uKeurig Apologizes For Taking Away “My K-Cup” Reusable Coffee Filters, Promises To Bring Them Backr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (m01229)

  When Keurig came out with its new 2.0 machine last year, there was an almost immediate uproar — not only did the system make it impossible to use non-Keurig licensed coffee pods made by other brands, but it did away with its own non-disposable “My K-Cup” reusable coffee filter that cut down on waste and let people brew a pot of whatever kind of coffee they wanted. After admitting that sales of the 2.0 machines were far from great, the company now says it’s sorry it ever took My K-Cup off the market, and will be returning it to shelves.

  Sales of brewers and accessories went down by 23%, the company says, likely due to the restrictions on the 2.0 that angered many customers, reports the Washington Post.

  “We heard loud and clear from consumers who really wanted the ‘My K Cup’ back,” said CEO Brian Kelley during a call with market analysts. “We want consumers to be able to bring any brand and bringing the my cup back allows that.”

  He says that though the device was a “terrific addition” for the consumer, “it wasn’t used a lot.” But he admits that maybe, perhaps people wanted coffee other than Keurig’s brands to drink, saying it was “a nice element to have if they were given coffee as a gift…. We took it away because ‘My K cup” wasn’t going to work with our new system.”

  No you-know-what, Sherlock. Taking away the ability for competitors to sell coffee to Keurig’s customers was quite clearly a business move, but one that the company apparently regrets in the face of consumer backlash and the resulting pile-ups of Keurig 2.0 machines on shelves.

  “Quite honestly, we were wrong,” Kelley said. “We underestimated the passion the consumer had for this. We missed it. We shouldn’t have taken it away. We’re bringing it back.”

  Keurig’s K-Cup screw-up and how it K-pitulated Wednesday to angry consumers [The Washington Post]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uLumber Liquidator Stops Selling Laminate Wood Flooring From China Amid Formaldehyde Investigationsr

4 4 4 9

• Following news reports about, and federal investigations into, claims that some of its laminate wood flooring contains excessive levels of formaldehyde, Lumber Liquidators announced this morning that it has suspended the sale of laminate floors sourced from Chinese manufacturers.

  The company maintains confidence in the China-made flooring it sells, but is pressing pause on sales while it continues to investigate the matter.

  “Despite the initial positive air quality testing results we have received, we believe it is the right decision to suspend the sale of these products.” said Lumber Liquidators CEO Robert Lynch in a statement. “We will work diligently to meet the needs of our customers and to ensure their satisfaction.”

  Formaldehyde is commonly used in the manufacture of laminate flooring, but usually in such small levels that it dissipates quickly. If employed in excess, the chemical can remain in the flooring even after it’s been installed.

  Prolonged, continued exposure to formaldehyde has been linked to numerous health problems ranging from nausea to increased cancer risk. Children are more susceptible than adults to the toxic effects of formaldehyde.

  Lumber Liquidators’ alleged formaldehyde problem first came to light in the U.S. in a 2013 Seeking Alpa report by hedge fund analyst Xuhua Zhou. More recently, the company was thrust into the spotlight by a 60 Minutes story on the issue. Lawsuits and federal investigations soon followed.

  Lumber Liquidators has maintained that believes its flooring suppliers are compliant with safety standards. In today’s statement, the company claims that air quality testing for some of its customers shows that “over 97% of customers’ homes were within the protective guidelines established by the World Health Organization for formaldehyde levels in indoor air.” This statistic is based on the results of approximately 3,400 testing kits received from LL customers with China-sourced flooring in recent months.

  Formaldehyde concerns have also been raised about some flooring sold at home improvement mega chain Lowe’s. A recent report, also from Seeking Alpha’s Zhou, alleged that at least one brand of flooring sold at the store tested positive for high levels of formaldehyde.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uTwo Major For-Profit Education Chains Announce Closures, Sales Of Dozens Of Campusesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (RiddimRyder)

  The for-profit education sector is getting a bit smaller after two of the largest proprietary college chains – Career Education Corporation and Education Management Corporation – revealed plans to close or sell dozens of campuses across the country.

  Career Education Corporation – which operates a wide range of for-profit programs including those for adult learners and career colleges – announced Wednesday that it would close or sell all of its campuses with the exception of its University Group.

  The company said in a statement that the sale and closures are part of a broad restructuring plan to “focus its resources and attention on its universities – Colorado Technical and American InterContinental – where the company has significant opportunities to continue to provide quality higher education to the adult student market.”

  CEC will close all 14 branches of its Sanford-Brown and Sanford-Brown Institute campuses and sell its Briarcliffe College, Brooks Institute and Missouri College brands, affecting roughly 8,600 currently enrolled students.

  The company plans to immediately begin teach-outs for both Sanford-Brown campuses and online programs. Under such programs, the campuses will continue to offer courses, student services and placement assistance until all current students have graduated. However, no new enrollments will be granted.

  The gradual discontinuation of the schools is expected to take 18 months or longer, depending on the programs.

  As for the sale of Briarcliffe College, Brooks Institute and Missouri College, CEC says it has signed a definitive agreement to sell Brooks Institute, the deal is currently pending accredit or and regulatory approval but is still looking for buyers for the other campuses.

  “Discussions with interested parties continue for Briarcliffe College and Missouri College,” the company said. “Institutions that are not sold will be taught-out.”

  This isn’t the first time that CEC has sloughed off some of its campuses. Back in 2012, the company closed 23 of its 90 schools and recently put its LeCordon Bleu brand of cooking schools on the sales block.

  Many of CEC’s previously school closures followed enrollment declines based on the company’s regulatory and legal challenges stemming from accusations it inflated job placement rates for its graduates. Those issues and financial difficulties led the company to be placed on the Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list this year.

  The company was placed on the lowest tier of monitoring, Cash Monitoring 1 (HCM1), in which the college receives federal student aid funds from the government through an advance payment system.

  CEC isn’t the only major for-profit chain looking for a turnaround, Education Management Corporation also announced Wednesday that it would shut down 15 of its 52 Art Institute campuses across the country, the Pittsburgh Business Times reports.

  The closures mainly involve off-site learning or branch locations in cities where the company has more than one Art Institute location.

  In all, the closures will affect nearly 5,400 students at campuses in Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, New York, Utah, California, Washington D.C., Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

  Campuses on the chopping block will undergo a teach-out program, which allow currently enrolled students to complete their course of study. The process is expected to take two to three years to complete.

  The company says that when possible students at Art Institute campuses slated for closure will be invited to transfer to another location.

  “Our primary concern is ensuring that currently enrolled students receive a high-quality education that will equip them with the skills and expertise they need to earn a meaningful return on their educational investment,” a spokesman for the company tells the Business Times.

  EDMC came to the decision to close the campuses as a matter of realigning the organization with the realities of the education environment, the spokesman says.

  “That alignment demands a comprehensive and strategic examination of our schools and programs to ensure we are fully focused on providing the best student, graduate and employer outcomes,” he tells the Business Times. “As a result of that examination – and as the next step in our transformation – we, together with the respective local boards of trustees, have made the difficult decision to cease new enrollments at a select number of our institutions.”

  Like Career Education Corporation, EDMC – which is partially owned by Goldman Sachs – has faced its share of issues in recent years, from falling enrollments and financial difficulties and increased scrutiny from state and federal regulators.

  Back in 2011, the company was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice and four states. That lawsuit accused the company of violating a federal law against paying recruiters based on the number of students they manage to enroll.

  Also like CEC, EDMC was revealed to be on the lowest tier of the Dept. of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list this year.

  EDMC and CEC’s decision to either sell or close campuses is just another sign of issues plaguing the for-profit college industry.

  In recent years, the industry has come under stern scrutiny from federal regulators and law makers. The past five years have been punctuated with changes to schools’ often excessive advertising budgets, damning reports of abuse, and soon-to-be-implemented rules requiring for-profit programs to demonstrate their effectiveness.

  Perhaps the largest indicator of change for the industry was the prolonged collapse of former for-profit heavyweight Corinthian Colleges Inc., which just last week closed its remaining campuses and filed for bankruptcy.

  Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who has led a charge aiming to protect students from the allegedly deceptive for-profit sector, said in a statement [PDF] that the recently announced closures and sales of EDMC and CEC schools is likely a sign of things to come.

  “I have said many times, the collapse of Corinthian Colleges was the canary in the coal mine for the for-profit college industry,” Durbin said. “The continued upheaval in the wake of Corinthian’s collapse is a long-overdue reckoning for an industry that profits off of students while sticking them with a worthless degree and insurmountable debt.”

  EDMC to close 15 Art Institute locations [Pittsburgh Business Times]
  Career Education Corporation Announces Strategy to Focus Resources on Its University Group [CEC]

   

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uCourt: NSA Bulk Phone Data Collection Program Is Illegalr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mike Saechang)

  A federal appeals court has ruled this morning that the NSA’s controversial bulk phone data collection program is in violation of federal law.

  The ruling (PDF) from the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York is a response to the lawsuit that was dismissed in 2013, when the U.S. District Court in New York held that the NSA’s program was legal. The plaintiffs — the ALCU, mainly — appealed, and the three judges of the appeals court overruled the finding of the lower court.

  “Because we find that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized,” circuit judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote, “we vacate the decision below dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants’ constitutional arguments.”

  With the decision to dismiss the lawsuit vacated and remanded back to the lower court, the ACLU can now pursue its arguments against the NSA and Department of Justice.

  The specific law in question is Section 215 of the Patriot Act — at this moment, up for renewal or alteration in Congress. The NSA has justified their expansive, warrantless phone metadata collection — who called whom, when, from where, and for how long — under Section 215 for years.

  But, the appeals court holds, “[Section] 215 and the statutory scheme to which it relates do not preclude judicial review, and that the bulk telephone metadata program is not authorized by § 215.”

  The court recognizes that metadata have always existed and have always been available to investigators. For example, anyone can look at the outside of an envelope and make some shrewd deductions about the contents. But the scope and structure of the NSA’s phone metadata program make it different:

  [T]he structured format of telephone and other technology‐related metadata, and the vast new technological capacity for large‐scale and automated review and analysis, distinguish the type of metadata at issue here from more traditional forms.  The more metadata the government collects and analyzes, furthermore, the greater the capacity for such metadata to reveal ever more private and previously unascertainable information about individuals.  Finally, as appellants and amici point out, in today’s technologically based world, it is virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to avoid creating metadata about himself on a regular basis simply by conducting his ordinary affairs.

  The court’s ruling ends on a note of caution. “This case serves as an example of the increasing complexity of balancing the paramount interest in protecting the security of our nation … with the privacy interests of its citizens in a world where surveillance capabilities are vast and where it is difficult if not impossible to avoid exposing a wealth of information about oneself to those surveillance mechanisms,” the ruling concludes.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uWhole Foods Planning Lower-Cost Chain Aimed At — You Guessed It — Millennialsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (AlishaV)

  The magic “M” word is making changes in the consumer world yet again: This time that all-consuming desire to reach millennials that we’ve seen everywhere from fast food to department stores has struck Whole Foods, prompting the company to announce a lower-cost chain designed especially to lure in the younger set.

  The company announced that it’s going to launch a sister chain of stores that are smaller and targeted at younger shoppers, reports the Wall Street Journal.

  While it’s unclear whether employees at the chain will communicate entirely by hashtags and ironic graphic tees, Whole Foods says prices will be lower at the new stores, which will also cost less to run and be (sigh) “hip, cool, and tech-oriented,” co-founder and co-Chief Executive John Mackey said.

  He didn’t give any other details, such how many stores are planned, or whether or not there will be a lingo handbook for higher-ups to translate the mysterious murmurings of millennials, but did say Whole Foods is signing leases right now and will have more to share at an investor event this summer.

  “We’re still light years ahead of others, so it’s going to take them a while to catch up,” Mackey added, noting that while there is now more competition with others jumping on the organic- and natural-food bandwagon, Whole Foods has been driving that wagon for a while.

  But some analysts are concerned that Whole Foods won’t be able to grow to 1,200 stores in the U.S. from its current 417 and foster these new cheaper chains. Those millennial shops could cannibalize the main stores’ sales, critics say.

  “You have to be willing to evolve with the marketplace,” Mackey said. “You can’t not do that because it might possibly take sales from your existing flagship brand.”

  Instead, the company says the new stores will work alongside the existing brand to bring in younger people who don’t want to pay Whole Foods prices but want healthy, good food that comes from ethically sourced places that the store is known for. It’s an “and” to the brand, not an “or,” Mackey noted.

  Whole Foods Plans Lower-Cost Chain [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uNearly 1-In-3 Privately Insured Americans Received A Surprise Medical Bill In Last Two Yearsr

4 4 4 9

• When you visit your doctor for a blood test, get an ultrasound, or have surgery at a medical facility that accepts your insurance, you likely expect that you’ll only be required to go out-of-pocket for the co-pays and deductibles detailed in your health plan. But the results of a new survey show that there’s a decent chance you’ll be hit with a surprise charge or two when those medical bills finally arrive.

  According to the results of a nationally representative online survey by our colleagues at the Consumer Reports National Research Center, 30% of privately insured Americans received a medical bill during the last two years in which their health plan paid less than they expected.

  

  The majority of those who received unexpected bills say the amount was higher than anticipated.

  When it came to privately insured individuals who visited an emergency room or underwent surgery during that same time period, nearly 37% received a bill that was more than they were anticipating.

  LOOPHOLES IN YOUR COVERAGE

  Barring cases when it’s not just possible, most insured consumers only see physicians or go to hospitals listed as in-network by their insurers. So why are many patients receiving invoices for hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars in unexpected charges?

  In some cases, loopholes in the health insurance system have created a scenario in which consumers are blindsided by their medical expenses they simply can’t avoid.

  “Even if you go to a hospital in your network, the unfortunate truth is that there is no guarantee that all your treatment — whether it’s the radiologist, anesthesiologist or lab work — will be treated as in-network,” explains DeAnn Friedholm, Director of Health Reform for Consumers Union.

  For example, while a patient’s insurance may cover the full cost of a planned surgery and the time spent in the hospital, the lab furnishing test results for the hospital or a specialist called in to assist with the procedure might not fall under the insurance company’s coverage. The patient’s insurance won’t necessarily cover the full cost of these out-of-network providers, so the patient is left with debt they could never have anticipated.

  COSTLY ASSUMPTIONS

  Nearly 63% of the consumers in the survey say they assume that doctors at an in-network hospital were considered in-network by their insurance company. But that’s simply not the case.

  In the past two years, nearly one-in-seven Americans say they have found out that a doctor, lab or facility they thought was in-network was actually out-of-network.

  The use of out-of-network facilities and consultants by in-network hospitals and doctors likely contributed to the fact that one-in-four consumers say the recently received a bill from a doctor they didn’t expect to receive one from.

  The overwhelming majority of survey respondents say insurance companies and hospitals could do better when it comes to preparing consumers for the reality of hefty, unexpected bills. Nearly 85% of them believe that hospitals should be required to notify patients if a doctor or technician involved in their procedure will be out-of-network.

  While the survey lends credence to reports that surprise medical bills are becoming an increasingly prevalent issue for millions of consumers each year, it also points out that most of the time those consumers don’t know what to do about the hefty bills.

  CONFUSION LEADS TO COMPLAINTS… AND MORE CONFUSION

  

  Most survey respondents said they were very likely or somewhat likely to complain about unexpected medical bills.[click to enlarge]

  About 62% of privately insured consumers say they are very likely or somewhat likely to complain about an unexpected medical bill.

  But for those who did complain about their bills about 53% say the issue was either not resolved to their satisfaction or not resolved at all, with 57% of the group eventually paying the bill in full.

  Part of the problem related to the unsatisfied or unresolved issues likely stems from consumers’ lack of knowledge of the proper channels for airing their grievances.

  When faced with a billing problem, 46% say they would first contact their health insurance plan, while 31% say they would contact the doctor, hospital or health care provider to resolve the issue.

  While both of those options might result in a lower bill, it also illustrates that consumers are often unaware of their health insurance rights and what state entities are available as resources.

  

  Most consumers would start the complaint process by contacting their insurance provider. [click to enlarge]

  According to the survey, 72% of consumers are unsure if they have the right to appeal to the state or an independent medical expert if their health plan refuses coverage for medical services they think they need.

  Additionally, 67% of consumers don’t know which state entity is responsible for resolving issues with health insurance billing, while 87% don’t know the state agency or department tasked with handling complaints about health insurance.

  SO WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO COMPLAIN TO?

  To assist those facing unforeseen medical bills, Consumers Union has launched an online tool that allows users to find the right resources for assistance in their state.

  In addition to providing consumers with needed tools, Consumers Union is also supporting legislation in California and Texas that would strengthen protections against these surprise bills.

  “Opponents of legislation to strengthen consumer protections against surprise medical bills often say this isn’t a big problem for consumers and point to a lack of complaints at state insurance departments,” Friedholm says. “This survey clearly shows that consumers want to complain about bills, but don’t know who to contact or even if they should be complaining.”

  Consumer Reports Survey Finds Nearly One Third of Privately Insured Americans Hit with Surprise Medical Bills [Consumers Union]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uTests Of Kale In McDonald’s Restaurants Are Really Happeningr

4 4 4 9

• A few months ago, we shared the news that McDonald’s might be offering breakfast bowls that include the dark leafy vegetable kale. That was news not only because kale and McDonald’s seem like a weird fit, but also because the chain specifically made fun of kale in a commercial from just a few months ago.

  Well, to be fair, what they really said is that kale will never taste like a Big Mac, which is true. (Some people would call that a selling point for kale.) That commercial is no longer available to the public on YouTube, but you can see it here:

  Meanwhile, Reuters confirms that nine restaurants in southern California are testing McDonald’s new breakfast offering: bowls comprised of turkey sausage, egg white, kale, and spinach, or eggs and chorizo. They’ll cost about $4, and will appear on the nationwide menu if they’re successful. When the chain is trying to pare down its menu to placate franchisees and make its offerings easier for customers to understand, though, what breakfast items will be removed so the bowls can take their place?

  Up in Canada, there’s a report that McDonald’s may start selling three kale-based salads. If true, that fits with the breakfast bowl idea and with the chain’s overall attempt to sell food that seems healthier and less processed.

  McDonald’s Southern California restaurants testing kale [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist