Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jennifer C. Greenfield, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Denver

In Colorado, more than 600,000 workers received benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, in October 2025. This federal program protects low-income children, disabled adults and workers from hunger by providing money to help them buy groceries.

Thousands of Coloradans employed by major corporations, including 2,300 Amazon workers and more than 1,000 workers at King Soopers, use SNAP benefits.

There are also hundreds of recipients who work for local organizations, including nearly 600 employees of the Denver Public Schools system, according to data I evaluated after it was obtained by The Conversation from the Colorado Department of Human Services.

“The findings are a sobering reflection of the economic pressures facing Denver Public Schools staff and K-12 educators everywhere,” said Scott Pribble, director of external communications for Denver Public Schools, in an email to The Conversation.

Denver Public Schools offers some of the highest teacher pay in Colorado and has a minimum hourly rate of $20 for all staff, according to Pribble.

“While we are proud of our current compensation packages, we recognize the need to do more. We are constantly striving to provide higher wages for all staff members,” Pribble wrote.

The data provided by the state has limitations. It does not show how many hours each SNAP recipient works — so we don’t know how many of the workers mentioned above are part-time or seasonal employees.

But the reality is that even full-time workers can receive SNAP benefits. Workers earning at or near the state minimum wage often qualify because their wages, even for full-time work, are still low.

As a social work researcher, I study policies that support working families. I have examined how health and household economic security are affected by paid family and medical leave, universal basic income and childcare subsidies for low- and middle-income workers.

A national problem that’s acute in Colorado

More than 16 million workers across the U.S. rely on programs like SNAP to fill in the gaps.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in October 2020 that more than two-thirds of people in the SNAP program work full time for 50 or more weeks per year. Using data I obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, I confirmed that in 2024 there were more than 254,000 Colorado workers who received SNAP benefits, and they worked an average of 35 hours per week at an average of around $17.70 per hour.

The reason so many full-time workers still rely on SNAP is rooted in a fundamental gap between wages and the cost of living. Even a single adult with no dependents working 40 hours a week at Colorado’s minimum wage, which is $15.16 per hour, may qualify for SNAP benefits. In fact, earning the state minimum wage and working 52 weeks, they would qualify if they missed just 14 hours of work in the entire year. Colorado law requires employers to provide a maximum of 48 hours of paid sick time to minimum wage workers, but more than half of workers at the minimum have no paid vacation time. As a result, missing more than seven days of work in a year due to illness or other unavoidable circumstances could push wages low enough to qualify a single worker for SNAP.

Households with dependents qualify for SNAP at even higher wages than the state minimum because the annual income threshold, which is $31,320 for a single worker with no dependents, rises with household size.

In short, the state-mandated minimum wage is simply inadequate to meet families’ basic needs, and many full-time workers must rely on SNAP to put food on the table.

Some employers, like Amazon, point to the federal minimum wage, and the differences in SNAP eligibility from state to state, as the root cause of the issue.

“Amazon pay is among the best in the industry – well over double the federal minimum wage and significantly more than other retailers,” said Eileen Hards, an Amazon spokesperson, in an email. “As we’ve said for years, what really needs to happen is a significant and large increase in the federal minimum wage — that would be a big boost for American families.”

With the federal minimum wage set at $7.25 per hour, a rate established in 2009, doubling the minimum wage would still qualify many full-time Amazon workers for SNAP in 28 states, including Colorado.

Colorado cost of living soars

Ten years ago, Colorado voted to increase the state’s minimum hourly wage. Voters had already approved a constitutional amendment in 2006 tying the minimum wage to the cost of living, and the 2016 ballot initiative established a new floor of $12 per hour, starting in 2020, which would increase annually to keep pace with inflation. Since the 2016 vote, as costs have soared, the minimum wage has kept pace with the official consumer price index for Colorado, rising from $12 in 2020 to $15.16 in 2026.

Some Colorado cities have increased it further. For instance, Denver’s minimum wage is $19.29, and Boulder’s is $16.82.

Employers like Amazon and Kroger, which operates King Soopers, offer higher wages than the state and local minimum wages. Kroger, which employs 24,000 people in Colorado, has an average hourly wage of $24.58 and approximately $32 an hour when benefits are included, according to Jessica Trowbridge, head of corporate affairs at King Soopers.

“Our associates also have an average tenure of 16 years, reflecting the meaningful, long-term career opportunities we strive to provide,” she said in an email to The Conversation. “Additionally, supporting the communities we serve is central to our mission, and within a year we’ve donated more than 27 million meals locally to help address food insecurity.”

But Colorado’s cost of living has risen faster than the U.S. average, and even with yearly cost-of-living increases to the state’s minimum wage, wages are not high enough to pay for basic needs. The Living Wage project at MIT estimates that a single worker with no dependents in Colorado needs $26 per hour to meet their basic needs, while a family with two workers and two children needs $34.04 per hour per worker.

Meanwhile, the median wage across all households in Colorado is $23.77 per hour.

The mismatch between incomes and the cost of living is not only a problem for families trying to make ends meet. It is increasingly a problem for state budgets as well, especially as changes to the SNAP program, passed by Congress in 2025, take effect. An estimated 298,000 Coloradans will lose some or all SNAP benefits by January 2027 due to changes passed as part of tax and spending bill in July 2025. The changes will also add an estimated $178 million to the Colorado state budget by shifting costs from the federal budget to states.

The broad eligibility for SNAP among even full-time workers highlights a fundamental issue: At the current minimum wage, workers are not making enough to pay for essentials like housing, food and childcare. Those with dependents face especially difficult choices about how to juggle working and parenting, especially when childcare alone costs $1,645 per month in some counties in Colorado – or about two-thirds of the income of a full-time worker earning the minimum wage in the state.

Colorado, and the U.S. overall, has a wage problem. Costs continue to rise, while incomes, even in states that have adjusted minimum wage guidelines, increasingly fail to bring households out of poverty.

Policymakers face a tough set of questions. Is adjusting the minimum wage the answer? Should major employers be held accountable when their employees rely on taxpayer-funded public programs to fill the gap between their paychecks and the cost of their basic needs? Or do other policy levers hold more potential to close the gap between incomes and household costs?

As Americans watch prices rise at the gas pump and on grocery store shelves, answers to these important questions are urgently needed.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Jennifer Greenfield received funding from the Colorado Women’s College and the Women’s Foundation of Colorado to support research on the 2016 minimum wage ballot initiative mentioned in this article. She currently receives funding from the Women’s Foundation of Colorado to support research on women’s wellbeing in the state.

– ref. Thousands of employed Colorado workers need SNAP benefits to make ends meet – https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-employed-colorado-workers-need-snap-benefits-to-make-ends-meet-277826

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Marc Cohen, Professor of Gerontology, UMass Boston

Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, is ordering all states to step up their efforts to crack down on Medicaid fraud.

His April 21, 2026, announcement expanded on the Trump administration’s related enforcement actions, such as withholding Medicaid funds from Minnesota and threatening to do that for New York, California and Maine.

The Trump administration says there’s a big problem with fraud tied to government-funded care delivered in a person’s home or in the community, officially known as home and community-based services, along with nonmedical transportation, behavioral health and new or high billing providers.

The agency Oz leads is now asking states to immediately “revalidate” providers they claim are “high risk.” That is, states are supposed to require providers to prove that they remain eligible to participate in Medicaid and bill the program. The providers primarily offer at-home care, transportation, behavioral health and other services.

Related legislative initiatives, sponsored by Republicans, are also pending in Congress.

We are health services researchers who study the development and growth of the Medicaid home and community-based services program. One of us (Barkoff) previously served in the role of administrator and assistant secretary for aging of the Administration for Community Living.

We strongly believe that it is sensible and necessary for the government to take steps to prevent, root out and punish Medicaid fraud. But we are mindful that the government’s anti-fraud strategies and tactics could unnecessarily disrupt the very services that people depend on day to day.

We aren’t alone. Many researchers, advocates and policy experts are alarmed by this White House policy.

What’s at stake

All told, Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for about 75 million low-income Americans, including many who are at least 65 years old.

More than 5 million Americans benefit from government-funded home care, which is aimed at keeping low-income people with disabilities and frail older people living in their own homes and communities. Medicaid pays for most home care, covering nearly two-thirds of all such spending in 2023.

When home care works well, people become less likely to have to move into nursing homes or other assisted living facilities. If a home care aide doesn’t show up, the consequences are immediate and can be dire.

An older adult may be unable to get out of bed. A person with disabilities may miss meals or medications. A family caregiver may have to take time off without notifying their employer in advance and lose wages.

That’s why the federal government’s actions – particularly those targeting services provided in a person’s home or community – could endanger millions of people.

Supreme Court ruling

Home and community-based services include help with bathing, dressing, eating, medication management and mobility – services that allow people to remain in their homes rather than moving into nursing facilities. A shift toward home-based care has been underway for decades, driven by both costs and civil rights protections.

One reason for the shift was the 6-3 ruling in 1999 by the Supreme Court in the Olmstead v. L.C. case. The majority affirmed the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities when possible.

Today, most Medicaid long-term care spending covers the cost of services provided in a person’s home or local community, rather than in an institution. These services cost less and lead to better outcomes. Research and program data consistently show that fraud in these programs is relatively rare.

This is especially true due to safeguards like electronic visit verification, which ensures providers are actually providing services in the home.

Another safeguard in place is that most states contract with and approve
fiscal intermediaries, which act as payroll, payment and compliance managers, to make sure that there are verifiable records, payment controls and audit trails in place for the Medicaid program.

Not all ‘improper payments’ are fraudulent

A central problem in the Trump administration’s strategy to root out alleged Medicaid fraud is a basic mischaracterization of many things as fraud that aren’t fraudulent.

Federal agencies are tracking “improper payments” and incorrectly equating them with fraud. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services makes clear that most improper payments stem from documentation errors or administrative issues – not intentional wrongdoing.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government agency that produces in-depth research, notes that while fraud does lead to improper payments, the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, improper payments can have a cause besides fraud, such as administrative errors and eligibility processing mistakes.

Blurring the distinction between improper payments and fraud can make it seem like providers are illegally taking advantage of the system. And when that happens, policymakers may turn to blunt solutions that do little to punish actual fraudsters, such as cutting or withholding funding, rather than fixing administrative problems.

Exaggerating the scope of Medicaid fraud

In our view, proposals to overhaul Medicaid’s enforcement methods should be grounded in strong and objective data. Yet much of the argument for structural reform relies on anecdotal examples, isolated cases and select audit findings without broader context.

One of the more egregious cases perpetrated by providers was a home care agency in Pennsylvania that billed fraudulent claims between 2020-2023 totaling US$1.8 million. Another was the Minnesota provider penalized in 2025 after billing for services not delivered.

But those infractions do not justify characterizing an entire category of services that helps tens of millions of Americans remain in their homes as rife with fraud and in need of dramatic changes.

By contrast, as we explained in Health Affairs ForeFront in March 2026, federal oversight bodies – including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Government Accountability Office and the Health and Human Services’ inspector general – produce systematic, data-driven analyses.

These sources consistently caution against equating improper payments with fraud and emphasize targeted approaches to program integrity.

The government designated some 6% of the annual payments by Medicaid as improper payments between 2022-2025, which were worth about $37 billion. Yet, more than 3 in 4 improper payments resulted from insufficient documentation, which usually doesn’t indicate fraud or abuse.

What’s more, Medicaid fraud is regularly subject to enforcement actions. In 2025, Medicaid fraud control units reported 1,185 convictions for fraud nationwide, and combined recoveries from criminal and civil cases totaled about $2 billion.

Emphasis on high-profile cases

Again, a few widely publicized fraud cases in Minnesota and a few other states do not prove that fraud is a chronic problem for Medicaid billing in home care programs.

In an agency as big as Medicaid, which spends nearly $1 trillion annually, some level of fraud will occur. The key question is whether fraud is widespread, systemic or goes unpunished.

Available evidence suggests Medicaid fraud is none of those things.

For example, large-scale home care programs serving hundreds of thousands of people report extremely low rates of confirmed fraud cases. Enforcement data from Medicaid Fraud Control Units, which investigate and prosecute Medicaid fraud, show that when fraud occurs, it is investigated and prosecuted.

In other words, the presence of enforcement activity is evidence that oversight systems are working – not that they’re failing.

A better approach

We believe that many strategies that are better than those that the Trump administration is embracing are readily available. Some examples include improved data analytics, stronger referral systems within managed care plans, enhanced provider screening and documentation standards, and continued support for Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

These approaches target fraud directly without jeopardizing access to the essential Medicaid services that help tens of millions of older adults and disabled people remain where they want to be: in their own homes instead of in more expensive nursing homes.

Given that the U.S. spends about $930 billion a year on the program, we don’t question the wisdom of engaging in its oversight.

But we are concerned that the policy response to alleged fraud could harm the very people that the Trump administration says its efforts are meant to protect.

Marc Cohen receives funding from the RRF Foundation for Aging.

Alison Barkoff receives funding from the Commonwealth Fund.

Jane Tavares receives funding from the RRF Foundation for Aging.

Sara Rosenbaum receives funding from the Commonwealth Fund.

– ref. Trump’s Medicaid fraud crackdown may sound sensible, but it could harm Americans who require long-term care – https://theconversation.com/trumps-medicaid-fraud-crackdown-may-sound-sensible-but-it-could-harm-americans-who-require-long-term-care-281500

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Carey S. Cadieux, Associate Professor of Nursing, Binghamton University, State University of New York

When the U.S. Department of Justice moved to reclassify medical marijuana to a Schedule III drug on April 23, 2026, it set the stage for a vast amount of medical research that has been hobbled for decades by its more restrictive Schedule I classification.

The Justice Department also called for an expedited federal rescheduling process, with proceedings expected to begin in late June 2026, but for now cannabis at the federal level remains a Schedule I drug.

I’m an associate professor of nursing and I edited a textbook for nurses about providing care with cannabis. Cannabis is the umbrella term for the plant genus that includes both marijuana and hemp – two varieties of the same plant distinguished primarily by their content of THC, one of the active components of cannabis.

Moving cannabis to a Schedule III drug ushers in the end of the cannabis prohibition era and the beginning of the regulation era, potentially creating promising opportunities around research and new therapeutics.

How are drugs regulated by ‘schedule’?

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 categorizes all substances regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules. The act regulates the manufacturing, importation, possession, use and distribution of substances on each schedule.

Several factors determine schedule placement, including the drug’s medical use, scientific evidence of its benefits and pharmacological effects, patterns and history of abuse, public health risk level, degree of physical or psychological addiction potential, and whether the drug can be used to make another controlled substance.

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s rescheduling of marijuana will move it from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, defined as having a high risk for abuse and no accepted medical use, to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. While still tightly regulated, Schedule III drugs are considered to have moderate to low risk for physical and psychological dependence and to have some medical benefits.

Other Schedule I drugs include heroin, psilocybin, LSD, peyote and MDMA, or ecstasy. These drugs cannot be dispensed or prescribed, with some exceptions. Current Schedule III drugs include ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, products with less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit and some cannabinoids.

The move to reclassify medical marijuana products as Schedule III drugs applies only to those products certified by state-level medical cannabis programs. All other cannabis products remain a federal Schedule I drug, including those available from states’ recreational cannabis programs.

Impacts of cannabis reclassification

This legal order acknowledges that medical marijuana has some medical value and asserts that it has a lower potential for abuse than under the previous Schedule I classification.

The reclassification also ensures that state-registered medical cannabis patients continue to be permitted to purchase medical cannabis products without changes to their current certification or recommendation.

One of the challenges with this new law is that states have not standardized medical cannabis regulations, and each state will have its own quality and testing standards. In Maine, for instance, medical cannabis is not tested for molds, fungus, heavy metals or pesticides, while recreational cannabis is.

This means that the Schedule III medical cannabis in Maine could be contaminated, while the state’s testing of recreational cannabis makes it much safer to consume.

What are the implications for marijuana research?

For decades, researchers have struggled to conduct high-quality research studies due to their lack of access to the cannabis products that patients actually use and restrictions on their processes.

With the reclassification, researchers who are registered with the DEA to research cannabis will be able to obtain cannabis flower and plant material, as well as manufactured cannabis products, such as tinctures and edibles, directly from state-licensed businesses that are DEA-registered.

This means researchers will no longer need to rely on the federal DEA registry for access to cannabis products for research, which were often inferior in quality and variety in comparison to the everyday products medical cannabis patients typically have access to. Instead, they will be able to study cannabis products that patients use in daily life, such as vapes and various edible products.

This shift in access will now allow researchers to undertake the gold standard of research approaches: the randomized controlled trial.

Randomized controlled trials will help researchers like my colleagues determine how effective cannabis is in treating people with complex medical needs. This includes patients who experience nausea and pain while undergoing cancer treatments, multiple sclerosis patients with severe muscle spasm and stiffness, and chronic pain patients who strive to find relief without using opioids.

Might rescheduling send mixed signals?

Rescheduling may lead people to believe that cannabis is safe for all people to consume.

However, a growing body of research points to possible adverse effects from cannabis use, particularly in vulnerable groups, such as people who are pregnant, adolescents, people with preexisting mental health conditions such as schizophrenia or psychosis, and those with cardiac issues.

Cannabis can also lead to adverse drug interactions. Therefore, medical patients should use it with discretion and under the guidance of a healthcare professional.

For most medical cannabis patients, THC doses should start low and gradually be increased.

Rescheduling will be a big step toward helping researchers build a greatly needed solid body of evidence around both the benefits and potential harms of cannabis. But rescheduling should not be interpreted as a signal that cannabis is harmless.

Carey S. Cadieux is affiliated with the American Cannabis Nurses Association as a volunteer who consults with them on federal and state-level cannabis policy, and the editor of the textbook Cannabis: A handbook for nurses, published by Wolters Kluwer.

– ref. Reclassification of marijuana opens doors for much-needed medical research into the benefits and risks of the drug – https://theconversation.com/reclassification-of-marijuana-opens-doors-for-much-needed-medical-research-into-the-benefits-and-risks-of-the-drug-281403

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Gregory Crawford, President, Miami University

From ancient epics to contemporary headlines, humans have spent centuries canonizing courage as a rare and admirable virtue. Aristotle writes, “You will never do anything in this world without courage.” But what does it really mean to be courageous, and what does it look like in a classroom or a checkout line?

On April 1, 2026, The Conversation hosted a webinar examining the virtue of courage. Panelists Greg Crawford, president of Miami University, and Cynthia Pury, professor of psychology at Clemson University, discussed the different ways we understand courage, how it can be built and why it is a worthwhile risk to take.

Crawford has leveraged his academic role to elevate entrepreneurship education, innovative research and entrepreneurial startups at Brown University, the University of Notre Dame and Miami University. Pury has consulted on courage with numerous national and international organizations. The webinar has been edited and condensed for print.

Beth Daley: What are the ingredients of courage?

Greg Crawford: I would break courage down into three areas: taking calculated risks, accepting the possibility of failure and taking action. That sometimes means choosing principles that you’re going to uphold no matter what because it’s a matter of purpose or mission. To quote Maya Angelou: “Courage is the most important of all the virtues, because without courage you can’t practice any other virtue consistently.”

I think the first component or ingredient of courage would be clarity of purpose. Courage isn’t just about action, it’s about a directive action. The second ingredient would be realistic awareness of that risk. You’re not trying to minimize risk nor exaggerate the danger; you’re trying to be balanced so as to understand the consequences of that decision. Finally, courage includes the willingness to act despite fear. We make these decisions, and it’s more about resolve. Fear is never absent in the face of courage.

BD: Are you born with courage, or is it a muscle one can build and teach and learn?

Cynthia Pury: Both yes and no. Even in animals, you see evidence of boldness or exploration despite risk. When we moved houses a few years ago, I watched our cats explore. It was clear that they were afraid, but they were still going to check it out. It’s hard for me to think that my cats learned how to do that. You see that in other animal species, too.

The longer I do this, the more I’m convinced that it all comes down to people’s evaluations of the goals and risks of a given situation. So, there are some goals that I would find very easy to be courageous for, like saving someone’s life. Other goals I might not share with others, like my love of doing theater.

Similarly, there are also some risks that we all agree are universal. Fire is dangerous for every human, and we all are susceptible to being burned. I think that’s one of the reasons firefighters are often the least controversial helper people who are seen as heroic and are part of this “monumental courage,” as professor Robin Kowalski and I call it.

We also have situations where people have particular fears or vulnerabilities that aren’t necessarily apparent to others. One of the bravest things I’ve ever seen is a former patient of mine wrapping a gift for his child. This person had experienced horrific wartime trauma at Christmastime and had never given his child a Christmas present and he really wanted to. Wrapping the Christmas present brought back all the terrible things that had happened, and in the context of that – and really understanding PTSD – it was quite courageous.

In a day-to-day setting, a lot of the things people report doing that they say are courageous in their everyday life are things that are particular to them or a form of personal courage.

BD: How do you develop courage as an individual?

GC: At Notre Dame I was involved in raising money for Niemann-Pick Type C, a rare disease. The research center reported to me, but I was a physicist, so I couldn’t do genomics and proteomics and those kinds of things, but I wanted to be involved with it. So I decided to ride my bicycle across the country and raise funds for the Ara Parseghian Medical Research Foundation. People would ask me how I got in shape to bike cross-country, and the fact of the matter is I never did. I just had the courage to start and get in shape along the way.

I would tell people today, you’ll take these leadership positions and jobs, and you’ll never be ready because everything changes and comes at you quicker than ever before. You need to have the courage to get in shape along the way, be flexible and have confidence.

At one point, earlier in my career, I was talking about how my hit rate on grants was 20% or 30%. A lay person had asked me if that means I waste 70% of my time. I think my answer today is absolutely not, because I spend 100% of my time developing courage. Sometimes you have to try things over and over again. You keep pushing, and a failure or a misstep often results in a great answer later down the road. So there’s an element of courage when you do fail, but you keep learning, progressing and advancing, and then it comes full circle and you finally get there.

BD: How does failure relate to courage?

CP: Failure is really tied, more than people think it is, to how courageous action is perceived. If you decide to move to the other side of the country to take your dream job, but then the company folds when you get there, you’re not as likely to think that the move was courageous in retrospect.

The Carnegie Medal for heroism, for example, has rewarded people’s acts of physical bravery mostly in instances where the would-be rescuer dies and the would-be victim lives. Not a single time was it rewarded when the would-be rescuer lived and the would-be victim died. And I find that kind of startling.

In my research, people say that a courageous thing they did was something that made a situation better and didn’t make it worse. When they try to do something and fail, people don’t report their action to be courageous. And even people who say that it doesn’t matter if you succeed or fail still end up rating the courageousness of failed things the same way as everybody else does. So that’s definitely something to be aware of and look out for.

BD: What does a courageous conversation actually look like in practice, especially when delivering difficult feedback or talking to people who don’t agree with us?

GC: It’s important to normalize dissent as part of the process. When you can control and manage dissent, you can advance ideas in a much better way. I would say sometimes when you get criticism and so forth, it’s a good thing. Some people would call it a gift that you’re able to have the courage to either push back or to be open to influence and change your mind.

In today’s world, criticism comes nonstop and all the time in these leadership roles. So there’s courage in accepting it and not being defensive about it, and there’s also courage in trying to find a solution and an answer to it, and in some cases acknowledging it and moving forward.

BD: In terms of political courage, when there seems to be a collective consensus about what the right thing to do is, why don’t people act when they want to or others feel like they should?

CP: I wonder how much of what we see with political courage is people having different views about what the right thing is to do in this situation. Is it the right thing to take a stand here? Is this the thing to have your political career die on? Or is it more courageous to just let this go and be there for whatever the next thing is?

I also wonder how much of the courage talk in politics is people signaling, “I value this, I don’t value this.” Having the humility to listen to another side seems to be an important and missing virtue.

Cynthia Pury has received funding from the American Psychological Association and the Department of Defense. She is affiliated with Alchemy Comedy Theater, Greenville, SC.

Gregory Crawford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What courage is, how to build it and why you should take a risk – https://theconversation.com/what-courage-is-how-to-build-it-and-why-you-should-take-a-risk-280257