четверг, 24 сентября 2015 г.

uWedding Venue Fined $305K For Taking Deposits For Events It Couldn’t Possibly Hostr


4 4 4 9
  • (Molly)
    Imagine you’re about to get married and then find out that the venue you booked for your reception is not only closed, but that the venue operators knew it be shutting down and took your deposit anyway. This is exactly what happened to nearly 60 people who were tricked into making deposits with a Seattle gallery for weddings and other events that could never have possibly been held there.

    Earlier this week, Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson announced that his office had been granted a $304,995 default judgment [PDF] against the former operators of EM Fine Art, a gallery that closed without advance notice in June 2014.

    The gallery’s operators sent out e-mails to customers who had already booked the venue, breaking the bad news to them that (A) their event could not be held there, and (B) there would be no refunds of deposits.

    That might all be understandable if the venue had truly been hit out of nowhere with the news that it had to shut down. In fact, one of the e-mails sent to reservation-holders explained that the gallery had been destroyed in a fire.

    The fire explanation was bogus, and so was any statement that the owners didn’t know a shutdown was pending.

    According to Ferguson’s office, the gallery operators began receiving notices, from their landlord and the city, in Nov. 2013 about various violations of local land use ordinances.

    Then in mid-April 2014, the landlord said their lease would be terminated on May 21, 2014, meaning that was the last day they could possibly play host to any events.

    And yet, up until the day the venue declared its own demise, it was still allowing customers to make reservations and pay deposits.

    In Feb. 2015, the attorney general’s office sued the gallery operators, who never showed up to defend themselves in court or properly respond to the lawsuit. They have tried to argue that they never received any notice of the suit because they never check the mailbox to which it was sent, but Ferguson says his investigation found the couple is not only still checking that box, but that it did so 27 times in the month after the complaint was sent.

    And so last week the King County Superior Court Commissioner granted the default judgment, which requires the gallery operators to repay a total of $50,000 to at least 59 customers bilked by EM, plus pay another $19,000 in costs and fees, and $236,000 in civil penalties.

    One scammed customer, who lost her $700 deposit when the gallery shuttered, tells the Seattle Times that she’s not holding out much hope for getting that money back — but that wasn’t really her reason for telling Ferguson’s office about the scam.

    “We filed our claims, not thinking anything would come of it,” she explains to the Seattle Times. “Seeing the judge ruled in our favor is vindication.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uVW Previously Recalled Some Vehicles Over Emissions Standardsr


4 4 4 9
  • passatdieselgrabFive months before Volkswagen was ordered by federal regulators to recall nearly 500,000 sedans that equipped with software that tricked emissions tests, the company sent notices to some owners that their cars were in need of an “emissions service action.”

    Reuters reports that in April 2015 the car manufacturer initiated a service action in California for some diesel-powered VW and Audi vehicles that were eventually part of the EPA’s unusual recall order issued on Sept. 18.

    Owners who received the notices were told their model year 2010 to 2014 vehicles with 2-liter diesel engines needed to be brought to a dealer for a software upgrade to ensure emissions were “optimized and operating efficiently.”

    VW said dealers would fix an issue in which the malfunction indicator light turned on, noting that if the light “illuminated for any reason, the vehicle will not pass an IM emissions inspection in some regions.”

    The action was part of an Dec. 2014 agreement between the manufacturer, the EPA and the California Air Resources Board to fix what VW called a technical glitch. The recall eventually made its way across the entire U.S. in the following months.

    While the letters didn’t explain that the action was part of VW’s efforts to quell regulator scrutiny over discrepancies in lab tests and real world emission levels for the vehicles, a spokesperson for CARB confirmed it was, Reuters reports.

    “This is one of the fixes they presented to us as a potential solution,” CARB spokesperson Dave Clegern said. “It didn’t work.”

    The EPA’s announcement of the ordered recall on Friday has set off a string of reactions from the car company and others.

    Shortly after the recall was announced, our colleagues at Consumer Reports decided to suspend the “Recommended” ratings it had previously given the Passat diesel and Jetta diesel.

    “These recommendations will be suspended until Consumer Reports can re-test these vehicles with a recall repair performed,” reads a statement from the publication. “Once the emissions systems are functioning properly, we will assess whether the repair has adversely affected performance or fuel economy.”

    On Sunday, the carmaker announced it would stop the sale of all affected vehicle models until the issue was fixed.

    And on Monday, it was rumored that the Department of Justice is considering bringing criminal charges against VW.

    While last week’s recall of three VW clean diesel models and one Audi vehicle only affected around 500,000 cars in the U.S., Volkswagen revealed this Tuesday that the defeat device software was installed in around 11 million cars worldwide.

    On Wednesday, VW CEO Martin Winterkorn stepped down amid the scandal, claiming he committed “no wrongdoing,” but noting that he took responsibility for the irregularities in the diesel vehicles.

     

    VW owners who feel they were tricked into buying their car can file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, and may want to consider doing the same through their particular state’s attorney general’s office.

    Those who really regret buying their VW and want to be rid of it now are free to try selling their recalled vehicle on the used car market.

    Our colleagues at Consumer Reports point out that the California Air Resources Board will not take action against owners or their cars when it comes time to register or sell their Volkswagen diesel — at least for now.

    Exclusive: VW recall letters in April warned of an emissions glitch [Reuters]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uThree On-Demand Food Delivery Services Hit With Lawsuits Over Worker Misclassificationr


4 4 4 9
  • (Mark Turnauckas)
    GrubHub, DoorDash and Caviar can all deliver food to customers with a few taps and clicks on an app, and all three of them are now facing lawsuits alleging that their delivery drivers are misclassified as independent contractors.

    In echoes of an ongoing lawsuit against Uber in California for similar reasons, the complaints claim drivers are employees and as such, should receive certain benefits, reports the Chicago Tribune.

    The complaints were filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of the delivery drivers; the complaints against GrubHub and DoorDash are both class actions while the Caviar complaint is a demand for arbitration on behalf of a San Francisco driver.

    In one of the complaints, the plaintiffs say GrubHub treated delivery drivers just like employees, except without providing any benefits, like reimbursements for gas, parking and phone data, overtime and getting paid at least minimum wage.

    “For all of these cases, we’re also representing drivers individually, including filing individual arbitrations where necessary,” said the attorney who filed the complaints.

    None of the companies offered a statement on the lawsuits.

    GrubHub, DoorDash and Caviar face lawsuits over worker misclassification [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uInsurance Loopholes & Master Pricing: How Surprise Medical Bills Knock Consumers Downr


4 4 4 9
  • Most of us know which local hospitals and doctors are covered by our insurance providers, but even when we make sure that we only see an in-network physician or surgeon, nearly one-third of privately insured Americans are still hit with higher-than-expected medical bills, often because their in-network hospital brought in or contracted out to an out-of-network service provider. How did we get to the point where so many consumers have so little information about what to expect when their hospital bill arrives?

    According to consumer advocates and a medical billing specialist who spoke to Consumerist, the problem of surprise medical bills isn’t exactly new, but healthcare providers appear to be taking greater advantage of long-existing loopholes in the insurance system, leaving more patients feeling blindsided when they finally get their bills.

    “It’s a tremendous problem that seems to be getting worse and worse,” Chi Chi Wu, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, tells Consumerist. “The big picture is that it’s due to peculiarities and problems and how healthcare is priced in the U.S.”

    Out-Of-Network Vs. In-Network

    Image courtesy of MeneeDijk

    At the core of the issue is the distinction between in-network and out-of-network health insurance coverage and how each is priced and passed on to consumers.

    In-network providers are those who have agreed to charge lower fees to customers of a particular insurer, with the expectation that being listed as a covered provider will bring in more patients.

    Julie, a long-time medical billing specialist, provided Consumerist with an example of how in-network billing works:

    You have a procedure done for which an in-network doctor normally charges $1,000, but your insurance company has negotiated a maximum fee of $600 for that procedure with that doctor, so that’s the most the physician can charge.

