Now at McDonald's, a sausage McMuffin is only $150.
So stop dreaming about breakfast sausage. Then go get it. Get more value on the Under $3 menu. Limit time only, prices and participation may vary, prices may be higher for delivery. It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Tuesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. North Carolina State Auditor Dave Bollick says that his office is closely examining the surge in Medicaid-funded autism therapy costs as lawmakers and state officials confront a projected billion-dollar increase in the coming years. Bolick's comments as he gave them to a recent interview with Fox News Digital came as North Carolina's legislature continues examining dramatic increases in spending on what is called applied behavioral analysis or ABA therapy, a treatment for children with autism spectrum disorder. Bolick told Fox News in part, those are vital services to folks and individuals that need them, that need that therapy.
But when you have, like North Carolina, a system that went from $1.4 million or so in total billing for autism therapy to more than $660 million a year in billing on autism therapy within a five-year range, that begs an audit from the state auditor, who in North Carolina, we are the top watchdog agency for taxpayer waste, fraud, and abuse prevention.
So we've dug down into that and are in the middle of it. As previously reported by Carolina Journal, data presented to lawmakers at a March the 10th meeting of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services and Medicaid showed that spending on autism therapy surged by 347% from 2022 to 2025. During this period of time, the number of children receiving services grew from 3,844 to more than 13,447. In addition, the average number of patient care hours per month rose from 47.5 to more than 54 hours per month, with lawmakers noting that both the increased number of children served and the higher intensity of treatment are contributing to the rapid growth in spending. And in fact, it is a rapid growth from just $1.4 million to $660 million in just five years.
Bullock says national reports of Medicaid fraud involving autism therapy providers in other states has prompted his office to begin scrutinizing North Carolina's numbers more closely, telling Fox News Digital in part, we want to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately, that services are being rendered appropriately, and that children who need these services are actually receiving them. The state auditor emphasized that his office has not uncovered evidence of the same widespread fraud schemes that have been alleged in other states, but said that the rapid increase in spending demands some level of attention. He said that while issues may still exist, quote, we did not see the type of spike that we did in Minnesota in other areas of North Carolina government. Bullock said part of the concern involves weakness in Medicaid oversight in the system itself, which he argued can allow for questionable billing practices, saying, What we've got is what we've seen examples of is where there might be three different clinical providers billing during the same tranche of time on autism therapy for a client. This is because of poor rulemaking.
He says that weak oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services makes questionable billing possible, which of course increases the concerns about. Oversight gaps. With Bolick telling Fox News, some of it might be technically legal because of lax oversight from a Democrat-led Department of Health and Human Services. The renewed scrutiny follows national attention on Medicaid fraud schemes involving autism therapy providers in Minnesota, where spending on autism services rapidly increased from less than a million dollars a year in 2018 to more than $340 million a year in 2024. Similar numbers, actually significantly more, but high increases like we see here in North Carolina.
A Justice Department report cited by Fox News alleged that the fraudsters recruited families into autism treatment programs, helped them obtain what are described as questionable diagnoses, and then build Medicaid for services that were unnecessary or in some cases never provided. State Auditor Dave Bollick says that his office is already working with lawmakers on potential reforms to strengthen Medicaid fraud enforcement, as well as improving oversight. According to Bollock, these efforts include increasing financial accountability measures, expanding Medicaid audit and investigative resources, as well as investing in additional staff and technology to help recover some of the misspent tax dollars, if that is exactly the case. He emphasized accountability, saying if there are bad actors, we want to identify them. If there are gaps in oversight, we want to fix them.
The state auditor also pointed to artificial intelligence as a critical tool in combating increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes, saying, look, we've got to pour jet fuel on artificial intelligence in some areas of state auditing because the fraudsters are using AI. And if we're not using AI to combat fraud, then we're going to be on our heels and the taxpayer isn't going to be protected. This story was top on FoxNews.com, the front page on Saturday, at least through the morning on Saturday, gaining some significant national attention as the major headline there, autism spending, ABA therapy spending here in North Carolina skyrocketing from just $1.4 million to more than $660 million a year in the span of just five years. We are keeping an eye on the details from a state auditor, Dave Bollock's office. We'll, of course, keep an eye on that and bring you the latest right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
In some other statewide news this morning, U.S. Representative Don Davis, the Democrat in Congressional District 1, that's in northeastern North Carolina, and his challenger Laurie Buckout are currently in a dead heat. This is according to internal polling by the National Republican Congressional Committee, also known as the NRCC. Those sample leaned Republican on a generic ballot with 46% choosing a generic Republican, 42% choosing a generic Democrat, with 9% of voters describing themselves as still undecided. But when specific candidates were offered, Buckout and Davis were equal, completely tied at 41% each, with still 17% of the electorate being undecided, at least according to some level of internal polling conducted by the NRCC and provided to the Carolina Journal.
According to Riley Richardson, a spokesperson for the NRCC, talking to the Carolina Journal, he said vulnerable Democrat Don Davis has spent years collecting a paycheck while voting against things like historic tax relief for farmers, workers, and seniors. He went on to say Davis's positions are out of line with Eastern North Carolinians, which is why they'll elect Lori Buckaup to represent them. Among the Democrat base, Davis is polling at 26% favorable, 26% unfavorable, and 48% undecided, with the Democrat Party overall polling at 36% favorable and 54% unfavorable within the poll there as well, with 10% undecided. Lori Buckout won a five-way Republican primary, as we brought you those details back just a couple of months ago in March and is set to face off against Davis in the fall. If this sounds vaguely familiar to you, well, in 2024, Buckout also won her primary and lost to Davis in the general election.
Lori Buckout is a retired Army colonel and combat commander who served in the Trump administration as acting secretary of defense for cyber policy. She served in that position from March to September of 2025 with Richard Hudson, Congressman Richard Hudson, the chairman of the NRCC, recently telling Carolina Journal. Lori Buckout is a great candidate, and we're thrilled that she ran. She ran one of the closest house races in the country last cycle, losing by just a point. And I think if we hadn't had a libertarian in the race there, she would have won in a very competitive district.
Andy Jackson, the director of the Cevitas Center for Public Integrity at the John Locke Foundation. Told the Carolina Journal, however, that polls like this should be read with some degree of skepticism, saying, quote, you have to take polls released by party organizations with a grain of salt. The polling itself might not be biased or flawed, but they are guilty of surveyorship bias. When polls have results that organizers do not like, they typically don't release them to the public. Jackson said that despite that word of caution, this poll is what you would about expect to see, saying in part, we have a Democrat incumbent tied with his Republican challenger in a newly redrawn Republican-leaning district.
The generic race numbers, 46 to 42, Republican over Democrat, almost perfectly reflects the district's partisan lien of an R plus five. The fact that Davis closes the gap when candidates are names demonstrates the advantage of being an incumbent and likely stronger name ID. An incumbent should be ahead by this point in the campaign, so Davis does, in fact, have something to worry about. We will, of course, be keeping an eye. This is one of the major contests that we will be watching as we approach the midterm elections coming up later on this year.
You can read more on this NRCC poll and our other top story this morning, state auditor Dave Bolak looking into ABA autism therapy. Those details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com.
Now with McDonald's, a sausage McMuffin is only $150.
So stop dreaming about breakfast sausage. and go get it. Get more value on the under $3 menu. Limit time only, prices and participation may vary, prices may be higher for delivery. Here there are beaches as wide open as your plans.
and waterfront towns more charming than you could ever imagine. And activities to fill every sunny second of every sunny day. It's time to start thinking about your next break. and the Crystal Coast has a space for you and yours to do it all. Ready for the perfect spring getaway?
Visit crystalcoastnc.com slash booking now. It's 21 minutes past the hour. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. We are keeping an eye on an interesting set of stories as it relates to cell phones being used in classrooms as strict classroom cell phone bans are delivering meaningful reductions in student tech use, but producing few short-term academic or behavioral gains. This is according to a new multi-university study that examines stricter bans than ones recently adopted here in North Carolina.
State Board of Education Vice Chair Alan Duncan flagged the finding at the state board's planning session on May the 6th in Duplin County, four months after North Carolina's protecting students in the digital age law took effect. With Duncan telling the board in part, This is the first year of some control over cell phones in the classroom in North Carolina. And anecdotally, I think many of us have been hearing very positive stories from students, teachers, and parents about that effort. He then raised the new research, which he described as the largest study ever of school cell phone bans, finding teachers reported fewer distractions, but noting little evidence that the bans quickly are bringing improvement as it relates to academic achievement or better behavior. He said, I don't know whether the emphasis there is the word on quickly or not, but I don't want this to undercut what we're trying to do.
This study that he referenced was released in April by researchers at Stanford University, Duke University, the University of Michigan, as well as the University of Pennsylvania. And it is the largest analysis of U.S. school phone bans to date. With it examining more than 43,000 middle and high school students, or high schools, I should say, nationwide, using research design that compared schools before and after they adopted said bans on cell phones. The study concluded that phones use dropped from 61 to 13% at schools that use the yonder lockable school pouch and intervenes and intervention studied.
The new law in North Carolina bans phones use during class, but does allow students to keep their phones with them, including at lunch and between classes. These common pouch products lock the phones away for the entire school day. Students, when they walk in the door, put them in these pouches and there's a very strong magnet that locks them. When they are leaving the school at the end of the day, that is the kind of the opposite happens there. They unlock it and then take their phone with them.
Most schools in the study have used a similar policy. to North Carolina's approach prior to adopting those pouch systems with the study finding that in the first year after adoption, school suspension rates rose by about 11% and students are reported lower well-being on classroom surveys with more negative emotions and fewer positive ones. The research suggests two possible causes. The first, of course, being enforcement of the new phone rule itself, which could lead to that rise in suspension and students substituting other disruptive behaviors, such as conflict with peers, once the phones were locked away. Beyond the suspension findings, average effects on test scores, attendance, classroom attention, and perceived online bullying were all close to zero after those bans took effect.
And on the longer-term trend, however, that did appear to be more positive. By the third year, disciplinary issues had faded back to baseline numbers and students' well-being had become more positive than before the adoption of the policy. High school mass scores showed a small positive bump of about 0.9 percentile points, while middle schoolers showed a slight decline.
However, it is important to note that both of those percentage bumps and declines are So, within the margin that it's hard to look at that with any major statistical relevance. According to Thomas D., a Stanford educator who was one of the study's authors, as I mentioned there, that litany of colleges and universities putting it together, he said in a statement: There is clearly justifiable enthusiasm for school phone bans, but it is important to recognize that building effective phone-free learning environments does not appear to be simple or a quick fix. This is a very early experiences that show that schools with phone bans is sobering, but there are many indicators that as schools adjust to phone-free policies, the benefits of many of these bans may be realized. Panelists back here in North Carolina, panelists at the state board's planning session pushed back on drawing conclusions too quickly as Carl Johnson, who is an associate professor at UNC Chapel Hill's Gilling School of Global Public Health, told board members that the word quickly was doing significant work. With Johnson saying in part, when you had a system in place for so long and you change a factor in that system, how quickly should you expect results?
In this case, I wouldn't jump to too many conclusions too quickly. Other commentary coming in, including Krista Gluski of North Carolina, of NC State University's Friday Institute, added that removing cell phones from schools does not automatically yield a meaningful learning environment result, and that classrooms, design, and teacher practice remained critical to whether bans were actually being translated into academic gains. The study's author. Authors caution that their analysis covers at most three years after adoption. With them also noting that the working paper had not yet been peer-reviewed.
According to another person involved in the study, a Stanford economist and co-author saying in his statement, this study is really a first step. It answers a number of important questions, but also raises new ones. This discussion, of course, has continued to play out here in the state of North Carolina. As referenced just a couple of minutes ago, a brand new state law going into effect not that long ago here in North Carolina, back in the month of January, House Bill 959, the protecting students in the Digital Age Act, does prohibit students from using, displaying, or having what the law describes as wireless communication devices turned on during instructional time unless otherwise instructed by a teacher. In terms of those wireless communication devices, that of course means cell phones.
So we're watching that play out here in North Carolina and many other states as some of those in the academic fields argue whether these cell phone bans are having an immediate impact or even a quick impact on the learning loss and on in terms of the classroom experience dealing with discipline issues and other problems showing up in the schools across the United States. We'll keep an eye on the North Carolina impacts here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. You can read more on the study by visiting our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Look for the headline, Cell phone bans deliver slow but real gains. Study fines.
Now with McDonald's, wake up to a $4 breakfast meal deal. Wake up to a sausage McMuffin or a sausage biscuit to hash browns and wake up to a hot coffee. Get your $4 breakfast meal deal. Limited time only. Prices and participation may vary.
Prices may be higher for delivery. It's 536. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good Tuesday morning to you.
We have been keeping a very close eye on tariffs over at the John Locke Foundation and CarolinaJournal.com. These, of course, have become major talking points at the early onset of the most recent Trump administration, the 47th president here in the United States. Most recently, however, we're tracking some legal action from multiple blue state attorney generals, including here in North Carolina, as it relates to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. We do have some details this morning from the U.S. International Trade Court to walk us through some of those details.
Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, the president, has consistently said the T word tariff is one of his favorite anywhere in the dictionary. There's been a lot of legal challenges against those. What's the latest that you're following? Mm-hmm.
Well, remember, Nick, that back in February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down tariffs. That President Donald Trump's administration had put forward as part of the International Emergency Economics Powers Act, or IEPA or IEPA, some people have said.
So, right after that happened, the administration went back and initiated a new round of tariffs under another. Legal action called Section 122 of the 1974 Federal Trade Act. And so almost immediately, once those tariffs were put in place, you saw lawsuits challenging this round of tariffs. And a couple of different suits ended up before the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York City.
One of them was from a couple of businesses, two businesses that had to pay tariffs, and they were represented by the Liberty Justice Center. And then a second suit was filed by a number of states, mostly blue state attorneys general and a couple of blue state governors were involved, including North Carolina's Jeff Jackson signed onto the suit. It was led by the state of Oregon. And so both of those suits went before the Court of International Trade, basically lumped together for one set of oral. Actually, I believe they had two sets of oral arguments, but the decision was lumped together.
And basically, the court within recent days said that the tariffs were ultra-virus, meaning that the president did not have authority to initiate them. And that was because Section 122 tariffs require a certain set of circumstances to be in place. And the president has to issue a proclamation that says these circumstances are in place and that they would justify the tariffs.
Well, the president did issue a proclamation, but the court decided that the proclamation didn't comply with the conditions that would be needed to enact tariffs under Section 2022.
So thus, they were void.
Now, interestingly enough, That ruling was also split in terms of how it would affect the plaintiffs in the case.
Now, the suit that involved the two businesses. They win. The ruling was in their favor. They were able to get an injunction. In the suit involving the states, though.
Every state except the state of Washington had the claims dismissed.
So, North Carolina's claims were dismissed along with everyone else except the state of Washington. And the reason why Washington stood out. Is that there was documentation, and in fact, the government admitted that Washington was a state that had already been affected by these tariffs and so did have standing to be involved in a suit. But all the other states are basically just saying that these states are saying, well, We would have been affected. We were affected by the IEEPA tariffs, and so.
That means we would be affected by these tariffs too. And the judges in the majority in this case said, that's not enough. You have to show that there's actual some real damage or an imminent threat of damage, not just, well, we're probably going to be damaged by these. And so all of the other states were thrown out. This was a 2-1 decision from the Court of International Trade.
The two judges who were ruled in the majority were both appointed by former President Barack Obama. A judge who was appointed by former President George W. Bush dissented, and basically his argument was: this case should go back. To uh to it to where it started and that uh there there are no Place at this point where we can determine that what the Trump administration said was violated by the rules of Section 122, that there's a whole lot more work to be done before we can even come up with any kind of ruling on these tariffs. And Mitch, you mentioned at the beginning, this is not the first time that we have seen one of these large tariff packages be challenged and struck down by a court.
Is it safe to assume that the administration will continue this kind of game of whack-a-mole, Mitch, where, all right, now 122 is out. We'll find either another provision in 122 or something completely separate to continue down this path of implementing these tariffs as the administration continues to make the argument that they are necessary to pull countries across the world to the bargaining table for some of these negotiations over what is being described as an unfair traded balance with many of these other countries. The Trump administration has given no signals that it has any interest in backing away from tariffs. The IEEPA ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court did not prompt the Trump administration to say, okay, well, we tried tariffs and now it's not going to work out.
So let's move on to something else. They immediately went toward another tariff. And in fact, one of the arguments in this case. Has been from the Trump administration that in fighting the international emergency economic powers tariffs, that the plaintiffs in those cases were saying, well, you know, the president could always try to have tariffs under Section 122. And then they're saying the Trump administration this time around, well, wait a minute, you plaintiffs said that we should try tariffs under Section 122.
Now we tried them and you sued us again. What gives here? Plus, we also should note that this particular case is not over. Almost immediately after that ruling from the Court of International Trade, you saw an appeal to the federal appellate court. In this case, it's the court of the federal circuit.
And so we'll see some sort of ruling from that court. And while this is all going on, the Trump administration has not given any indication that it has any interest in backing away from tariffs. As you suggested, President Trump has been very consistent. Yeah. It's saying that he believes tariffs are a good thing.
Despite all the evidence, speaking, of course, from the John Locke Foundation, despite all of the evidence. Of the contrary, the tariffs are bad for consumers, for the economy, and are bad in general, and are not the way to conduct economic policy. President Trump disagrees. He thinks tariffs are a good thing, and his administration will continue to push for tariffs in any way possible.
Now, if the case at the Section 122 tariffs, if they fail, at the appellate court and or get to the Supreme Court and fail there. Then it will be interesting to see what is the next option because I think the president went. with IEEPA as his best option. Once that failed, he went to Section 122 as the second best option. Who knows what option number three is, and whether there is something that's within the federal law books that he could point to, or if he tries to come up with some other way that's not already on the books, or if he goes back to Congress and says, okay, Congress, give me some new tariff authority.
I would imagine that all of those options will be on the table if Section 122 tariffs ultimately do not stand. Yeah, and obviously this will be a major discussion, especially if Congress is being kind of roped into this. Thus far, Congress really hasn't gotten into this. But to your point, Mitch, if section after section after section continues to get struck down by courts, then you could see something like that. It will be very interesting to see coming up into the midterm elections where Republicans are trying to retain their majorities in both the United States House and Senate, how interested some of those leadership parties will be interested in diving into the issue.
But you highlighted something interesting, Mitch. Whether you agree with the tariffs or not, it is something you can't argue about the level of consistency. Going back 50 years now, the now President and Donald Trump has been very consistent over these tariffs. And while we're not going to get into a full-throated debate over whether tariffs are good or bad here this morning, we've had those discussions now for the better part of a year here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. The bigger discussion, something that I've seen coming out of this is all of these states in this 122.
Ruling from the International Trade Court is an interesting one, Mitch, where you've got essentially blue states or blue state attorney generals like we've got here in Jeff Jackson consistently bringing a state like North Carolina into these lawsuits. And there's even been questions from lawmakers here in North Carolina: is this the best use of the attorney general's time? Is it the best use of state resources to consistently be suing the federal government? I think many folks would argue in large part because there's a difference over political party between the Attorney General and who's representing us in Washington, D.C. Yes, we've definitely seen at least 20 different suits that Attorney General Jeff Jackson has latched on to.
And I use that terminology with a particular goal because I don't know that in any of these cases that you have. Attorney General Jeff Jackson and the lawyers from the North Carolina Department of Justice doing all the legwork and putting the suit together. I think in every case, We're talking about a suit that has been started by some other state. that Jackson has said, okay, I'll join that too.
So, in terms of the amount of resources that North Carolina and its lawyers in the State Justice Department are putting forward, there may not be that much. And if Attorney General Jackson tried to do that, he might run into trouble with a recent state law, because you might remember that. At the end of the last election cycle, when Josh Stein was elected as governor and Jeff Jackson was elected as attorney general, there was a new piece of legislation that came out of the General Assembly that basically limited. What the Attorney General could do. He was not allowed to take a stance that was against a state law.
If He's involved in litigation and the General Assembly is involved in litigation. Attorney General Jeff Jackson is supposed to defer to the legislature in terms of the legal strategy and the arguments that are being made. Nothing so far has been done to enforce that law, but at least in some of these circumstances, you might get the sense that some of the lawsuits that Attorney General Jackson has latched onto might be seen by some as running afoul of that legislation. And so it will be interesting to see if this pattern continues, whether someone within the General Assembly or someone who agrees with the General Assembly stance on this would want to take the Attorney General to court and say, you're violating this state law that says you're not allowed to take a legal position that goes against something that is in North Carolina law. I think, you know, he has lawyers and they're very smart people.
And I'm sure that they're looking at what that state law is and looking at these federal lawsuits and telling themselves. This is not something that's going to make us run afoul of the state law. But I would not be surprised at some point if, after this run of many lawsuits in which Jeff Jackson and his legal team are signing on to other states' lawsuits, whether someone says, wait a minute, this is not what we called for when we changed the state law saying what you can and can't do. And my guess is that's going to be something that could be a source of concern both for lawmakers and for the Attorney General moving forward. Yeah, Mitch, interesting note there.
While this law is on the books, these laws are only as good as they're willing to be tested. Obviously, the General Assembly has got a lot on their legislative plate here over the next month and a half as they wrap up the legislative short session. Allegedly. Yeah, go ahead. And remember, Nick, they didn't say you can't join someone else's lawsuit, but they did say you can't take a stance that goes against something that's on the North Carolina law book.
So my guess is Jackson has people who are really combing through and making sure that nothing that they're saying would run afoul of this. But that doesn't mean that they might not get called on the carpet for it. Yeah, maybe drawing or writing or cutting around things with an exacto knife, making sure that they are very precise in what they are doing. Other point being, of course, the General Assembly has got a packed calendar leading up towards the beginning of July. Obviously, the state budget and many other major legislative priorities do remain top of mind.
So, I also wonder, Mitch, a little bit if this is just not a top priority for lawmakers right now as they hash out some of these major issues. Nevertheless, we'll keep our eyes on all of these details: continuing coverage of the General Assembly short session, these continued tariff battles between the Trump administration and a variety of different states and court systems. All those details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the insight and information this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Yeah. It's 5.56. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT. We are expecting a very busy day in the North Carolina legislature this morning as both the North Carolina House and Senate are set to be back in session as we head deeper into this morning, or I should say a little bit later on this morning.
However, before that, we have got a litany of different committees meeting in both the House and the Senate. Finance, the Select Committee on Nominations meeting in the Senate, Commerce and Economic Development in the House. Also in the House, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Unit, the ABC Commission meeting there in the House, the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Health meeting. This list goes on and on, and it is a similar situation tomorrow as lawmakers are now approaching almost the halfway point in what is expected to be this legislative short session. We're keeping an eye on all.
the details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for a Tuesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. Yeah.
Now with McDonald's, wake up to a $4 breakfast meal deal. Wake up to a sausage McMuffin or sausage biscuit to hash browns and wake up to a hot coffee. Get your $4 breakfast meal deal. Limit time only prices and participation may occur. Prices will be higher for delivery.
