четверг, 5 ноября 2015 г.

uChipotle Still Doesn’t Know Which Ingredient Caused E. Coli Contamination In 8 Restaurantsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Josh Bassett)
    While Chipotle continues to deep-clean its restaurants in the Seattle and Portland metropolitan areas after an E. coli outbreak that has now sickened 39 people, the company and public health authorities are still working to find a common link between what all of the infected people ate. They may never find the exact cause: some foodborne illness outbreaks remain unsolved.

    So far, they think that the pathogen got into the food aond into customers through a vegetable, but they haven’t been able to connect that vegetable to all of the diners yet.

    I learned last year while attempting to report food poisoning from a restaurant that there isn’t much that your local authorities can do if you didn’t visit a doctor’s office or hospital during your illness so they could take samples. (Yes, we mean blood and feces.) If you’ve eaten at one of the affected restaurants and come down with symptoms up to ten days later, check with your doctor and make sure that you mention this specific outbreak.

    It’s hard to get away for a trip to the doctor when bloody diarrhea is keeping you busy, since that’s a basic symptom of E. coli infection. The actual number of illnesses is probably much higher, but people who weren’t sick enugh for hospitalization most likely won’tbe cuo

    The youngest victim identified so far has been 5 years old, but the strain in this outbreak is a different one from the strain that affected Jack in the Box restaurants decades ago, causing kidney problems in small children that were sometimes deadly. That can be a result of E. coli infections in general, but this strain hasn’t made any kids sick. Yet.

    Chipotle’s E. coli outbreak threatens sales, emboldens critics [Reuters]
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESTAURANT CLOSURE UPDATE [Chipotle]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uVideo Shows What Not To Do At McDonald’s When You’re Tired Of Waiting For Your Changer


4 4 4 9
  • (via KMSP.com)
    Although we don’t like how often we report on scuffles, brawls and other fights at fast food restaurants, we like to think that each example gives us the opportunity to learn something. In the case of a McDonald’s customer who ended up in a tie-grabbing, right-hook flying kerfuffle with a worker in Minneapolis, the lesson to be learned may be: exhibit patience when waiting for your change.

    Though the stories vary between the McDonald’s employee working a Minneapolis drive-thru and his customer over who started the fight, a video shot by a fellow customer shows exactly how heated things got.

    A store manager is seen grappling for more than a minute through the window of the drive-thru with the customer, who is clutching the worker’s tie in his hand while receiving blows to the head.

    The manager’s family told KMSP.com (warning: video contains link that autoplays) that the customer got upset because it was taking too long for the cashier who’d been working the window to make change for a $100 bill, and that some of the cash then fell on the ground during the handover.

    “The guy just got irate and spit on my son’s face,” the store manager’s father told the station. “Then he went to grab at him and he grabbed at my son’s tie. My son was trying to grab back at him and he had to put the quarter pounders on him to get him off him.”

    The customer tells a different story, claiming that the manager got very angry and he was “kinda knocked out” by the punches.

    “I tried to hold onto his tie just for self-defense I guess,” he told the news station.

    The men continued to fight in the parking lot before police arrived to bust up the brawl and take the customer to the hospital to treat minor injuries. It’s unclear if any charges have been filed.

    VIDEO: McDonald’s drive-thru customer chokes worker [KMSP.com]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWells Fargo To Pay $81.6M To Homeowners In Bankruptcy For Failure To Provide Payment Noticesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart)

    Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $81.6 million in relief to homeowners after the bank repeatedly failed to provide them with proper legal notices during bankruptcy proceedings.

    The payment is the result of a settlement between the bank and the Department of Justice’s U.S. Trustee Program over allegations that the financial institution denied homeowners the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of mortgage payment increases.

    The DOJ announced the deal Thursday, noting that the lender’s failure to give borrowers timely notice of payment hikes or reductions violated a federal bankruptcy rule aimed at ensuing proper accounting of consumers’ costs in bankruptcy.

    If a borrower has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, mortgage lenders are required to give them 21 days notice before any adjustment to their monthly payment.

    Wells Fargo acknowledges that it failed to do this in a timely manner for more than 100,000 payment change notices. Additionally, the bank concedes that, between Dec. 2011 and March 2015, more than 18,000 escrow analyses involving the accounts of nearly 68,000 bankrupt homeowners were not performed as quickly as they should have been.

    According to the settlement, which is subject to court approval, the $81.6 million payments will be divided between homeowners depending on their cases and mortgage status:

    • $53.6 million will be paid to more than 42,00 homeowners whose payments increased because of the banks omission of notices.

    The payments – which average $1,254 per homeowner – will be in the form of a credit to the homeowner’s mortgage account in a lump sum.

    • $10 million of the settlement will be paid by crediting homeowners’ accounts at the end of their bankruptcy cases.

    • $1.5 million will be refunded to 3,000 homeowners where notices of decreased monthly payments were not provided.

    • $1 million is earmarked for 2,400 homeowners whose monthly payments did not decrease despite meeting escrow shortages.

    • $4.5 million will be paid by crediting the mortgage escrow accounts of about 6,000 homeowners who did not receive timely escrow statements.

    • $4 million will be paid to about 12,000 homeowners by crediting mortgage accounts in the amount of $333, where Wells Fargo failed to timely perform an escrow analysis.

    • $4 million will be refunded in cash to about 6,000 homeowners who did not receive timely escrow statements and whose escrow accounts contained surpluses that Wells Fargo had not refunded or credited toward the next year’s escrow payment.

    • $3 million in remediation to about 8,000 homeowners has already been completed by Wells Fargo for certain violations.

    In addition to the monetary settlement, Wells Fargo also will change internal operations and submit to oversight by an independent compliance reviewer.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWhy Emergency Rooms Are A Hotbed For Surprise Medical Billsr


4 4 4 9
  • When you head into the emergency room, you might assume that the doctors you see are hospital employees who accept the same insurance plans as their employer. But nearly two-thirds of hospitals now staff their ERs with freelance physicians who might not accept your insurance plan, meaning you’ll be on the hook for whatever your insurer doesn’t pay. In addition to the potential added financial burden, some patients now have to drive far out of their way to find an ER that won’t hit them with a surprise medical bill.

    Melanie*, who lives in California, is one of these patients. After a series of surprise bills from out-of-network ER doctors at otherwise in-network hospitals, she realized the only way to avoid the unexpected sticker shock was to look outside her area for emergency care.

    “I know that our local hospital doctors do not contract with my insurance,” Melanie tells Consumerist. “I was having chest pain for several days, and chose to not go to the local hospital but to go to one farther away because I had run into issues at the local hospital with balance-billing.”

    As we’ve discussed before, “balance-billing” is the practice by which out-of-network doctors will bill patients for the balance that remains after the insurance companies pays out its contractually obligated amount to the hospital.

    “Something we fear constantly is getting hurt locally and having to be transported… to the closest ER.”

    In California, your protection against balance-billing depends on which type of plan you have and who regulates your insurer. Consumers covered by HMOs and PPO insurance plans licensed by the California Department of Managed Health Care are protected from balance-billing for ER visits.

    But if the PPO or any other insurance plan is regulated by the California Department of Insurance, state law does not protect an ER patient from balance-billing.

    This inconsistency in California law leads to some patients erroneously being billed for balances that their HMO should be negotiating. But if you’re like Melanie and your plan is not exempt from balance-billing, it’s up to you to either pay up or try to work out a deal with the doctor.

    And in Melanie’s experience that drawn-out, tedious task has led to significant changes for her family and their medical care.

    “It’s really changed what we do in emergencies,” she says. “Something we fear constantly is getting hurt locally and having to be transported via ambulance when you do not have control of where they take you. They will go to the closest ER. And that ER for us at home does not have contracted doctors.”

    In the cases where Melanie and her family do have a choice, they now bypass their local hospital – which is about 10 minutes away – for one that’s about 30 minutes away. While that might not seem too far out-of-the-way for a doctor’s visit, any additional drive time — which can vary greatly due to finicky California traffic conditions — is a cause for concern in a medical emergency.

    “One of the biggest problems besides time is that to get to the further ER, you need to go on the freeway that is very congested and full of accidents,” she says. “It’s not a safe route. The closer ER is in town and on surface streets.”