    The doctor must write off the remaining $400 and is prohibited from “balance-billing” you for the difference between the $1,000 list price and what your insurance’s “maximum allowable amount” or “negotiated fee” is for that service.

    On the other hand, an out-of-network doctor is, basically, not bound by any rules of your insurance company because he or she has not agreed to any of maximum.

    That doctor, therefore, can charge you the full $1,000 for that procedure, or the difference between $1,000 and whatever your insurance pays, with no discount.

    The Problems With Sticker Price

    Image courtesy of MeneerDijk

    While the idea of in-network and out-of-network might is fairly straightforward — you’ll pay more going to an out-of-network provider because he or she simply isn’t covered by your insurance — healthcare providers sometimes present patients with situations where part of the care is covered and part is not.

    For example, you may go to an in-network hospital for surgery, only to find out that somewhere along the way, the hospital brought in another doctor — many times, it’s the anesthesiologist — or used a lab, or hired an outside consultant, that is out-of-network. This is often done without notifying the patient, meaning they won’t know until they get their bill that their insurance will not cover all of these particular costs.

    And even if your insurance provider will agree to pay some amount to these out-of-network providers, they can still come after you for the balance.

    “Your financial responsibility for a given charge is going to vary widely based on your specific treatment,” Julie says.

    Part of the reason for this, as Wu of the NCLC previously pointed out, is because of the way healthcare is priced in the U.S.

    “Most hospitals and providers, including ambulances and the field of dentistry, have a master price list – or a sticker price – but that is rarely what gets paid,” Wu says.

    Much like other industry the prices shown in the medical field are often much higher than what is typically paid.

    Wu likens the situation to that of the hotel industry: you may see a hotel room for $500 per night, but no one really pays that much because there are almost always special rates or discounts.

    Likewise, the price of medical care, while shown to be much higher on the master charge list, is discounted by the insurance companies — sometimes referred to as a negotiated maximum fee.

    “The providers start giving discounts on that price,” Wu says. “So Medicaid might get the lowest price, then Medicare, private health, and so on. The only people who end up paying the charged master price are those who are uninsured.”

    And that becomes a problem when someone who is insured ends up at an out-of-network provider or when an out-of-network physician unexpectedly provides service at the patient’s in-network facility.

    While hospitals generally accept the insurance plans of the doctors they directly employ, physicians are not always tethered to a single facility, and many are independent contractors who work with patients at multiple hospitals. This means they can pick and choose which health plans to participate in with little regard to the hospital or facility in which they practice.

    By doing so, these doctors are able to charge higher prices when a patient doesn’t have a preferred plan, leaving that consumer with a much more expensive bill than they were possibly anticipating.

    It all ties back to that master list of sticker prices, says Wu, who adds that “unfortunately, consumers can only do so much to prevent this, especially in an emergency situation.”

    Different Plans, Different Coverage

    Image courtesy of frankieleon

    If you want to avoid or minimize costly and unexpected medical bills, it’s important to understand the basic types of health insurance, and to know which one you have.

    There are several varieties of plans available to consumers, whether through their workplace, the government, or through the private insurance marketplace.

    The most common types of insurance plans are an Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO), a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), Point of Service (POS), a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and Medicare/Medicaid.

    Each plan includes a different set of requirements and stipulations on what exactly is covered.

    For example, a EPO covers services only if you use doctors, specialists, or hospitals in the plan’s network – except in an emergency.

    A HMO typically limits coverage to care from doctors who work for or contract with the HMO. That means it generally won’t cover out-of-network care except, again, in an emergency. In many cases, a HMO will require you to live or work in its service area to be eligible for coverage.

    A POS plan allows users to pay less if they use doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers that belong to the plan’s network. However, this type of plan generally requires that patients get a referral from a primary care doctor in order to see a specialist.

    With a PPO, users pay less if they use a provider in the plan’s network; they can typically use doctors, hospitals, and providers outside of the network without a referral for an additional cost.

    While the above plans are private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid are government-run programs.

    Medicare is a federal, government-run healthcare that covers U.S. citizens over the age of 65 and younger disabled people.

