As we have gone over in parts one through four, former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was instrumental in this entire program, not only taking hold in Utah, but taking hold all over the entire United States and outward.
Since he was the “face” of it back in 1994, we want to highlight parts of his career path so you can fully understand and see a bigger picture of his influence.
For example, did you know that Mike Leavitt introduced:
- “Healthprint” and “Smart Cards”
- Sales tax on all online purchases
- Digitalizing our voting system (electronic voting-2003)
- First “digital signature” bill “a symbol of New Utah”?
Those are just a few, there is much more.
In 1994, Leavitt starts his “Healthprint” policy push. A quick review of what Healthprint did/does:
Or you can review HB35 passed in 2000 by the Utah legislature, linking mental health with health insurance. What could possibly go wrong here? Or HB185 from 2000 that pushes higher premiums for health insurance that covers certain emergency medical treatments. Both of which happened under Leavitt’s governorship in Utah which lasted from 1993-2003.
United Nations and AVIAN BIRD FLU
Or how about in 2005 when US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Leavitt, and former President George W. Bush worked with the United Nations on a bird flu alliance?
In the below blurb from a United States “hearing” on AVIAN INFLUENZA: ARE WE PREPARED? Leavitt is mentioned as discussing initiatives regarding the Avian Flu:
Last week, the President unveiled his plan to prepare the Nation against a threat of avian flu, and I want to thank the President and his Cabinet and the entire administration for their leadership in addressing this threat. I also want to pay my respects and applaud the work of the Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Leavitt. I am pleased with these initiatives on behalf of the administration. During the address that Secretary Leavitt gave at the National Press Club, he used the illustration, or the analogy, of a spark in a dry forest. And I think that’s an accurate analogy, a spark which, if you catch it early on, you can crush it, you can put it out; but if it’s allowed to fester at all, it can leave and start lots of little sparks throughout that forest and take it down.
In 2005 Leavitt makes an interesting Formal announcement declaring an “International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza” with the United Nations. – Source
That same year the below happens:
“In mid-October, Undersecretary of State Dobrionski joined Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt and representatives of NIH, CDC, USAID, USDA, on a visit to seven countries in Southeast Asia. And the delegation was joined by WHO Director General Lee and representatives of FAO and the World Organization for Animal Health.
We were pleased that these delegations met with Foreign and Prime Ministers of these countries, indicating the success in raising the political profile of the issue. The President has charged the State Department with leading the international activities of the U.S. National Strategy for Pandemic. And in so doing, we closely collaborate with colleagues at HHS, AID, USDA, and other technical agencies.
Our activities are underway to meet the three key areas of our strategy: Surveillance, preparedness, response and containment. We are reaching out to help national veterinary facilities worldwide, national public health staff, ministries of health, and to help conduct preparedness training and simulations.
We are working to establish rapid response teams, and working with all of the international organizations to help conduct containment measures in animal populations, and prepare for human reaction “So how do you build a positive image when professional environmental groups have already tagged you as public enemy number one? Well, one strategy is to make sure the federal agencies who act as watchdogs of the environment are headed by people who can “talk a good game”. Bush seems to have employed that strategy by appointing Utah governor Mike Leavitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” From 2005
In 2006, Leavitt helps create “PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY GUIDE FOR Critical INFRASTRUCTURE AND KEY RESOURCES.”
Things really start to take a turn within this 2005-2006 timeframe. In 2005, Leavitt Appoints Dr. Michael Osterholm to the NEWLY established National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity. Who was later (2008) appointed to the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Pandemics. Now, why do we need these boards and councils?
Keep in mind, Leavitt is Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2005-2009. While this is going on Leavitt is also serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council (2007).
From 2009: “Ultimately, the key to preparing for a pandemic is to develop, stockpile, and prepare to distribute vaccines and antivirals – vaccines to prevent people from becoming infected by a virus, and antivirals to treat them if they are infected. But, how to achieve this? Developing and stockpiling vaccines is not a job for any one government. It is not even a job for any one nation. Rather, it requires cooperation among nations, cooperation among different government entities within nations, and cooperation between governments and the private sector. Pandemic preparedness requires that all of these different elements work together. The better they do so, the better prepared we will be as a nation.”
Leavitt and “SMART” Everything
“Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt — once a private-sector CEO — became chair of the Republican Governors Association and the Western Governors’ Association, president of the Council of State Governments and was appointed by President Clinton to the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. He knows technology and shares his views on technology and governance in the approaching “Knowledge Age.”
