Chairman Wenstrup Opens Hearing with Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo
Announces Subpoena for the New York State Governor’s Office
WASHINGTON — Today, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) delivered opening remarks at “A Hearing with former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.” Chairman Wenstrup began his statement by explaining that the Select Subcommittee has been threatened twice this Congress — once by the Chinese Communist Party and a second time by Mr. Cuomo through his attorney. The Select Subcommittee will not bow to either of these threats. Chairman Wenstrup continued his remarks by explaining that today’s hearing will examine the Cuomo Administration’s March 25, 2020, Directive that resulted in the admittance of more than 9,000 potentially COVID-positive individuals to New York nursing homes. During the Select Subcommittee’s two-year investigation into New York’s disastrous pandemic response, staff and Members have reviewed more than half a million documents and conducted 10 transcribed interviews with members of the Cuomo Administration. Chairman Wenstrup walked Mr. Cuomo through the highly-incriminating findings of the Select Subcommittee’s investigation thus far — which can be found in a 48-page staff-level memo here — and explained how New York’s March 25 Directive did not follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services guidance. Prior to Mr. Cuomo’s opening statement, Chairman Wenstrup also announced a subpoena to compel the New York State Executive Chamber, now led by Governor Kathy Hochul, to hand over documents related to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disastrous COVID-19 pandemic response and nursing home policies.
Below are Select Subcommittee Chairman Wenstrup’s remarks as prepared for delivery:
Mr. Cuomo, I want to thank you for your willingness to participate in today’s hearing and for testifying in front of this Select Subcommittee more than two months ago.
It took issuing a subpoena to get you to then agree to testify previously so I appreciate you coming in voluntarily today.
Before we get into the substance we are here to examine, I want to tell you that this Subcommittee has been threatened twice this Congress.
Once, by the Chinese Communist Party, through its Embassy, for examining the origins of COVID-19.
And the second time, by you, through your counsel, for examining the handling of COVID-19 in nursing homes.
I can tell you – we have not and we will not bow to these threats either.
I certainly hope you did not approve of these tactics. Or perhaps you aren’t aware of them, which seems to be a consistent pattern.
Nevertheless, the Select Subcommittee is holding this hearing today to examine your Administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York.
Specifically, we want to focus on the issuance of a “directive,” that resulted in the admittance and readmittance – according to the AP – of more than 9,000 potentially COVID-positive individuals to nursing homes.
This Select Subcommittee has been authorized to investigate the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore lessons learned – positive or negative – to better prepare for future pandemics.
Since the beginning of this Congress, we have been committed to conducting a thorough investigation. Free from influence and unafraid to follow the facts, wherever they may lead.
We have acted in a transparent fashion. Cognizant, that Americans deserve to see our work and review all available information so that they can draw their own conclusions.
We are examining actions taken by Congress, including measures I voted for, but might want to do differently or better the next time so that when the next shocking pandemic occurs, we have looked back, found what worked and what didn’t and establish a workable system so that we may endure.
This is an after-action review, in hopes of being able to predict, prepare, protect and perhaps even prevent the next pandemic.
In search for best pandemic practices, today’s hearing is focused on New York and the March 25, 2020 Directive from the New York State Department of Health issued under Governor Andrew Cuomo’s leadership.
In this investigation, we have reviewed more than a half a million documents.
And we have conducted 10 transcribed interviews with members of your Administration, including you.
Our findings are based on the evidence and testimonies that we have received.
This is a comprehensive and painstaking endeavor to find out what happened in New York’s nursing homes, with more than 2,000 pages of testimony publicly released to support our conclusions.
Simply put, America cannot move forward without first looking back.
That includes examining your Directive, Governor.
Mr. Cuomo, I think you will agree that New York State became “ground zero” for the pandemic in the United States.
In the earliest stages of the pandemic, COVID-19 was a novel virus and there was little information.
But, it quickly became clear that COVID-19 was particularly dangerous for the elderly.
We all saw the deadly consequences of COVID-19 in nursing homes in Washington State—the early epicenter of the pandemic.
There was a thousand-fold higher risk of poor outcomes—specifically, hospitalization and death—for older people relative to younger populations.
Therefore, it was critically important that the public health response prioritize protecting high-risk populations.
This was understood by the U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
On March 13, 2020, CMS issued guidance that specifically directed nursing homes to NOT accept COVID-19 positive patients if they were unable to do so “safely,” and to ONLY accept individuals if the nursing home could follow CDC transmission-based guidance.
Again, this was non-binding, federally issued “guidance.”
That’s reflected by its language.
The CMS guidance used terms such as “can” and “should.”—consistent with the tone of guidance.
“A nursing home can accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19 and still under Transmission-Based Precautions for COVID-19 as long as the facility can follow CDC guidance for Transmission-Based Precautions.”
“Nursing homes should admit any individual that they would normally admit to their facility, including individuals from hospitals where a case of COVID-19 was/is present.”
That was not the case with the Directive issued by your Administration on March 25, 2020.
While you like to play semantics and refer to it as an “advisory,” it’s clear that it’s anything but.
Merriam-Webster defines an “advisory” as “containing or giving advice.”
Your “advisory” refers to itself as a “directive” in the first paragraph.
“[T]his directive is being issued to clarify expectations for nursing homes (NHs) receiving residents returning from hospitalization and for NHs accepting new admissions.”
Merriam-Webster defines a “directive” as “an authoritative order or instrument issued by a high-level body or official.”
In your case, that carries the weight of all.
Your “directive” uses words like “shall,” “must,” and “prohibit.”
It directs that “[a]ll Nursing homes must comply with the expediated receipt of residents returning from hospitals to Nursing homes.”
It directs that “No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the Nursing home solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.”
It directs that “nursing homes are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.”
Here’s the problem, medically stable can still mean highly contagious. This language is not advisory or non-binding.
The CMS guidance was and still is advisory and non-binding.
“Directive” with the authority of the law supersedes “guidance.”
“Prohibited” means not allowed and prohibiting testing for COVID-19 is nowhere in the CDC guidance.
Because of this language, the March 25 Directive was dubbed a “must admit” order by the public and press. And rightfully so.
Your directive was not consistent with federal guidance.
Nor consistent with medical doctrine. You do not put highly contagious patients in with vulnerable patients.
Your former Commissioner of the Department of Health told us that you received the phone call from the Greater New York Hospital Association asking you to do something about nursing home residents that the hospitals wanted to be able to discharge.
He testified that you were told that these patients needed to “go home.”
And while you testified that you were not aware of the directive until April 20, 2020, you decided to keep it after learning about it.
It remained in effect for almost three weeks after you knew about it—you own this.
It’s your name on the letterhead. This is your Directive.
You are the leader. The buck stops with you- or at least it should.
It’s important to look at your Administration’s record.
Two weeks after you learned about the order, your office changed the methodology of how nursing home fatalities were categorized:
You removed out-of-facility deaths that occurred at the hospital, altering the full accounting of nursing home deaths.
During your transcribed interview, when describing why you chose not to disclose the number of nursing home residents who died at hospitals, you remarked “who cares?”
Who cares about this?
Doctors and nurses trying to save lives.
People dying and their families. They care.
If someone contracted COVID-19 in the nursing home and died at the hospital, it matters. It is scientifically significant to know where, how, and why someone contracted COVID-19 and died- if we are to prevent it again in the future.
In July of 2020, you released a report under the auspices of the NYSDOH that blamed nursing home employees, rather than your directive, for the deaths that occurred in nursing homes.
Your spokesman, Rich Azzopardi, described this report as “peer reviewed.” I’m not sure he understands the peer review process.
An effective response to the pandemic required a willingness to adapt to evolving data, to new information. It will be required for the next pandemic as well.
It is important to review the data –actual data – to recognize the disastrous consequences of your dangerous Directive.
A Directive that goes against medical protocols and is considered by many medical professionals to be malpractice.
You wrote in your book that it wasn’t your “place to filter or edit the truth.”
But it’s clear that it was someone’s place.
You said, “who cares.” But we do care about the truth, because it’s obvious you don’t. Like the out-of-facility nursing home deaths.
And that’s why we’re here today.
To ask you why you made the decisions that you or your executive team made.
To try to account for your actions and response without naming and blaming others – as you have repeatedly done.
Because we need to help America be prepared for the next pandemic.
And to protect American lives — and because infectious diseases, like respiratory viruses, don’t recognize borders— we want to protect lives beyond our borders as well.
I look forward to a strong, on topic, discussion today.
###