The 2 Near-Death Experiences That Changed Mark Bertolini Forever

Before Mark Bertolini became the chief executive of the country's biggest health insurer, before he was celebrated by business publications for being an "unconventional boss" who is "mindful of morality," before he overhauled his company to prioritize the wellness of his workers, he was a father watching his teenage son die.

It was 2001, and Bertolini's son Eric, who was then 16, was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer. Bertolini, now the chief executive of Aetna, quit his job at insurance rival Cigna and moved into his son's hospital room in Boston to help manage his care.

Eric made a full recovery two years later, but was struck by complications and needed a kidney transplant.

Once again, Bertolini stepped in, donating one of his kidneys to his son.

Those experiences, coupled with a severe skiing accident he suffered in 2004, completely changed the way that Bertolini saw health and, by extension, health care. 

"What I found very quickly in both his circumstance and mine was getting our lives back, becoming engaged and productive members of society, was something that the health care system cared very little about," Bertolini says in the sixth episode of "Pioneers," a new video series by The Huffington Post that profiles leaders in various industries who have redefined success by making it their mission to live more meaningful and less stressful lives.

Facing long-term disability and chronic pain after colliding with a tree, Bertolini turned to yoga and meditation. A recent study by Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center found that participants who practiced mindfulness meditation experienced greater pain relief than those who received a placebo. Regular meditation and healthy amounts of sleep essentially work to drain out toxins -- such as molecules associated with the degeneration of brain cells -- that build up during waking hours. 

"I still have my pain, but as we say in the meditative arena, in the mindfulness arena: 'I have pain, I'm aware of my pain, I am not my pain,'" Bertolini says. "I had to learn how to be more 'Zen' in the way I approached my daily life, and meditation was a way to learn how to do that."

That approach bled over into his work life, too. Under Bertolini's leadership, Aetna helped spearhead the movement in corporate culture to focus more on employee health -- as both a means of improving people's lives and a way of reducing health care costs. And perhaps most importantly, he addressed one of the biggest sources of stress for his workers: money. 

Last year, Bertolini raised the minimum hourly base pay for all U.S. workers at Aetna to $16 after reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a best-selling 700-page book on income inequality by the French economist Thomas Piketty.

"If people are too busy looking for food, if they're too busy stressing about whether or not they have enough money to pay for their health care, how can they possibly sleep?" Bertolini says. 

Still, for wealthy executives, money shouldn't be everything in business, he says. 

"We view stock price and compensation as ways of measuring the success of an organization, and I think, because of that, we have a very short-term view of how capitalism works," he says. "At Aetna, we actually say: 'You know what, we're here for the long run. Here are the fundamentals we're investing in, like we did with our employees.'" 

To watch previous episodes of Pioneers, head here.

FDA Sued Over Approval Of Genetically Engineered Salmon

• Plaintiffs argue the federal agency overstepped its authority in approving the genetically modified fish.
• Produced by AquaBounty Technologies, the salmon are engineered to grow twice as fast as wild species.
• Critics worry engineered salmon could prove disastrous for wild salmon populations.

Nearly a dozen fishing and environmental groups have filed suit against the Food and Drug Administration in an effort to block its recent approval of genetically modified salmon.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice, argue that by green-lighting the first-ever genetically altered animal slated for human consumption, the FDA violated the law and ignored potential risks to wild salmon populations, the environment and fishing communities.

"That's one of the major risks here, is the escape of these fish into the wild," George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety, told The Huffington Post. "It could be a final blow to our already imperiled salmon stocks."

Produced by Massachusetts-based company AquaBounty Technologies, the AquAdvantage Salmon is an Atlantic salmon engineered with genes from a Pacific Chinook salmon and a deep water ocean eelpout to grow twice as fast as its conventional counterpart.

Handout / Reuters

An AquAdvantage Salmon is pictured in this undated photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies.

The 64-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges whether the FDA has authority to regulate genetically modified animals as "animal drugs" under the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. It also argues the agency failed to protect the environment and consult wildlife agencies in its review process, as required by federal law, CFS said in a release. 

"I think it's important to note that FDA has gone ahead with this approval over the objections of over 2 million Americans in the comment period," Kimbrell told HuffPost.

In its approval announcement in November, the FDA said it determined "food from AquAdvantage Salmon is as safe to eat and as nutritious as food from other non-GE Atlantic salmon and that there are no biologically relevant differences in the nutritional profile of AquAdvantage Salmon compared to that of other farm-raised Atlantic salmon."

FDA spokeswoman Juli Putnamn told HuffPost in an email that as a matter of policy, the federal agency does not comment on pending litigation.

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images

Fresh Atlantic salmon steaks and fillets at Eastern Market in Washington, D.C. in 2013.

The lawsuit is the latest development in an ongoing and heated debate over genetically modified organisms, their safety and whether genetically engineered foods should be labeled. While proponents say the technology allows agricultural farmers to be more efficient, opponents argue they result in heavy pesticide use and transgenic contamination.

In the case of its GE salmon, AquaBounty says the fish grows to market size using 25 percent less feed than any Atlantic salmon on the market today.

But if the engineered fish were to be released into the wild -- a risk AquaBounty says is eliminated by raising them on land and away from the ocean -- critics worry they might outcompete endangered wild salmon for food and introduce new diseases.

“Once they escape, you can’t put these transgenic fish back in the bag," Dune Lankard, a salmon fisherman and the Center for Biological Diversity’s Alaska representative, said in a release. "They’re manufactured to outgrow wild salmon, and if they cross-breed, it could have irreversible impacts on the natural world. This kind of dangerous tinkering could easily morph into a disaster for wild salmon that will be impossible to undo."

Plaintiffs in the case include Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay and others.

Tesla Unveils Model 3, Its Most Important Electric Car Yet

HAWTHORNE, Calif. -- Electric car manufacturer Tesla unveiled its latest electric car Thursday night -- the hotly anticipated, lower-cost Model 3 sedan.

The much-hyped public presentation of the mid-sized sedan at Tesla's design studio was a historic moment for both the electric car industry and for Elon Musk’s Tesla.

The Model 3, Tesla's fourth production car, is the first one that's aimed at the masses, with a starting price of $35,000. For Tesla, considered the Apple of the automotive industry, the Model 3 has the potential to be its iPhone -- a sexy, mass-market, consumer-priced machine that changes the game.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

This undated photo provided by Tesla Motors shows a silver Model 3 car. The promise of an affordable electric car from Tesla Motors had hundreds of people lining up to reserve one. At a starting price of $35,000 — before federal and state government incentives — the Model 3 is less than half the cost of Tesla's previous models.

If the car becomes as popular and successful as Musk hopes, Tesla stands to become a major consumer brand that helps shepherd the all-electric car era into the mainstream. Musk said at Thursday night's event that 115,000 Model 3s had been ordered in the previous 24 hours.

#TeslaModel3 ! pic.twitter.com/kXnLwO2Rnc

— Matt Ferner (@matthewferner) April 1, 2016

But it may be a bumpy road. The Koch brothers are planning a multimillion-dollar assault on electric vehicles, Tesla’s direct-to-consumer sales model is prohibited in several states, automotive technology and trends are evolving rapidly and there is a possibility that tax incentives -- a key to electric car sales -- will drop by the time the first Model 3s ship in late 2017. The Model 3 isn't the first affordable all-electric vehicle on the market, and the competition is likely to intensify.

Musk said the Model 3 can go from 0 to 60 mph in less than six seconds and will have a range of at least 215 miles on a charge. The car will seat five adults comfortably and will have front and rear trunks, he said.

"Can you fit a seven-foot surfboard in a Model 3? Yes," said Musk.

A quick spin in a Model 3 with a Tesla driver showed the car to be blazingly fast with sporty handling. When the driver pressed the accelerator, the three passengers -- all journalists -- gasped and giggled. 

The back seat was indeed comfortable for two, and had ample room for a third person.

Less than two hours after Musk took the wraps off the car, the number of orders topped 133,000.

133K reservations and counting #TeslaModel3 pic.twitter.com/bmfFedDsIi

— Matt Ferner (@matthewferner) April 1, 2016

Apparently, There's A Place In Hell For Women Who DO Help Each Other

Madeleine Albright came under fire earlier this year for telling women to support Hillary Clinton because "there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other," said the former secretary of state.

Turns out there’s also a place in hell for women who do help each other.

Apparently, when women and minorities promote and hire other women and minorities, they are viewed less favorably by their supervisors and peers, according to some depressing new research published in the March edition of the Academy of Management Journal. 

People assume that women and minorities go out of their way to hire people like them -- but who might not be the best candidates for the job. The only kind of person who can hire a woman or person of color and not face negative consequences at work is a white man, according to the study.

“Basically everyone [surveyed for the study] got penalized for hiring somebody who looked like themselves -- except white guys,” said David Hekman, an associate professor of management at the University of Colorado-Boulder's Leeds School of Business who coauthored the paper.

That’s because white males are unconsciously and consciously still considered model leaders and workers -- they get more leeway, he explained to The Huffington Post. And no one minds much if you hire white guys.

That's partly the reason that a stunning 85 percent of top executives and board members on the S&P 500 are white men, Hekman and co-athor Stefanie Johnson, also a Leeds professor, point out in a piece they wrote for the Harvard Business Review.

This is not a case of the most qualified candidates rising to the top, they said. It's a case of unconscious bias in favor of white men. "You don’t assume that a white guy hires a white guy because they're a white guy," Johnson said. That's because they're de facto, unconsciously considered the best candidates. And now we know, based on this research, that you'll be judged in the best light as a leader if you hire white men.

Hekman and Johnson surveyed 350 executives, asking whether they respected cultural, religious, gender and racial differences. Those executives were then evaluated by their peers and bosses, who judged women and minority executives as less competent when they hired candidates who looked like them.

The researchers also conducted a lab study to gauge what people thought about minorities hiring other minorities. The results were the same: Minorities and women were judged unfavorably for hiring diverse candidates.

You can also look to the real world for examples. Sam's Club CEO Rosalind Brewer was called a racist for explaining to CNN last year that she is committed to hiring diverse candidates for her team, the researchers point out.

DYK that the official stance by @SamsClub is to discriminate against White people as CEO Rosalind Brewer explains https://t.co/aWQrAWzx1m

— Nick Short (@PoliticalShort) December 14, 2015

The study comes at a time where more and more companies and executives are committed to hiring for diversity. Hekman and Johnson emphasized that the results shouldn’t discourage these efforts. Indeed, the research highlights the urgency with which organizations need to figure out how to hire and promote all kinds of people.

The key to doing this, Johnson said, is to figure out ways to remove unconscious biases from the hiring and promotion process. Organizations that do this will end up with more women and minorities. 

You want to make the pathways to hiring and promotion very clear and objective, removing the possibility that these decisions are made based on any reason besides competency. So you don’t promote people for being a “cultural fit,” an ambiguous term that often winds up meaning “guy who looks just like me and also likes beer and golfing.” Instead, you promote the person who increased profits or had the best code. “This way every player has an equal chance,” Johnson said.

California Reaches Deal For $15 Minimum Wage

SACRAMENTO (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown said on Monday he had reached a deal with top legislators and labor leaders to gradually raise the minimum wage to $15, the latest in a wave of minimum wage increases at the state level following a push by Democrats.

The proposal, which still must win approval from moderate lawmakers in the California assembly, would gradually raise the state's minimum wage to $15, but give the governor the right to opt out if the economy faltered.

Such a move would give California the highest statewide minimum wage. The federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour for more than six years.

Raising the minimum wage has cropped up on many Democratic Party candidates' agendas ahead of the November presidential, congressional and state elections. The issue could help mobilize Democratic voters and galvanize support from labor unions.

"An agreement has been reached with key labor leaders, legislative leaders and my administration to raise the minimum wage over time to $15 an hour, making California the first state to do that," Brown said at a press conference in Sacramento.

"It's a matter of economic justice and it makes sense," Brown said.

The deal would commit California to raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022 for large businesses and 2023 for smaller firms.

The measure’s chances of passing the legislature will depend on support from moderate Democrats, who have held up other measures backed by the governor.

Democratic Party presidential hopeful U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by the year 2020.

The idea has been opposed by Republicans and some business groups, who have said a higher minimum would harm small businesses and strain the budgets of government agencies.

Christopher Thornberg, founding partner at Beacon Economics, said increasing the minimum wage was not an effective tool in reducing poverty because those most at risk of falling into poverty tend lose their jobs when employers cut positions.

"This is not costless," Thornberg said. “These are the people that businesses will say, "If I’m going to pay $15 bucks an hour, I’m not going to hire them.'"

Fourteen states and several cities began 2016 with minimum wage increases, typically phasing in raises that will ultimately take them to between $10 and $15 an hour.

 

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein, Robin Respaut and Dan Whitcomb; Writing by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Grant McCool and Alan Crosby)

Tesla Just Quietly Killed Off One Of Its Newest Products

Tesla has retooled its strategy for selling people with solar panels on batteries to store excess energy before the company even sold its first units.

The electric automaker unveiled a new suite of batteries last May, called Powerwalls, for homes and businesses. However, it quietly dropped its 10 kilowatt-hour device, the larger of its two residential batteries. Originally marketed as a backup power supply in case of grid-wide blackout, the $3,500 unit wasn't as affordable as other alternatives, especially given that solar panels are sold separately.

Instead, the company said it plans to focus on its 7 kilowatt-hour Powerwall, meant for storing excess solar energy generated throughout the day for use at night or when the sun isn't shining.

"We have seen enormous interest in the Daily Powerwall worldwide," Tesla wrote in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post on Thursday. "The Daily Powerwall supports daily use applications like solar self-consumption plus backup power applications, and can offer backup simply by modifying the way it is installed in a home. Due to the interest, we have decided to focus entirely on building and deploying the 7 kWh Daily Powerwall at this time."

The 7 kilowatt-hour Powerwall has yet to be released in the United States, though Tesla told HuffPost some have been installed in countries such as Australia.

The company never produced 10 kWh batteries. It didn't seem like they would ever become economical. 

GreenTech Media's Julia Pyper, who first broke the news of the 10 kilowatt-hour Powerwall's being discontinued, wrote: 

Even at Tesla’s low wholesale price, a 500-cycle battery just doesn’t pencil out against the alternatives, especially once the inverter and other system costs are included. State-of-the-art backup generators from companies like Generac and Cummins sell for $5,000 or less. These companies also offer financing, which removes any advantage Tesla might claim with that tactic, as GTM’s Jeff St. John pointed out last spring.

“Even some of the deep cycling lead acid batteries offer 1,000 cycles and cost less than half of the $3,500 price tag for Tesla Powerwall,” said Ravi Manghani, senior energy storage analyst at GTM Research. “For pure backup applications only providing 500 cycles, lead acid batteries or gensets are way more economical.”

The bigger challenge, however, will be changing the current electricity rate structure in the United States. Here, electricity is more expensive during the day, when solar panels generate energy, and cheaper at night. Utility companies will buy consumers’ excess solar generated during peak hours and recirculate it into the power grid. Electricity purchased at night, when solar panels aren’t producing energy, sells at a cheaper rate.

Therefore, there’s little incentive for people to use solar-storage batteries that hang onto energy during the day if they could be selling it at peak prices to the utility companies and buying it back later on the cheap.

“It only makes sense for storage if it’s more expensive to buy electricity at night and sell it back during the day,” Brian Warshay, an analyst for Bloomberg New Energy Finance, told HuffPost last May. “But most people aren’t on those types of rates.”

Even so, this year is expected to be a big year for energy storage as the electrical capacity of renewable energy sources in the U.S. hits new heights. 

"Emerging technologies, cost reductions and supportive policies will make 2016 a breakout year for energy storage," Philippe Bourchard, vice president of business development at the New York-based startup Eos Energy Storage, wrote in a recent blog post. "The industry will see major announcements from utilities and developers regarding major contracts and execution of large-scale projects, transforming the electricity grid as we know it."

Why Levi's Is Giving Away Its Trade Secrets

Levi Strauss & Co. is giving away its special sauce.

The blue-jeans behemoth said Tuesday that it plans to reveal its strategies for reducing water use by 96 percent when making denim, so the tactics can be adopted by competitors across the industry. The announcement came on World Water Day, the holiday designated 23 years ago by the United Nations for celebrating the availability of fresh water. 

“Water is a critical resource for our business, the planet and people around the globe, but usable supply is becoming increasingly scarce,” Michael Kobori, vice president of sustainability at Levi's, said in a statement. “We’ve long been committed to being water stewards, but realize more needs to be done. We’re setting competition aside and encouraging others to utilize these open source tools.”

Levi's introduced its suite of 21 water-saving methods in 2011, including strategies like buying only sustainable cotton and using less water when finishing and washing denim. Since then, the company has conserved more than 1 billion liters of water. If its techniques were to become industry standard, Levi's estimates they could save 50 billion liters by 2020. 

"Making the jeans we wear is a very thirsty business," Brooke Barton, water program director at the nonprofit sustainability group Ceres, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Levi's commitment to open source this technology means that others in the apparel sector have no excuse but to step up their game."

Levi's, whose CEO Chip Bergh famously eschews washing his jeans, said Tuesday that it plans to double-down on its sustainability efforts by 2020, the year many companies have set for overhauls in their supply chains and environmental policies.

By then, the company aims to source 100 percent of its cotton from farms certified by the nonprofit Better Cotton Initiative or from recycled material. Up to 80 percent of all Levi's products will be made with water-saving techniques, trademarked under its Water<Less brand. As part of its partnership with nonprofit The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Foundation, it will eliminate all hazardous chemicals from its supply chain in the next four years. And, as part of an initiative backed by the White House, all corporate employees at the company will complete Project WET water education training.

The idea of allowing competitors behind the curtain in hopes of fostering higher industry standards isn't new.

As far back as the 1960s, Swedish automaker Volvo invented the three-point seat belt and promptly gave away the design to other manufacturers to make all cars safer -- not just its own. 

More recently, in 2010, Nike released a tool featuring many of its environmental design techniques, for free use by other clothing manufacturers. Three years later, the company folded the tool into a free app called Making that draws data from the Nike Materials Sustainability Index.

Nike CEO Mark Parker claims that its Flyknit technology has saved over 3 billion pounds of waste #Nike2016

— HuffPost Sports (@HuffPostSports) March 16, 2016

In June 2014, Tesla pledged not to sue anyone who used the electric carmaker's patented technology "in good faith," in hopes of cultivating a bigger industry for rechargeable vehicles. The argument was that copycat companies would expand the market, and the rising tide would raise all ships.

Levi's move is less about increasing competition and more about sharing strategies it's already developed. It's a refreshing perspective in a time of water crises.