board member helped sway the decisions for two undergraduate applicants." Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts In a statement, Penn also said the case is meritless that the evidence shows that it doesn't favor students whose families have donated or pledged money to the Ivy League school. “Plaintiffs’ whole case is an attempt to embarrass the University about its purported admission practices on issues totally unrelated to this case," the school said. Notre Dame officials also called the case baseless. “We are confident that every student admitted to Notre Dame is fully qualified and ready to succeed,” a university spokesperson said in a statement. The South Bend, Indiana, school, though, did apparently admit wealthy students with subpar academic backgrounds. According to the new court filings, Don Bishop, who was then associate vice president for enrollment at Notre Dame, bluntly wrote about the “special interest” admits in a 2012 email, saying that year's crop had poorer academic records than the previous year's. The 2012 group included 38 applicants who were given a “very low” academic rating, Bishop wrote. He said those students represented “massive allowances to the power of the family connections and funding history,” adding that “we allowed their high gifting or potential gifting to influence our choices more this year than last year.” The final line of his email: “Sure hope the wealthy next year raise a few more smart kids!” Some of the examples pointed to in this week's court filings showed that just being able to pay full tuition would give students an advantage. During a deposition, a former Vanderbilt admissions director said that in some cases, a student would get an edge on the waitlist if they didn’t need financial aid. The 17 schools were part of a decades-old group that got permission from Congress to come up with a shared approach to awarding financial aid. Such an arrangement might otherwise violate antitrust laws, but Congress allowed it as long as the colleges all had need-blind admissions policies, meaning they wouldn't consider a student’s financial situation when deciding who gets in. The lawsuit argues that many colleges claimed to be need-blind but routinely favored the children of alumni and donors. In doing so, the suit says, the colleges violated the Congressional exemption and tainted the entire organization. The group dissolved in recent years when the provision allowing the collaboration expired. The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

Germany's Merkel recalls Putin's 'power games' and contrasting US presidents in her memoirs

YOU could lose out on a £1million Lotto jackpot due to a hidden rule in the small-print. Sub-postmaster Gerald Lowery, 67, has warned scratchcard players over the little-known mistake. Gerald sells National Lottery scratchcards at his Post Office branch in the Cumbrian village of Millom. Earlier this year a customer came in to claim a £5 prize on their scratchcard. But Gerald spotted the scratchcard had been accidentally sold after its expiry date. A baffled Gerald refunded the customer himself - saying it was lucky they hadn't won the £1million jackpot. Most read in Money FOOD FIGHT BBC chef apologises after closing restaurant - leaving customers out of pocket FOR LUCK'S SAKE Watch moment £100k lotto jackpot 'DISAPPEARS' leaving player with nothing If you scratched off the maximum £1million Scratchcard prize, you could lose out if your winning ticket expired before sale. Gerald was puzzled why the out-of-date ticket had slipped through and flagged the problem with lotto operator Allywn. The firm told him that he had missed the deadline to sell the scratchcard pack - and could not get a refund for unsold cards. Gerald told The Sun: "I haven't done anything wrong, but I'm out of pocket." Most read in Money FESTIVE BEER Full list of Wetherspoons opening in Scotland on Xmas Day, is one near you? WINTER WONDERLAND First look inside award-winning Santa's Grotto just 20mins from Glasgow FARM LIFE Farm with Scotland's only lake up for sale LUXURY LIVING Scots tycoon smashes house sale record at neighbourhood loved by celebs He put the pack on sale in September 1 last year, two months before the deadline for "activating" them. National Lottery Winners' advisors tell The Sun what it's like to give away £7bn The last day where he could officially sell the cards was January 29 this year, and the deadline for players to claim their prizes was July 27. Gerald kept the cards on sale on the understanding Allwyn would not send a new pack until the old one had sold out. He said he must have accidentally sold a scratchcard after the January 29 deadline, but is confused how it could have happened. The sub-postmaster said he was used to the old system where Post Office middlemen dealt with longtime Lotto operator Camelot. Under the old system, Post Office officials would refund shopkeepers for any unsold cards. But new operator Allwyn deals with shopkeepers directly - and Gerald likely fell foul of the small print while adjusting. He said the rule changes have left him out of pocket even though he has done nothing wrong. Gerald said: " I am just disappointed in Allywn and very wary of them. "They've had people come to visit my shop and they were of no help whatsoever. It's gone on long enough now." Allwyn said it will send someone to Gerald's shop to help him figure out any issues and get used to the system. The operator said Gerald doesn't owe any money - but isn't due a refund for unsold scratchcards either. UK's biggest lottery winners By Ethan Singh Anonymous winner - £195,707,000 A UK ticket-holder scooped the record EuroMillions jackpot of £195 million on July 19 2022 – the biggest National Lottery win of all time. The holder, who remains anonymous to this day, amassed the fortune with just one lucky ticket. Joe and Jess Thwaite - £184,262,899.10 Britain's previous EuroMillions record holders were Joe and Jess Thwaite. The couple won a record-breaking £184million jackpot in May 2022 and shared hopes of a Hawaiian holiday and a new horse box for their children's ponies. Joe bought his winning ticket online on May 10, 2022, and the following morning received an email with good news. As he learnt of the huge win, he was in disbelief and initially kept it for himself as he did not want to disturb his wife, who was sleeping. Joe, a communications sales engineer, and Jess, who runs a hairdressing salon with her sister, have been married for 11 years and have two children. Colin and Chris Weir, £161,653,000 Colin and Christine Weir landed the colossal prize money in 2011 and were Europe’s second-biggest winners until someone in Italy won a jackpot worth £193m in 2019. They splashed the cash at an astounding rate of £100,000 a week before tragedy struck. But at the time of Colin’s death in December 2019 his share of the prize money had dwindled by around £40m . He spent the millions living a life of luxury, forking out for sports cars, property and the football club he supported. Colin and Christine divorced shortly before his death after being married for 38 years. He left money for their children Carly and Jamie. Adrian and Gillian Brayford - £148,600,000 Adrian and Gillian won 190 million euros in a EuroMillions draw in August 2012, which came to just over £148 million. But Adrian split from Gillian the following year because of the stress of the win. The couple bought a Grade II listed estate in Cambridgeshire, complete with cinema and billiards room, but it was sold in 2021. After divorcing in 2013, he failed to woo ex-sausage factory worker Marta Jarosz — but fell for stable girl Sam Burbidge. She left him in 2017, taking 30 prize horses Adrian bought. It might have worked out in the end for Adrian though as the former postman was seen smiling with ambulance worker Tracey Biles last year. Frances and Patrick Connolly - £114,969,775 Former social worker and teacher Frances set up two charitable foundations after she and her husband hit the jackpot. They scooped almost £115 million on New Year’s Day 2019. She estimates that she has already given away £60 million to charitable causes, as well as friends and family. Richard and Debbie Nuttall - £61,000,000 The couple from Colne, Lancashire, took home £61 million on January 30 2024. Both 54, they were enjoying a holiday in Fuerteventura, celebrating their 30th wedding anniversary. But they then discovered the big EuroMillions win. Richard revealed they originally thought they had won £2.60, but then received another email telling the pair to check their account. Other eye-watering anonymous winners: 2019 - £123million Another anonymous winner scooped up a prize of £123,458,008 in the June Superdraw rollover. 2021 - £122million Following nine rollovers, one ticketholder bagged the £122,550,350 jackpot last April. The successful participant chose to remain anonymous. 2018 - £121million Another anonymous winner found their fortune during the Superdraw jackpot rollover in April 2018, securing £121,328,187. An Allwyn spokesperson said: "This pack of 60 Scratchcards was activated for sale on September 1 last year. "The game closed for sale on 29 January 2024 – over four months later. "Once the pack was activated, the Scratchcards became the retailer’s property. "To be clear, Mr Lowery doesn't owe anything, and he isn't due anything either. "We don't offer refunds for activated partial packs, nor did the previous National Lottery operator. "This is because retailers are given plenty of time to sell through the packs. "Full, unactivated Scratchcard packs should be returned, free of charge. "The retailer would've previously contracted directly with Post Office Limited in relation to his National Lottery account." Read more on the Scottish Sun FESTIVE FIZZ Coca-Cola Christmas truck in Scotland: Dates, locations & all you need to know AND RELAX Scots seaside hotel with outdoor hot tub and firepit named UK's top spa resort Allwyn added: "Post Office Limited may have had different processes to follow. "We'll get a member of our team to arrange a visit with Mr Lowery to offer him further support." 1 Sub-postmaster Gerald Lowery, 67, warned scratchcard players over the mistake Credit: Alamy What are my chances of winning the lottery? EVERYONE wants to know how to beat the odds and win the lottery. But unfortunately, the lottery is a game of luck and there are no tips or tricks that can guarantee you'll take home a top prize. The odds show how likely you are to win any particular prize - the lower the number, the better the odds. For example, odds of 1 in 10 are better than odds of 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000. There are several major lottery games in the UK including Lotto by the National Lottery, Camelot's EuroMillions and Thunderball. Chances of winning the Lotto Lotto by the National Lottery is a game where you pick six numbers from 1 to 59. You can play up to seven lines of numbers on each slip. The game costs £2 to play per slip. The odds of winning any prize on the Lotto are 1 in 9.3. But to win the jackpot on the Lotto, the odds are considerably slimmer. To bag the top prize , you need to have six matching balls. The odds of doing this and scooping the jackpot are currently 1 in 45,057,474. The next highest prize of £1,000,000 is for getting five main matching balls plus the bonus ball. The odds of taking home the million pound prize are 1 in 7,509,579 - far higher than the jackpot, but still unlikely. The odds of taking home £1,750 for getting five main numbers without the bonus ball are 1 in 2,180, while you have a 1 in 97 chance of bagging £140 for getting four main numbers. Your chances of taking home £30 for getting 3 main numbers are much better at 1 in 97. And you have a roughly 1 in 10 chance of getting a free lucky dip for 2 matching numbers. Chances of winning the EuroMillions The EuroMillions costs £2.50 to play and is open on Tuesdays and Fridays. To play, you must pick five numbers from 1-50 and two "Lucky Stars" from 1-12. Players with the most matching numbers win the top prizes. Your chance of bagging the EuroMillions jackpot is even slimmer than winning the top Lotto prize. This is because it generally has higher jackpots on offer, meaning it attracts more attention . Currently, the odds of matching five numbers and two lucky stars - the top win - stand at 1 in 139,838,160. The average jackpot prize is £57,923,499, according to EuroMillions. The odds of winning the second top prize for matching 5 balls and a lucky star, which is typically around £262,346, are 1 in 6,991,908. The chances of taking home the third prize for five matching balls, with an average payout of £26,277, are 1 in 3,107,515. For four matching balls with two lucky stars, it's 1 in 621,503, and for four balls with one lucky star, it's 1 in 31,076. These come with an average prize of £1,489 and £95, respectively. Chances of winning the Thunderball Thunderball is another game run by National Lottery where you pick five numbers and one "Thunderball". It costs just £1 to play and you can enter up to four times a week. The jackpot of £500,000 for matching five balls plus the Thunderball is 1 in 8,060,598. Your odds of bagging the next highest prize of £5,000 for matching five balls is currently 1 in 620,046, while the chances of winning £250 for four balls plus the Thunderball is 1 in 47,416. You have the best chance of winning £3 for matching the Thunderball, with odds of 1 in 29.