August 12, 2010 https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/the-century-of-the-state.html
As we pointed out in my other parts of this series, Leavitt knew to infect the entire system one had to start with higher education. From the Kinser paper, we have mentioned before, below is the quote that sums it up:
“Simply modifying the delivery system would not be enough. More people would have access to higher education, but unless they were learning what they really needed to know, it would have little value. (Interesting, who decided what they REALLY needed to know vs what they had been being taught?) Colleges and universities need to work with business and industry to educate a competent workforce, Romer argued. Institutions should be able to assess and credential learning that occurred outside as well as inside the classroom and be able to say what a student knows and does not know. The innovation of competency-based education, Romer suggested, when coupled with making higher education more widely accessible through technology, would make colleges and universities “right for the next century.””
How it started:
“He (Leavitt) was so well known for his technology initiatives and his futuristic visions of what was possible that he was lampooned in a Utah student newspaper with the name “Governor Leavitt-ate”. His education proposals had been funded by the legislature, and 10,000 students were taking courses over Utah’s education network (Brown, 1995). He had begun the process, through SmartUtah, of moving more activities of the state government to an on-line environment. And through the WGA, Leavitt had been working with his fellow governors on regional issues, primarily in the health and welfare areas (Fahys, 1995; Western Governors Association, 1995a).” Kinser WGU dissertation
He put these connections to use in order to push “smart states.”
“Linking states’ educational networks, however, would involve breaking through the barriers that Clara Lovett (AZ) identified. In the months after his meeting with her, Governor Leavitt decided to use the Western Governors Association as his forum. A nonpartisan organization of chief executives from 18 states, two territories and one commonwealth, the WGA was formed to “develop strategies for both the complex, longterm issues facing the West and for the region’s immediate needs” (Western Governors Association, 1998b). While the organization had never really dealt with higher education issues before, this certainly fit within its mandate (Interviews). The governors, through the WGA, were uniquely positioned to provide the necessary political leadership on a regional basis to get the job done, break through the barriers, and provide a conducive state environment for further collaborative efforts (Interviews).”
Even more fascinating are the lack of details in Leavitt’s “Smart States” plans:
“…very little of his staff time had gone into investigating the policy implications of either the SmartStates initiative in general, or the interstate sharing of courses in particular. A quick survey of existing distance learning networks was done by Leavitt’s staff, and he had mentioned the SmartStates concept once or twice to the Executive Director of the WGA. There were no policy briefs or position papers composed for the meeting, and only the members of Leavitt’s staff were aware of his education agenda for SmartStates. It was still a rather undeveloped idea that Leavitt was going to introduce, and it was treated casually by both him and his staff.”
Worse still is the lack of actual transparency:
“Sunday evening, after the meeting with Senator Domenici, the governors went into a private session. No reporters were present, nor were any of the governors’ staff, and no minutes were taken to record the ensuing conversation (Interviews). This was standard practice for the governors. Private sessions were regularly used at their meetings to have informal discussions on topics about which they were not ready to make public statements. As a non-partisan organization, this made it easier for the members of the WGA to work through complicated issues out of the political spotlight.“
That didn’t stop him, however, he had BIG plans:
“Connecting his initiatives with technology in the Utah state government to this idea, he began to envision a multi-state version of SmartUtah: SmartStates. It would be a way of sharing information and resources among states using technology. It would allow economies of scale and help prevent each state from having to reinvent the wheel for each new, expensive, information technology project. Like SmartUtah, it would be a partnership between government and industry to develop standards and applications that would be usable across the network. Some of these things were happening with the health and welfare projects that Leavitt had already initiated through the WGA (Western Governors Association, 1995a), but the focus of those projects had always been rather narrow. SmartStates was a way of tying together disparate pieces, providing a broad framework for integrating and coordinating work being done to make a host of regional government services more efficient and less duplicative (Western Governors Association, 1998a).” – Kinser paper
If you weren’t sure yet of his intent to fundamentally change our governance this should do it:
“Leavitt’s emphasis on a technological solution to problems did not stop with education. State government, too, came under scrutiny, and Leavitt soon had several proposals on that front. In November 1993, he followed up his education speech with one directed at government workers (Leavitt, 1993a). He issued another set of challenges to this sector. Begin “thinking technology” and focus less on the physical infrastructure. Provide electronic access to state information for Utah citizens. Use technology to increase productivity, avoid redundant services, and stretch state tax dollars. Telecommuting, teleconferencing, and paperless offices were all part of his vision. The barriers to this were not technological, Leavitt said in the speech. The barriers were in the “unwillingness to change and try something new” (Leavitt, 1993a)”
Does that not sound like the citizen portal we now have in place in Utah: the one we went over in Part 2 of the series?
So, what happened in 2009? Leavitt organizes “Leavitt Partners” a consulting firm to advise clients in health care policy matters. Please keep in mind his goal from 1994: SmartUTAH (Smart States)- the “modernizing” which meant digitalization of America.
2017- health interoperability enters the scene officially (arguably 2014)- This is paving the way for the digital ID and citizen portal.
Notice the wording here “authorized caregivers to access more of their digital health information with LESS FRICTION.” How much friction is currently happening, or was? Was that friction possibly from the consumer not wanting to share private personal information with people who do NOT need access to it? Where is your privacy in this?
Lots of things happen between then and now, but we have some massive moves in 2021.
April 2021, Leavitt Partners merged with Health Management Associations and Leavitt was appointed Co Chairman of the combined firm. Then Leavitt Partners promotes a Healthcare Digital Identity Federation Proof of Concept Report in 2023.
Now remember, they’re pushing the sweeping Digital ID via Healthcare (hence the vaccine push).
Keep that in mind when reading the below:
“Method- The ONC’s approach to conducting pilot projects begins with identifying a clinical care need, research requirement, or policy outcome that is not well supported by existing standards through a landscape review. ONC then selects a testing approach based on the identified need and maturity of relevant standards. Next, ONC identifies use cases and sites to pilot-test the relevant standard. Once complete, ONC publishes a report that informs subsequent projects and standards development.
Results- Pilot projects presented here are organized into three categories related to their demonstrated focus and related approach: (1) improving standards for presenting and sharing clinical genetic data, (2) accelerating the development and implementation of new standards, and (3) facilitating clinical data reuse. Each project illustrates the pilot approach from inception to next steps, capturing the role of collaboration among standards development organizations, stakeholders, and end-users to ensure standards are practical and fit for purpose.
Conclusion – The ONC approach identifies implementation difficulties prior to broader adoption and use of standards, and provides insight into the steps needed to scale use of standards. The ONC’s organization of pilot projects serves as a natural accelerator for building communities of practice, often providing a well-connected beneficiary of lessons learned.”
To get a better grasp on the implications here, let’s look at how Leavitt feels about the COVID-19 “pandemic” we were all subjected to:
From Leavitt in 2020:
“Leavitt defended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which the Trump administration and other lawmakers have criticized over its handling of the pandemic.
“CDC is a treasure, not just in the United States but around the world,” he said. “In an emergency, it’s easy to be critical. The reality is they need support.”
Worse is Leavitt’s amazing ability to foresee the future…
“Leavitt has described the pandemics as the most serious threat to American security. Secretary Leavitt cited the work of the World Health Organization’s Michael McCoy as the most compelling scientific work into the avian flu threat. This encouraged Leavitt to mobilize the nation’s pandemic preparedness and led to the reconfiguring of the nation’s medical emergency plans.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Leavitt
Or, there is the time in 2020 Leavitt spoke about “coordinating with China” on six critical issues like food, pandemics and more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FplonkrCiUE- Six Crises: Mike Leavitt on Negotiating with China on Food and Drug Safety (2008)
Or, this video where he explains that we need to give total control over to the President or another person in authority.
“During his four years as HHS secretary, Leavitt worked closely with Dr. Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on a plan for the country about how to deal with a serious virus outbreak similar to what we’re experiencing now. And the H1NI pandemic of 2009 was just starting to emerge as he left his cabinet post with the change from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. “One of the most interesting things about being a part of this right now is that Governor Leavitt helped write the national pandemic response plan, and so that uniquely qualifies him to speak to how our country responses to a pandemic,” Nemelka said. “So, he has been very influential to the clients we serve, as well as to the general public in that voice. And he’s been excited about that, but he’s also pretty humbled by it because he knows how important this is.”
As if that isn’t bad enough, another confirmation of his odd obsession with vaccines:
“Most of Michael Leavitt’s pandemic changes appear to be centered around getting out more vaccines. The boogeyman viruses then were H1N1 and H5n1 (swine and bird flu). Mike Leavitt funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccines. Remember that Swordfish69 wrote about how these zoonotic viruses were bioweapons. This is all the more notable as David Leavitt has close ties with Ukraine which has numerous bioweapon labs.”
So now let’s look at Utah. Does Utah by any chance have a Biolab? Oh it not only has that but more. Take a look at Biohive (part of the “One Health Collaborative”)
Better yet- your, my, our, tax dollars will pay for this.
“The Collaborative will be formally organized as a non-profit 501(c)3 with an Executive Director. It will be funded by $1M per year from the legislature and a goal of $2.3M in contributions from the private sector. The Collaborative has a 15-year horizon for achieving its stated objectives. In the past few months community members have participated in various committees exploring Goals, Governance/Structure, Innovation and Data as these areas apply to the objectives of the Collaborative.”
And now he want’s to “re-envision” healthcare in Utah and America- via higher education.
That is a lot to consume for one blog, so I will stop here and continue in the next. As you can see from. what little is shared here, former Governor Mike Leavitt has had his hands in some monumental and important parts of our governance system. Not only has he had his hands in them, but he has FUNDEMENTALLY changed them. Do you think it’s been for the better or worse?