    Although patients do pay premiums and have small deductibles, and they have to pay a 20% co-insurance for many services, many patients buy supplemental policies that will cover some or all of the deductible and coinsurance, so many Medicare patients have few out-of-pocket costs for covered treatment.

    Medicaid is a government-run healthcare program for low-income Americans that is managed at the state level.

    “So while Medicare’s policies are set at the federal level and operate the same in all 50 states, Medicaid policies operate differently in each state and in most cases; Medicaid patients in one state could have trouble finding care in another state,” Julie tells Consumerist.

    Just Some Of The Costs

    Image courtesy of Scott Cimakosky

    While all of these insurance plan can make the expense of visiting a doctor or undergoing surgery less of a burden for consumers, they don’t generally cover all of the costs.

    That’s because insurance is an intricate web of coverage where aspects like deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays vary from plan to plan.

    While understanding insurance can be a daunting task, there are some key aspects of most plans that consumers should be familiar with when it comes to knowing their obligations.

    One of the most important is the deductible — the amount of money that the patient will have to pay each calendar year before your insurance will start paying on your medical bills.

    Your co-pays and co-insurance — more on those in a moment — will not be charged to you until you’ve met your deductible for the year.

    So, for example, when visiting the doctor for a routine exam you may have been asked to pay a co-pay. This is a flat fee that paid every time you get a particular type of medical care from a provider — usually only after your deductible has been met.

    And then there’s co-insurance, which is the percentage of charges that consumers will have to pay to their medical provider after having met a deductible and the insurance has started paying on the claims.

    In a hypothetical scenario, a schedule of benefits chart may show that you would owe: a $20 co-pay for an office visit, or 20% of the cost for radiology services – meaning X-rays, MRIs or other testing – after insurance.

    In this example, co-insurance would apply to radiology services and to outpatient services (usually surgery), but would not apply to regular doctor office visits.

    Once you’ve met your deductible, your insurance would pay 80% of their “allowed or negotiated amount” for an MRI that you receive, and would require you to pay 20%, Julie explains.

    If you had an outpatient surgery and had met your deductible, your insurance would pay 90% of their “allowable” and would require you to pay 10%.

    “Exactly what you would have to pay for co-insurance is nearly impossible to calculate, because it bears no relationship to what the doctor actually charges for his or her services,” Julie says.

    What Can Be Done?

    Image courtesy of cookedphotos

    Short of overhauling the entire medical and insurance industries, the best thing you can do to avoid being surprised by a doctor or hospital bill is to be prepared and aware.

    Over at Consumer Reports, they recently published tips for avoiding bill shock from your healthcare provider.

    For example, if you’re going to have a non-emergency procedure — something like delivering a baby where many parents-to-be select their doctors and hospitals months in advance — ask your doctor’s billing folks to provide a complete list of the anesthesiologists, assistant surgeons, and everyone else who could conceivably be part of your medical team.

    Check with your insurer to see if these providers are all covered — not just by your insurance company but by your particular plan. If you come across someone involved in your procedure who is out-of-network, ask for an in-network option. And if that is not an option and you can’t have the procedure done by someone else, then contact that non-network provider to find out in advance what you’ll be expected to pay.

    Likewise, it helps to know which hospitals in your area not only accept your coverage but also only have in-network emergency room staff. As you’ll see in an upcoming Consumerist story, some ERs go out-of-network for staff, leaving patients with potentially huge bills or having to drive out of their way to seek emergency care.

    “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,” DeAnn Friedholm, Director of Health Reform for Consumers Union, said earlier this year.

    Still, several states have attempted to prevent unfair out-of-pocket costs from devastating consumers by enacting or proposing new laws.

    Back in June, the California Assembly voted 61-1 to pass a measure that would only require a patient who obtains care at an in-network facility but from an out-of-network provider to pay the non-participating provider what would have been charged by a participating provider.

    That means if you go to your regular doctor’s office – which is covered by your insurance – and you see a doctor who isn’t covered by your insurance, you would only be on the hook for the amount you would typically pay if the doctor you saw was considered in-network.

    Additionally, any cost that the patient pays for services by the non-participating provider will count toward their limit for annual out-of-pocket costs.

    This particular measure applies to health care service plan contracts and insurance policies issues, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2016.

    The measure remains in the California legislature.

    Other states have taken different approaches.

    A report [PDF] for the California HealthCare Foundation also explored several states with laws that take varying approaches to balance billing to see if any would provide more adequate protection to consumers.

    The paper refers to a measure in Texas that aimed to increase transparency by providing consumers access to data, such as pricing and network participation information, needed to estimate their financial liability for medical services.

    For example, a managed care organization – such as a PPO or HMO – must disclose, in writing, whether a network facility uses non-network providers and that a member may be balance billed by a non-network provider.

    When the report was published, not enough time had passed to determine if the measure was advantageous for consumers, but the authors noted that many stakeholders reported concerns about how valuable the information would be, especially with regard to emergency medical care.

    More recently, Consumer Reports teamed up with California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and the University of California San Francisco to announce the launch of California Healthcare Compare, an online tool that allows you to search local hospitals in the state based on different types of procedures. The results provide consumers with information about hospital ratings, and what sort of costs patients should expect to pay:

    healthcarecompare

    cagrab2

    cagrab3
    (NOTE: We only know one California ZIP code off the top of our heads; thus the 90210)

    In Florida, the authors found a law that places restriction on balance billing with regard to payment rate requirements in emergency settings.

    When a consumer seeks emergency care, or to evaluate if an emergency condition exists, the statute makes the HMO liable for costs, and restricts the non-network provider from balance-billing the patient.

    According to the report, this measure has so far been effective, but it only applies to HMO members.

    While some states have found taken steps to ensure consumers are protected, those measures aren’t foolproof.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


среда, 23 сентября 2015 г.

uFederal Program To Feed Poor Kids Fresh Fruit And Vegetables Is Actually Controversialr


4 4 4 9
  • Not an actual child's fruit cup, but tasty. (Steve R.)
    The federal Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program means that kids in high-poverty schools receive cups of fresh fruits and vegetables every day, starting kids on what program boosters hope will be a lifelong habit of thinking of fresh produce as valid and delicious snacks. Who could possibly object to that? Lobbyists for the frozen, canned, and dried fruit industries.

    The program began as a snack program back in 2002, but turned the contents of kids’ snack cups into tiny battle arenas for members of Congress and lobbyists. Fruit was good: how about dried fruit? If dried fruit is good, how about trail mix? If trail mix is good, how about beef jerky? Eventually, the program is just random midday food, and not focused on showing children that fresh produce is edible.

    Yes, fresh fruit is harder and much more expensive and to serve than its cousins that ended up in bags, boxes, or cans, but the goal of the program is to expose children from low-income families to fresh foods that may not be familiar to them. In 2008, the program’s Congressional sponsor, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, rewrote legislation to limit snacks to only fresh fruits and vegetables.

    There are already plenty of canned and frozen vegetables in school breakfasts and lunches, and kids don’t seem to find them very inspirational. However, from the point of view of marketers of preserved produce, what the program is doing is giving thousands of future grocery shoppers the message that fresh is best, and that all other foods are inferior.

    Supporters argue that while forming kids’ early experiences and eating habits, it’s important to get them familiar with, say, bunches of grapes and whole peaches before moving on to enjoy those foods in their fruit cocktail or purée form.

    Senator Harkin is retiring, and he’s the biggest defender of fresh-food-only. Will the preserved-food lobbyists take over and make sure children snack on “fruit and vegetable consumption in all forms,” as one frozen-food lobbyist puts it? It looks likely.

    The carrot war gets serious [Politico]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uTempered Glass Shower Doors Are Shattering For No Reasonr


4 4 4 9
  • glassThe appealing feature of tempered glass is that it is supposed to not break into giant jagged shards that can injure you, but it’s not supposed to shatter in the first place. That’s what makes it an appealing material for, say, shower doors. Yet there’s a rare and terrifying problem: shower doors spontaneously shattering, sometimes while a person is showering, resulting in wet, naked, injured people.

    That happened to a nine-year-old boy interviewed by CBS Chicago, who was taking a normal shower when the tempered glass door suddenly disintegrated, cutting him. “It just exploded. It just shattered like a bomb,” he said. “I was shaking. It was really scary.”

    You can find similar stories on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s searchable defective-products database, where adults were just as scared. One person reported pieces of glass had flown up to six feet away from the shower.

    Fortunately, this seems to happen in most showers while they’re not in use, but it would be better if it didn’t happen at all. The boy in Chicago had to go to the emergency room, with lacerations from big pieces of flying glass on his arm and leg.

    One glass expert recommends putting a protective film over tempered glass surfaces to prevent them from exploding at you. This is best done by someone who knows what they’re doing: hire a professional to install the film, maybe at the same time that you have the door installed.

    What experts don’t know is what is causing the doors to explode.

    Local 2 Investigators: Boy, 9, Injured After Glass Shower Door Shatters [CBS Chicago]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uCourt Says The Batmobile Is Special Enough To Get Copyright Protectionr


4 4 4 9
  • A 1966 Batmobile (JOE WU)
    When someone mentions the Batmobile, do you pause and say, “Hold on — which Batmobile? Batman’s car or just like another car that’s shaped like a bat, has crime-fighting technology and ferries around a caped crusader? Probably not, because everyone knows what the Batmobile is and who it belongs to. That entitles it to copyright protection, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals said on Wednesday, affirming a district court’s judgment in a copyright and trademark infringement action brought by DC Comics against a maker of Batmobile replicas.

    The three-judge panel held [PDF] that the Batmobile — as seen in Batman comic books, TV shows and movies — was entitled to copyright protection because it’s basically its own character, albeit a four-wheeled one, and therefore “was a sufficiently distinctive element of the works.”

    “Originally introduced in the Batman comic books in 1941, the Batmobile is a fictional, high-tech automobile that Batman employs as his primary mode of transportation,” wrote Judge Sandra Ikuta. “The Batmobile has varied in appearance over the years, but its name and key characteristics as Batman’s personal crime- fighting vehicle have remained consistent.”

    Those consistent character traits are protected by copyright, Ikuta wrote in the unanimous decision.

    “No matter its specific physical appearance, the Batmobile is a ‘crime-fighting’ car with sleek and powerful characteristics that allow Batman to maneuver quickly while he fights villains,” she wrote.

    There’s no dispute over who has the right to sell Batmobile cars, either, as Ikuta notes that DC Comics owns a copyright interest in the Batmobile character, as it’s expressed in the 1966 TV show and the 1989 movie starring Michael Keaton, “because it did not transfer its underlying rights to the character when it licensed rights to produce derivative works.”

    The panel held that the defendant’s replica cars — based on the same 1966 TV show and the 1989 movie — infringed on DC Comics’ copyrights. Ikuta notes that the defendant concedes that his replicas copy the designs of the Batmobile as depicted on TV and in the movie, “though they do not copy every feature.” Before DC brought its lawsuit, he advertised each replica as the “Batmobile,” the judge notes, though by his own admission, he is not not authorized by DC to manufacture or sell any products bearing DC’s copyright or trademark.

    “My client just sells cars,” an attorney for the defendant told Reuters. “The car is not a character. The car is a car.”

    DC Comics sued him for copyright infringement in 2011, and a lower court judge ruled for DC.

    “As Batman so sagely told Robin, ‘In our well-ordered society, protection of private property is essential,'” Ikuta wrote, in what had to be a pretty fun decision to write.

    In order to prevail on its claim for copyright infringement, DC Comics now has to prove that hat it owns a copyright in the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television series and 1989 movie, and that the defendant infringed that copyright by creating unauthorized replicas.

    This is a big win for the rather busy lawyer who’s represented DC Comics in this case — he’s currently the attorney for the plaintiffs suing makers of counterfeit Marvel, Star Wars and Hello Kitty Cake Frosting, also recently settled a lawsuit with the makers of Darth Vader cufflinks.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist