From Krash April 17, 2009 2:37 pm EDT
How can AIG say that they are paying DBA contractor claims when one of their own attorneys published a book on how NOT TO PAY THE CLAIMS (Defense Base Act and War Hazards Compensation Act Handbook 2008 Edition by Roger A. Levy).
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Taxpayers bailout AIG, and AIG repays them--by dumping injured defense employees on Social Security
Blog: The Modern Day DBA Casualty
Injured War Zone Contractors often find themselves in this battle for medical care and other benefits afforded them under the Defense Base Act.
AIG and CNA ruthlessly delay and deny claims with no remorse for the lives they destroy.
The Department of Labor has served as a poor administrator allowing these insurance company tactics and sometimes even supporting them.
The Defense Base Act itself has been twisted to better meet the needs of the insurance company.
We are injured war zone contractors and family members living this in real time.
Injured War Zone Contractors often find themselves in this battle for medical care and other benefits afforded them under the Defense Base Act.
AIG and CNA ruthlessly delay and deny claims with no remorse for the lives they destroy.
The Department of Labor has served as a poor administrator allowing these insurance company tactics and sometimes even supporting them.
The Defense Base Act itself has been twisted to better meet the needs of the insurance company.
We are injured war zone contractors and family members living this in real time.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
U.S. health system discourages innovation
U.S. health system discourages innovation
May 25, 2009
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Countless workers in the United States are trapped in jobs they would like to leave because they cannot get health insurance elsewhere, calcifying innovation and mobility in the world's largest economy.
Daunted by health-care costs, a would-be technology entrepreneur in Texas decides not to start her own business. A communications expert in Washington decides not to strike out on his own. And a freelance magazine editor in Brooklyn decides to take a less satisfying corporate job...
Economists call this phenomenon "job lock," and studies suggest that it keeps between 20 percent and 50 percent of workers from leaving their current jobs.
Because health insurance is tied to employment in the United States, workers who leave their jobs can see health bills skyrocket if they strike out on their own or take a position with a company that offers fewer benefits. Workers who would like to retire early stay on, unable to qualify for the government's Medicare program until they turn 65.
And those who have existing health problems may not be able to get coverage at all.
Job lock is difficult to measure because many employees don't like to advertise their unhappiness. But economists and small-business advocates say it takes an enormous toll on productivity.
SLOWING INNOVATION
"We can definitely say that it's slowing down the rate of innovation," said Tim Kane, an economist with the Kauffman Foundation which promoted entrepreneurship...
May 25, 2009
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Countless workers in the United States are trapped in jobs they would like to leave because they cannot get health insurance elsewhere, calcifying innovation and mobility in the world's largest economy.
Daunted by health-care costs, a would-be technology entrepreneur in Texas decides not to start her own business. A communications expert in Washington decides not to strike out on his own. And a freelance magazine editor in Brooklyn decides to take a less satisfying corporate job...
Economists call this phenomenon "job lock," and studies suggest that it keeps between 20 percent and 50 percent of workers from leaving their current jobs.
Because health insurance is tied to employment in the United States, workers who leave their jobs can see health bills skyrocket if they strike out on their own or take a position with a company that offers fewer benefits. Workers who would like to retire early stay on, unable to qualify for the government's Medicare program until they turn 65.
And those who have existing health problems may not be able to get coverage at all.
Job lock is difficult to measure because many employees don't like to advertise their unhappiness. But economists and small-business advocates say it takes an enormous toll on productivity.
SLOWING INNOVATION
"We can definitely say that it's slowing down the rate of innovation," said Tim Kane, an economist with the Kauffman Foundation which promoted entrepreneurship...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Richard L. Scott: Healthcare Enemy #1?
Richard L. Scott: Healthcare Enemy Number One
The Rag Blog
By Christopher Hayes
March 11, 2009
...for my money, Rick Scott is the man who best embodies the spirit of the current conservative opposition... Politico recently reported that the millionaire Republican would be heading up Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), a new group that plans to spend around $20 million to kill President Obama's efforts at healthcare reform.
Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation...the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is the man who will be delivering what Politico called the "pro-free-market message."
A Texas lawyer who shared a business partner with George W. Bush, Scott started his health company, Columbia Hospital Corporation, in 1987. Its growth was meteoric, expanding from just a few hospitals to more than 1,000 facilities in thirty-eight states and three other countries in 1997. As his firm gobbled up chains, like the Frist family's Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), it became the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals.
He promised to put nonprofit hospitals--which he insisted on referring to as "nontaxpaying" hospitals--out of business and touted his company's single-minded pursuit of profit as a model for the nation's entire healthcare system. "What's happening in Washington is not healthcare reform," he told the New York Times in 1994. "Healthcare reform is happening in the marketplace."
The press portrayed Scott as a guru to be admired and feared, "a private capitalist dictator," in the words of one Princeton health economist. "Probably the lowest body fat of anybody I've been in business with," his partner told the Times.
"Other hospitals were intimidated," recalls John Schilling, who worked for Columbia/HCA in the 1990s. Scott was "like the bully that would come into town and if you didn't sell to him or partner with him, he would open up shop across the street from you and put you out of business."
Not long after joining the company in 1993 as the supervisor of reimbursement for the Fort Myers, Florida, office, Schilling noticed things weren't quite kosher. "They were looking for ways to maximize reimbursement...which ultimately would improve the bottom line."
One way they did this was to fudge the costs on their Medicare expense reports. They were "basically keeping two sets of books," says Schilling. The company would maintain an internal expense report, what it called a "reserve" report, which accurately tallied its expenses. "And then they would have a second report, which...they would file with the government, which was more aggressive." That report would "include inflated costs and expenses they knew weren't allowable or reimbursable. The one they filed with government might claim $5 million and the reserve would claim $4.5." Columbia/HCA would pocket the difference...
The Rag Blog
By Christopher Hayes
March 11, 2009
...for my money, Rick Scott is the man who best embodies the spirit of the current conservative opposition... Politico recently reported that the millionaire Republican would be heading up Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), a new group that plans to spend around $20 million to kill President Obama's efforts at healthcare reform.
Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation...the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is the man who will be delivering what Politico called the "pro-free-market message."
A Texas lawyer who shared a business partner with George W. Bush, Scott started his health company, Columbia Hospital Corporation, in 1987. Its growth was meteoric, expanding from just a few hospitals to more than 1,000 facilities in thirty-eight states and three other countries in 1997. As his firm gobbled up chains, like the Frist family's Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), it became the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals.
He promised to put nonprofit hospitals--which he insisted on referring to as "nontaxpaying" hospitals--out of business and touted his company's single-minded pursuit of profit as a model for the nation's entire healthcare system. "What's happening in Washington is not healthcare reform," he told the New York Times in 1994. "Healthcare reform is happening in the marketplace."
The press portrayed Scott as a guru to be admired and feared, "a private capitalist dictator," in the words of one Princeton health economist. "Probably the lowest body fat of anybody I've been in business with," his partner told the Times.
"Other hospitals were intimidated," recalls John Schilling, who worked for Columbia/HCA in the 1990s. Scott was "like the bully that would come into town and if you didn't sell to him or partner with him, he would open up shop across the street from you and put you out of business."
Not long after joining the company in 1993 as the supervisor of reimbursement for the Fort Myers, Florida, office, Schilling noticed things weren't quite kosher. "They were looking for ways to maximize reimbursement...which ultimately would improve the bottom line."
One way they did this was to fudge the costs on their Medicare expense reports. They were "basically keeping two sets of books," says Schilling. The company would maintain an internal expense report, what it called a "reserve" report, which accurately tallied its expenses. "And then they would have a second report, which...they would file with the government, which was more aggressive." That report would "include inflated costs and expenses they knew weren't allowable or reimbursable. The one they filed with government might claim $5 million and the reserve would claim $4.5." Columbia/HCA would pocket the difference...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Group wants to cut $2 trillion from US health care costs over 10 years
Interested parties are discussing "legislation that would direct Medicare to reward health-care providers who get better outcomes for patients using less costly procedures."
MAY 11, 2009
Industry Officials Dismiss Concerns About Health Costs Plan
By Patrick Yoest
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
A team of health-care industry groups that announced a $2 trillion cost-saving initiative Monday expressed little worry about the effect of cuts on their bottom lines, saying that skepticism about the plan is unwarranted.
The groups, which represent health insurers, hospitals, doctors and other health workers, met with President Obama on Monday to discuss their initiative. They have sketched out a 10-year plan to slow the growth of health costs by $2 trillion by drawing down the rate of cost increases in the sector by 1.5% each year...
Meetings among the groups - which also include the American Medical Association, PhRMA and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - intensified in recent weeks, with the SEIU taking a lead role. The groups recently have taken to meeting on Saturdays, they said...
MAY 11, 2009
Industry Officials Dismiss Concerns About Health Costs Plan
By Patrick Yoest
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
A team of health-care industry groups that announced a $2 trillion cost-saving initiative Monday expressed little worry about the effect of cuts on their bottom lines, saying that skepticism about the plan is unwarranted.
The groups, which represent health insurers, hospitals, doctors and other health workers, met with President Obama on Monday to discuss their initiative. They have sketched out a 10-year plan to slow the growth of health costs by $2 trillion by drawing down the rate of cost increases in the sector by 1.5% each year...
Meetings among the groups - which also include the American Medical Association, PhRMA and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - intensified in recent weeks, with the SEIU taking a lead role. The groups recently have taken to meeting on Saturdays, they said...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Doctors trying to silence patients
Doctors Seek to Silence Online Reviews
By LINDSEY TANNER
AP
March 6, 2009
The anonymous comment on the Web site RateMDs.com was unsparing: "Very unhelpful, arrogant," it said of a doctor. "Did not listen and cut me off, seemed much too happy to have power (and abuse it!) over suffering people."
Such reviews are becoming more common as consumer ratings services like Zagat's and Angie's List expand beyond restaurants and plumbers to medical care, and some doctors are fighting back. They're asking patients to agree to what amounts to a gag order that bars them from posting negative comments online.
Going to the doctor is often a hassle, but it can turn into a nightmare if you feel you feel disrespected or mistreated while you're there. Medical ethics expert and hospital management consultant Arthur S. Shorr offers advice on what to do when a trip to the MD goes awry.
"Consumers and patients are hungry for good information" about doctors, but Internet reviews provide just the opposite, contends Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who has made a business of helping doctors monitor and prevent online criticism.
Some sites "are little more than tabloid journalism without much interest in constructively improving practices," and their sniping comments can unfairly ruin a doctor's reputation, Segal said.
Segal said such postings say nothing about what should really matter to patients — a doctor's medical skills — and privacy laws and medical ethics prevent leave doctors powerless to do anything it.
His company, Medical Justice, is based in Greensboro, N.C. For a fee, it provides doctors with a standardized waiver agreement. Patients who sign agree not to post online comments about the doctor, "his expertise and/or treatment."
"Published comments on Web pages, blogs and/or mass correspondence, however well intended, could severely damage physician's practice," according to suggested wording the company provides.
Segal's company advises doctors to have all patients sign the agreements. If a new patient refuses, the doctor might suggest finding another doctor. Segal said he knows of no cases where longtime patients have been turned away for not signing the waivers.
The gas from rotten eggs could lead to a new form of Viagra? A study found that hydrogen sulfide prompts arousal in men. The discovery, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could lead to other forms of erectile dysfunction drugs.
Doctors are notified when a negative rating appears on a Web site, and, if the author's name is known, physicians can use the signed waivers to get the sites to remove offending opinion.
RateMd's postings are anonymous, and the site's operators say they do not know their users' identities. The operators also won't remove negative comments.
Angie's List's operators know the identities of users and warn them when they register that the site will share names with doctors if asked.
Since Segal's company began offering its service two years ago, nearly 2,000 doctors have signed up. In several instances, he said, doctors have used signed waivers to get sites to remove negative comments.
John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, said that in recent months, six doctors have asked him to remove negative online comments based on patients' signed waivers. He has refused.
"They're basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive," Swapceinski said.
He said he's planning to post a "Wall of Shame" listing names of doctors who use patient waivers.
By LINDSEY TANNER
AP
March 6, 2009
The anonymous comment on the Web site RateMDs.com was unsparing: "Very unhelpful, arrogant," it said of a doctor. "Did not listen and cut me off, seemed much too happy to have power (and abuse it!) over suffering people."
Such reviews are becoming more common as consumer ratings services like Zagat's and Angie's List expand beyond restaurants and plumbers to medical care, and some doctors are fighting back. They're asking patients to agree to what amounts to a gag order that bars them from posting negative comments online.
Going to the doctor is often a hassle, but it can turn into a nightmare if you feel you feel disrespected or mistreated while you're there. Medical ethics expert and hospital management consultant Arthur S. Shorr offers advice on what to do when a trip to the MD goes awry.
"Consumers and patients are hungry for good information" about doctors, but Internet reviews provide just the opposite, contends Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who has made a business of helping doctors monitor and prevent online criticism.
Some sites "are little more than tabloid journalism without much interest in constructively improving practices," and their sniping comments can unfairly ruin a doctor's reputation, Segal said.
Segal said such postings say nothing about what should really matter to patients — a doctor's medical skills — and privacy laws and medical ethics prevent leave doctors powerless to do anything it.
His company, Medical Justice, is based in Greensboro, N.C. For a fee, it provides doctors with a standardized waiver agreement. Patients who sign agree not to post online comments about the doctor, "his expertise and/or treatment."
"Published comments on Web pages, blogs and/or mass correspondence, however well intended, could severely damage physician's practice," according to suggested wording the company provides.
Segal's company advises doctors to have all patients sign the agreements. If a new patient refuses, the doctor might suggest finding another doctor. Segal said he knows of no cases where longtime patients have been turned away for not signing the waivers.
The gas from rotten eggs could lead to a new form of Viagra? A study found that hydrogen sulfide prompts arousal in men. The discovery, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could lead to other forms of erectile dysfunction drugs.
Doctors are notified when a negative rating appears on a Web site, and, if the author's name is known, physicians can use the signed waivers to get the sites to remove offending opinion.
RateMd's postings are anonymous, and the site's operators say they do not know their users' identities. The operators also won't remove negative comments.
Angie's List's operators know the identities of users and warn them when they register that the site will share names with doctors if asked.
Since Segal's company began offering its service two years ago, nearly 2,000 doctors have signed up. In several instances, he said, doctors have used signed waivers to get sites to remove negative comments.
John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, said that in recent months, six doctors have asked him to remove negative online comments based on patients' signed waivers. He has refused.
"They're basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive," Swapceinski said.
He said he's planning to post a "Wall of Shame" listing names of doctors who use patient waivers.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
AIG paid Stamford-based Gen Re in a secret deal to take out reinsurance policies
Ex-Gen Re executive gets 1 year in prison
By DAVE COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
A former senior vice president at General Re Corp. was sentenced Wednesday to a year and a day in federal prison for an accounting fraud scandal that artificially propped up the stock price of insurer American International Group Inc.
Christopher Garand, 61, was also fined $150,000 for his role in the case, which authorities say cost AIG shareholders more than $500 million.
Garand is one of five former executives convicted in the case.
Federal prosecutors say New York-based AIG paid Stamford-based Gen Re in a secret deal to take out reinsurance policies with AIG in 2000 and 2001. They say the scheme propped up AIG's stock prices and inflated reserves by $500 million with the goal of quelling criticism by analysts and concerns by investors.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney noted at Wednesday's hearing that Garand didn't try to benefit personally from the stock manipulation, and he said the scandal was not comparable with higher-profile ones involving Enron Corp., Adelphia or other companies.
But the judge said Garand knew he was breaking the law.
"Mr. Garand knew and understood the scope of the ... fraud," the judge said, adding that a message needed to be sent to the business community that this kind of conduct will not be tolerated.
Garand had faced up to 160 years in prison and a fine of up to $29.5 million.
Defendants in the case have said in court papers that there was no link between the eight-year-old deal and AIG's recent financial troubles that sparked a federal financial-rescue package.
Garand, of Upper Saddle River, N.J., begged Droney for a lenient sentence, saying he didn't know how he and his family would cope with a prison sentence.
"I'm profoundly sorry, your honor," Garand said. "I ask for your wisdom, compassion and mercy."
His wife, Barbara, a school board official in their New Jersey community, also pleaded with Droney.
"These past few years have caused a great deal of pain to our family," she said. "Please don't take him from us. Our lives are in your hands."
Garand, his wife, his two daughters, ages 26 and 15, and many in the crowd of nearly 80 people cried during parts of the 2 1/2-hour proceeding. Garand said his main concerns were how his wife, children and granddaughter would cope if he was imprisoned.
Garand's family and friends sent numerous letters to the judge, saying Garand was a family man, Army veteran and tireless community volunteer.
Neither Garand nor his wife would comment after the hearing. He was ordered to report to prison on April 22, but defense attorneys have asked that he remain free on bond pending an appeal.
The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Patricco, also declined to comment about the sentence. He had sought a "substantial" prison term.
During the hearing, Patricco said Garand played a significant role in the fraud, including coming up with the ideas for using sham contracts and leaving a deceptive paper trail. Garand denied those claims.
"The evidence at trial shows that he was much more than a bit player in this deal," Patricco said. "He knew that he was getting involved in a fraud and a serious crime. The seriousness of the offense cannot be overstated in this case."
Garand was the third executive to be sentenced. Former General Re chief executive Ronald Ferguson was sentenced in December to two years in prison and fined $200,000, while former AIG vice president Christian Milton was sentenced to four years in prison and fined $200,000.
Still to be sentenced are Elizabeth Monrad, former General Re chief financial officer, and Robert Graham, a former General Re senior vice president.
By DAVE COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
A former senior vice president at General Re Corp. was sentenced Wednesday to a year and a day in federal prison for an accounting fraud scandal that artificially propped up the stock price of insurer American International Group Inc.
Christopher Garand, 61, was also fined $150,000 for his role in the case, which authorities say cost AIG shareholders more than $500 million.
Garand is one of five former executives convicted in the case.
Federal prosecutors say New York-based AIG paid Stamford-based Gen Re in a secret deal to take out reinsurance policies with AIG in 2000 and 2001. They say the scheme propped up AIG's stock prices and inflated reserves by $500 million with the goal of quelling criticism by analysts and concerns by investors.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney noted at Wednesday's hearing that Garand didn't try to benefit personally from the stock manipulation, and he said the scandal was not comparable with higher-profile ones involving Enron Corp., Adelphia or other companies.
But the judge said Garand knew he was breaking the law.
"Mr. Garand knew and understood the scope of the ... fraud," the judge said, adding that a message needed to be sent to the business community that this kind of conduct will not be tolerated.
Garand had faced up to 160 years in prison and a fine of up to $29.5 million.
Defendants in the case have said in court papers that there was no link between the eight-year-old deal and AIG's recent financial troubles that sparked a federal financial-rescue package.
Garand, of Upper Saddle River, N.J., begged Droney for a lenient sentence, saying he didn't know how he and his family would cope with a prison sentence.
"I'm profoundly sorry, your honor," Garand said. "I ask for your wisdom, compassion and mercy."
His wife, Barbara, a school board official in their New Jersey community, also pleaded with Droney.
"These past few years have caused a great deal of pain to our family," she said. "Please don't take him from us. Our lives are in your hands."
Garand, his wife, his two daughters, ages 26 and 15, and many in the crowd of nearly 80 people cried during parts of the 2 1/2-hour proceeding. Garand said his main concerns were how his wife, children and granddaughter would cope if he was imprisoned.
Garand's family and friends sent numerous letters to the judge, saying Garand was a family man, Army veteran and tireless community volunteer.
Neither Garand nor his wife would comment after the hearing. He was ordered to report to prison on April 22, but defense attorneys have asked that he remain free on bond pending an appeal.
The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Patricco, also declined to comment about the sentence. He had sought a "substantial" prison term.
During the hearing, Patricco said Garand played a significant role in the fraud, including coming up with the ideas for using sham contracts and leaving a deceptive paper trail. Garand denied those claims.
"The evidence at trial shows that he was much more than a bit player in this deal," Patricco said. "He knew that he was getting involved in a fraud and a serious crime. The seriousness of the offense cannot be overstated in this case."
Garand was the third executive to be sentenced. Former General Re chief executive Ronald Ferguson was sentenced in December to two years in prison and fined $200,000, while former AIG vice president Christian Milton was sentenced to four years in prison and fined $200,000.
Still to be sentenced are Elizabeth Monrad, former General Re chief financial officer, and Robert Graham, a former General Re senior vice president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)