frontline and the center for public integrity have spent the past year investigating the business of medicaid dentistry and the new corporate model for treating america's poor kids. >> this is all billings from medicaid. >> o'brien: we were able to obtain and analyze medicaid data from two states: virginia and texas. we found that on average, kool smiles used crowns more frequently than other providers on children eight and under. in texas, half of all the restorative care on kids eight and under, stainless-sel crowns, 50% more than the state average. virginia, 50% more crowns than average. that's a big difference than other medicaid providers. why? >> our focus is looking at each and every child and looking at where their decay is, what their risk for getting cavities. >> o'brien: it's not because the crown pays more? >> the focus on each and every child we see is to restore that child to a state of good oral health. >> o'brien: then how do you explain that discrepancy, that difference? >> all i can tell you is what we do. i can't tell you what someone else does. >> o'brien: kool smi

and now he's with the center for public integrity, "huffington post" contributor and author of the book "deadly spin." great to have you with us tonight. this is -- i have laid it out, exactly what the republicans are doing. this is what they're doing on the campaign trail. they're out there saying president obama and the word stolen was used by the rnc chairman, that they have stolen $716 billion from medicare for seniors to pay for obama care. is this true or false? >> oh, it's absolutely false. in fact, what the president is doing is what needs to be done, to reduce payments over the next several years. but absolutely not cutting benefits. this is a very big lie. and it's very consistent, though, with what the insurance industry is doing and has done for many years. i am certain that my former colleagues in the insurance industry have been helping with the talking points for the romney campaign. >> well, the talking points are quite interesting. a republican leadership is telling the candidates not to use the word entitlement reform, privatization, or every option is on the table. i

wendell potter, former communications director and vice president of cigna, and now with the center for public integritynd author of the book "deadly spin." and that's the cycle we're living in right now. deadly spin. jonathan, let's start with you tonight. are democrats doing enough to counter this lie? i mean, it's very clear in recent days, day after day, they are not the republicans this team, romney and ryan, they are not going to back off this medicare lie. what do the democrats do? >> well, i think they are starting to combat it, ed, but they need to do more. and there's time to do more. and you have to remember to look at the glass half full if you're a democrat. that every day that we're talking about medicare is a bad day for mitt romney. remember, he wanted to keep the whole focus on jobs and how obama wrecked the economy and everything else. instead, they're talking about an issue that has until 2010, and that's a very important "until," has favored the democrats. and the reason that it's favored the democrats is that the american public used to know and can be reminded that the republicans

the center for responsive politics and public integrity analyzed the numbers from 2010 and concluded that outside groups that do not disclose their contributions outspend those which do by 3 to 2. we are seeing that again in 2012. this is not a scientific analysis, but if you look at independent expenditure so far by superpacs, it is about $135 million on campaign-related expenditures. if you look at undisclosed campaign expenditures, yesterday there was analysis because you cannot actually analyze these expenditures in the same way because they are non-profit groups and they do not disclose on the same level. they looked reports from groups that follow broadcasts and tax records and all sorts of things and we came up with $172 million so far. that tells you -- recognizing these are not definitive numbers, even an off-the-cuff estimate suggests that undisclosed expenditures are now vastly outpacing disclosed expenditures. just to go to the implications, i think without imposing a value judgment, there are definite dangers to this, both for political players and for voters and candida

the center for responsive politics and public integrity analyze. the source of their contributions outspend those that do buy 33 code to in 2010 and we are seeing that again in 2012. if you look at actual independent expenditures right now it's about 135 million on can pan. you cannot actually analyze these expenditures in the same way because it's these nonprofit groups and they don't disclose on the same level but the look to reports from groups that followed and broadcasts and tax records and all sorts of things and they came up with a dollar figure of 172 million so far so that tells you recognizing these are not definitive numbers but even in off the cuff back of the envelope estimate suggests undisclosed expenditures are now vastly outpacing the expenditures so to go back to the implications i think again without opposing the value judgment there are definite dangers to this vote for political players and voters and candidates in the government. i think the danger is absence of transparency and accountability and some corporate spenders are a

the center for responsive politics and public integrity analyzed the numbers from 2010 and concluded that outside groups that do not disclose their contributions outspend those which do by 3 to 2. we are seeing that again in 2012. this is not a scientific analysis but if you look at independent expenditure so far by superpacs it is about $135 million on campaign-related expenditures. if you look at undisclosed campaign expenditures, yesterday there was analysis because you cannot actually analyze these expenditures in the same way because they are non-profit groups and they do not disclose on the same level. they looked reports from groups that follow broadcasts and tax records and all sorts of things and we came up with $172 million so far. that tells you -- recognizing these are not definitive numbers, even an off-the-cuff estimate suggests that undisclosed expenditures are now vastly outpacing disclosed expenditures. just to go to the implications, i think without imposing a value judgment, there are definite dangers to this, both for political players and for voters and candidate

$298,144 from the public health foundation to participate in a program called addressing system act through program collaboration service integration. >> hello. this is a grant from the center forntion to promote innovative screening services for hiv, hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis. this is a grant to help us work toward better outcome for the communities affected by these multiple diseases. this is the second year of a three-year grant and it will support activities including disease registry matching to determine where these disease overlap so that we can appropriately target services, include the development of innovative guidelines to support sharing of information among department public health staff when appropriate and the development of clinical guidelines for screening and treatment for various populations, for example, how often should hiv positive people be screened for tuberculosis and hepatitis and including our laboratory to purchase rapid hepatitis c testing equipment. supervisor chu: there is also not a budget analyst report on this item. are the members of the public who wish to speak on item number five? seeing none, public comment i