    When the family was on a trip last fall, Melanie suffered a concussion. Because of her previous balance-billing experience she knew to call the closest hospital to see if doctors were in-network. They weren’t.

    Melanie and her family ended up driving two hours to a smaller healthcare provider with in-network physicians.

    A Common Problem

    Image courtesy of Red and Jonny

    While Melanie has been lucky to have the time to check in advance to find out if her insurance will be accepted, many medical emergencies are time-sensitive, leaving little room for patients to call around and inquire about coverage.

    Our colleagues at Consumers Union have already heard from more than 1,600 individuals with personal stories related to unexpected, out-of-network ER charges. Most of these cases occurred during emergencies where time was of the essence.

    But whether the end result was a quick stitch-up or a complicated surgery that required weeks in a hospital bed, these stories nearly always ended the same: with a hefty and unexpected bill.

    • Lillian, from South Carolina, was taken to the hospital in September after suffering a seizure at work. At the local ER, which was in-network, she was given a battery of tests and seen by several doctors, one of which was out-of-network.

    But because she was taken to the hospital during an emergency, she had no way to know that one of her doctors wasn’t covered by her insurance and no one informed her before being seen by the particular physician.

    Shortly after the visit, Lillian received a nearly $800 bill for the doctor who she says was only in her room for a short time.

    Lillian provided Consumerist with a screenshot of her recent surprise medical bill. She has yet to negotiate the cost with the out-of-network doctor.

    “I talked to the doctor maybe three minutes while I was there, which seems ridiculous,” Lillian tells Consumerist. “As far as I know, everyone else was in-network. I had a CT scan, 33 blood tests, chest X-rays, and hip and leg scans. But that’s the only bill I received.”

    As with other patients who receive out-of-network bill from ER physicians, Lillian is responsible to cover the costs.

    “I was shocked,” she says. “It’s not my fault the doctor wasn’t in-network. They said that I could call the insurance company and try to get them to pay for part of the bill.”

    • Peter, from Orlando, says he received a $735 bill for an out-of-network physician after a recent visit to the ER for severe chest pain.

    Unlike Lillian, who was only in the hospital for a short period of time, Peter’s stay lasted six days and included surgery.

    While all his other costs were covered as he’d expected, daily visits from one out-of-network doctor resulted in Peter’s surprise bill.

    “All the other doctors at the hospital were in-network,” he recalls. “The office said I had no choice, I had to go with the doctor who was there at the time. It’s a good thing the surgeon and others were in-network, or I might have to pay thousands of dollars.”

    • Across the country in Texas, Pamela says she specifically asked the ER if her plan would cover everything before her husband was seen. While the hospital assured her they were considered in-network through her insurance, she later received a $1,000 surprise bill from an out-of-network physician who treated her husband.

    “This is such a ripoff because the hospital knew its providers were not all in-network,” she says.

    Although the bill was far more than Pamela was expecting to pay, she says the experience taught her to do her own research.

    “When I recently was scheduled for surgery, I knew to ask questions ahead of time, but the hospital did not make it easy,” she says. “I had to dig to find out the name of the anesthesia provider they used and call that provider separately to verify network coverage for my insurance.”

    Freelance Physicians

    Image courtesy of James LeVeque

    The likely cause for Melanie, Lillian, Peter, Pamela and thousands of others’ hefty out-of-network ER bills comes down to the changing medical landscape and the contracts that come along with it.

    According to the New York Times, nearly 65% of hospitals contract out ER physicians — often through physician networks.

    Because these doctors are brought on as independent contractors, it’s often up to them — or the physicians group through which they are contracted — whether or not they choose to accept the same insurance plans as the hospitals in which they work.

    Chi Chi Wu, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, says this is an issue that advocates have seen more of in recent years, with physicians at times deliberately refusing to negotiate plans and then driving up consumer costs.

    One medical billing expert tells Consumerist that negotiations often, but not always, work when insurance companies propose a contract that will include payment rates in response to a provider’s request to become or stay-in network with them.

    The provider can then accept or reject the contract, or keep negotiating. When they aren’t able to keep working on a deal, the doctor is not covered by that provider and patients under that plan are then subject to the out-of-network costs.

    These sorts of negotiations aren’t just happening with ER physicians, they also occur in a number of other medical specialties. But unlike other types of physicians, who sometimes schedule patients out months in advance, ER doctors are in a particular position of having a captive audience that often hasn’t had the time to research whether an individual doctor will or won’t accept their insurance plan.

    “If a patient is shopping around for a dermatologist to get a mole removed, it’s unlikely they’re going to ‘accidentally’ wind up at an out-of-network dermatologist since they’ll look for one that’s in network,” the billing expert explains to Consumerist. “But if you’re calling 9-1-1, you aren’t going to be able to shop around for an ER or ambulance company who’s in network.”

    According to a 2014 Center for Public Policy Priorities report [PDF] on balance-billing in Texas, researchers found that ER physicians accounted for the highest share of out-of-network billing at in-network hospitals.

    Nearly half of Texas hospitals that accepted United Healthcare insurance had no in-network physicians working in their emergency rooms, according to the report. More than two-thirds of the ER billing at these hospitals was for out-of-network doctors.

    More evidence of surprise emergency room bills surfaced earlier this year in Hawaii, where several patients shared stories with Hawaii News Now of receiving hundreds — sometimes thousands — of dollars in bills after one particular physicians network, Emergency Medicine Physicians [EMP], and their insurance provider, Hawaii Medical Assurance Association [HMAA], failed to agree on contract terms.

    In response to the public outcry and media reports, the two entities eventually came to an agreement and announced HMAA would re-process all claims with EMP for patients affected by the initial contract termination.

    While it might be easy to place the blame for failed negotiations on insurance companies’ and physicians’ greed, Mark Reiter, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, tells Consumerist that this simply isn’t the case.

    “In my experience, the groups do anything in their power to remain in-network,” he says. “The last thing they want to do is go out-of-network because they understand how burdensome that is for patients.”

    Reiter contends that a vast majority of freelance ER physicians currently in hospitals are in-network and only view going out-of-network as a last resort.

    But he does acknowledge that these out-of-network docs do exist, likening the negations to a David versus Goliath matchup.

    “What you have are health insurers, these huge companies, and then you have a physicians group that has 15 to 20 doctors that need to negotiate,” Reiter explains. “Sometimes the insurer will offer a deal that’s take-it-or-leave-it. That contract can be fair or it’s not fair at all. So if the group thinks it’s not fair, they will try to negotiate in good faith. Unfortunately, it becomes something they can’t agree on and the group has no other recourse than to be out-of-network.”

    Making matters worse, Reiter says, some of the physicians groups often deal with five, 10 or 15 insurance companies at a particular time, making it difficult to simply settle on less favorable terms.

    “Physician groups are heavily motivated. They want to be in-network,” Reiter says.

    An Unfair Playing Field?

    Image courtesy of Tracy O

    The positive resolution of the cases in Hawaii is not typical. More often, patients are left with few options other than pleading with the doctor and insurance company to reach a deal.

    As Melanie told us earlier, she has had some luck finding out in advance about a doctor’s in-network status, but it often just comes down to the luck of the draw.

    Finding out that the doctors are in-network before heading to the ER can be difficult for two reasons.

    First off, in most cases the need to visit an emergency room is, well, an emergency and patients may not exactly have the time to call around while they are bleeding, feverish, concussed, or otherwise impaired.

    When Melanie dislocated her shoulder while in Southern California, an ambulance was called.

    “I didn’t know where I was going,” she said. “That doctor happened to be in-network. But again, like any time this sort of thing happens, you hold you breath.”

    Other times she’s tried to find out the status of coverage before being seen in an ER and was shot down. She attributes hospitals’ potential liability for their general reluctance to be transparent.

    “I’ve asked what physicians contract with them and they won’t reveal that information,” she explains. “Hospitals have policies in line not to give that information because if it’s truly an emergency they would be liable if you left the hospital.”

    And even if an insurer or a hospital is able to provide information before heading to the ER, it’s not always foolproof.

    That was the case for Melanie when she was on a business trip a few years ago.

    “I was traveling during Christmas and had a high fever and flu symptoms,” she says. “I called my insurance to find out if there were urgent care options in the area.”

    The provider told her to go to a certain hospital. Unfortunately, the physician she saw wasn’t covered and the visit ended with another hefty bill for Melanie.

    Is It A Real Emergency?

    Image courtesy of Plankton 4:20

    Another option for consumers is to determine whether or not their situation really constitutes an emergency. The difference could mean thousands of dollars in medical bills.

    Some insurance plans make special accommodations for emergency visits — they’ll cover the costs no matter the hospital or doctor’s in-network status, but if the insurer believes that an ER visit wasn’t really a medical emergency, it’s not as likely to be so generous.

    Under the Affordable Care Act’s “Prudent Layperson” Standard, a medical emergency is defined as a condition with acute symptoms of sufficient severity that a person who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in: placing the health of the individual, or their unborn child, in serious jeopardy; serious impairment of bodily functions; or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.

    Unfortunately, insurance plans may not see each visit to the emergency room as meeting this standard. When that happens, most health plans will only pay the amount listed for out-of-network providers, with the balance of the doctor’s fee becoming the obligation of the patient — and another surprise medical bill is born.

    Fighting The Costs

    Image courtesy of Travis Modisette

    Melanie has successfully negotiated down some of the bills from out-of-network ER doctors, but only after a “long, drawn-out, stressful fight.”

    In one case, she spent a significant amount of time just trying to reach the physicians group. According to Melanie, they only accepted calls a few hours out of the day, “And the line was constantly busy. It got really frustrating. You feel like you’ve been wronged.”

    Eventually, her insurance company went through the lengthy appeals process; letters were exchanged and the issue was put to rest, although she still ended up paying nearly $100 in extra costs.

    “It’s infuriating,” she says. “In one letter, they told us we should go to in-network doctors.”

    In all of Melanie’s experiences, she’s learned a few things she thinks other patients might find helpful.

    “You have to demand and stand up for yourself,” she says. “You have to not be nice a lot, and that’s not typically in personality.”

    Additionally, while fighting the bills can be “very complicated and tiresome,” it’s sometimes the only recourse.

    “I would say, for sure, get on the phone with your insurance company, file appeals, tell them that you are not getting the Department of Insurance invoked,” she says. “I think you can get pretty far in by fighting and appealing.”

    *Per her request, we have not used Melanie’s actual name.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uBanks Ditching Online Security Images Some Experts Call “Worse Than Useless”r


4 4 4 9
  • (Flyinace2000)
    When you log into your bank account online, you might see an image of a birdhouse, or a teapot, or some other object you selected when you signed up. Those pictures are supposed to help keep a customer’s account safe, by assuring them that the web page they’re viewing is, in fact, the bank’s website and not a scammy fake. But as cybercriminals are catching on, banks are choosing to ditch the images in favor of other security measures.

    Fraudsters have been learning new tricks to get around security images, like scraping information from a screen and later replicating the photo on a malicious website, reports MarketWatch, rendering the images ineffective.

    To that end, a study from Carnegie Mellon University found that though security images are designed to protect users from phishing attacks — entering their credentials on spoofed sites designed to trick users into thinking they’re legitimate — 75% of the 482 participants entered their passwords on a website lacking a security image.

    “I would call [security images] worse than useless,” Avivah Litan, vice president of information security and privacy at the Stamford, Conn.-based research company Gartner Inc. told MarketWatch “That bad guy is just sitting on your machine waiting for you to log in and look at the image, and then they’re in.”

    Bank of America got rid of what it calls SiteKeys this summer, noting that they are “no longer as relevant given changes in the landscape,” according to a bank spokesman. BofA switched to a two-factor authentication system that sends customers a one-time passcode by email or text that has to be entered along their username and password.

    Barclaycard is doing away with security images as well, pledging that signing in will soon become “quicker and easier without sacrificing account security.” The bank will also use the two-factor authentication method and offer to email, text or call customers with a passcode when they log in from a new device.

    There are those holding fast to the security images, however, including U.S. Bank, which says it uses them along with other security features.

    “Many of our customers appreciate the added layer of protection that the security images provide,” a spokeswoman said.

    Banks find online ‘security images’ offer little protection [MarketWatch]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uAmerican Airlines Offering Some Travelers Free Flights To China After Glitchr


4 4 4 9
  • (yooperann)

    For five hours in mid-March world travelers were able to book American Airlines flights from select U.S. cities to China for bargain prices because of a glitch. While the carrier honored tickets that had been paid for in full, it canceled hundreds of trips that were placed on a 24-hour price hold. Now, as part of an agreement with the Department of Transportation, those passengers are eligible for a free – or significantly discounted – trip to China. 

    The agreement [PDF] puts an end to a months-long investigation into whether the airline violated the 24-hour reservation hold rule and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by not honoring erroneously discounted ticket prices that had yet to be paid for.

    During the technical error, which occurred between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. (EST) on March 17, American’s website offered business class tickets to Shanghai or Beijing, China for a base fare of $0 to $20.

    The full fare for the mistakenly priced tickets, including taxes, fees, and carrier-imposed fees, ranged from $400 to $800 per ticket. This price represented a severely discounted trip when compared to the average full-fare of a business class ticket for the cities which typically ranges from $4,500 to $5,000.

    In all, 1,194 reservations for 1,634 passengers were either put on hold for 24 hours or booked.

    The crux of the issue settled in this week’s agreement involves the 605 reservations for approximately 830 passengers who placed the sale price tickets on a 24-hour hold.

    DOT guidelines [PDF] on the 24-hour reservation requirement, which has been in effect since 2012, states that as long as a customer books a non-refundable ticket at least seven days ahead of the scheduled departure, an airline is required to offer one of two options: allow that customer to change or cancel the trip within 24 hours without penalty, or hold that reservation at the current price for 24 hours without payment.

    American Airlines subscribes to the latter option. The problem with the price glitch is that after the five-hour issue was found, the carrier canceled the reservations placed on hold before the 24-hour time limit — a violation of DOT guidelines.

    According to the consent order, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings received over 100 complaints from consumers alleging that American improperly canceled tickets prior to the hold expiration.

    American defended its action, noting that it believed that a rash of social media posts about the glitch resulted in many customers placing flights on the 24-hour hold in “bad faith, and not on the honest belief that a good deal was available.”

    Under the deal, which could come at a $1 million cost for the carrier, American agreed to provide free economy class tickets or a $1,500 discount on a business class ticket for these passengers.

    While a free or heavily discounted flight to China might seem like a good compromise for the airline, it comes with the condition that the trips will not accrue miles for the passenger’s frequent flyer account.

    Those who choose the $0 economy ticket offer will still have to pay taxes and fees totaling about $450 per ticket.

    Quartz reports that American doesn’t expect many travelers to take the airline up on the deal because of the restriction on reward points.

    This isn’t the first time American has agreed to honor cheap fares booked during glitches.

    In August, the carrier announced it would allow a majority of customers who booked discounted flights on international routes by changing the country of origin to Brazil to continue with their travel plans.

    Customers who’d set their country of residence to Brazil had been able to score cheap tickets when the site swapped the current exchange rate: R$1.00 is about $0.29 U.S., so if you switch those around, you get very cheap plane tickets, which is what appears to have happened.

    Still, after reviewing the bookings, American told Consumerist that “a small number have been canceled based on how the traveler portrayed their country of residence.”

    [via Quartz]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uDairy Queen Wants To Expand Its Business In The Off-Seasonr


4 4 4 9
  • (Paxton Holley)
    Some foods have a season, and in much of this country, ice cream is one of those foods. That’s why Dairy Queen, a chain that people associate with ice cream, is serving up more traditional fast food to keep busy in the off-season. They’ve expanded the menu to include more toasted sandwiches and warm desserts, and are advertising them on TV, but will that be enough to get people in the door when even established fast-food places are struggling?

    Dairy Queen has served burgers and fries for decades, but people don’t necessarily associate the chain with things that aren’t soft-serve ice cream. Bloomberg reports that the chain has improved sales each month this year even as the weather outside gets colder, but getting people in the door year-round will still require reminding people that they can get things other than frozen dairy products there.

    Menu changes sometimes come with grumbling from franchisees, though. Dairy Queen is a mostly franchised business, and it’s restaurant owners who have to pay up for equipment when there are menu changes. For the new “artisan” sandwiches, for example, each restaurant needed to pay about $6-8,000 for sandwich-toasting ovens.

    Warren Buffett’s Ice Cream Chain Looks to Fix Its Winter Problem [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist