Healthcare

Stern Reprimand;

June 13, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>SEIU members in Northern California challenge the national boss over his collaboration with employers</h3><p class="source">SF Weekly (California)</p> <p>Jaime Court president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, likened Roselli to Marcus Junius Brutus, who took a leading role in the assassination of the dictator of Rome. "This is a hopeful sign. And let's hope Brutus succeeds," Court said "and the Caesar changes his ways and starts to feel the boot in his butt. Stern demands this Trotskyite kind of loyalty regardless of how popular his policies are. This is a democratic challenge based on democratic principles. Stern can ignore consumer advocates. He can ignore patient advocates. But when criticism comes from within one of the strongest unions of California, he's either going to have to change his business model, or get out of some of the businesses he wanted to control."</p>

HIGHMARK OPENS ITS COFFERS FOR AD, MARKETING EXPENSES;

June 10, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania) </p> <p>"One of the chief reasons for health corporations or insurance companies to advertise is to cherry pick the market," said Judy Dugan, research director for the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, which trades in health-care and insurance industry reform. "They design their advertising to appeal to the healthiest and most active customers," which drives down their own expenses, she claimed.</p>

Health reformers to piggyback on ‘Sicko’;

May 27, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>Michael Moore's blast at medical care is hitting as U.S. seems ripe for changes</h3><p class="source">San Francisco Chronicle</p> <p>"From the perspective of the health care reform movement, a high-profile representation of what patients commonly experience at the hands of insurers certainly adds momentum to the effort for true reform, both in California and across the country," said Jerry Flanagan, health advocate for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, based in Santa Monica.</p>

WellPoint dividend is questioned;

May 26, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>State officials say Blue Cross' $950-million payout to its parent may have violated a deal with regulators.</h3><p class="source">Los Angeles Times</p> <p>State regulators are investigating whether a $950-million dividend Blue Cross of California sent to its Indianapolis-based parent violates an agreement the companies made to limit such payments to keep premiums down and maintain the quality of healthcare benefits, officials said Friday.</p>

Arnie’s secret visit;

April 26, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>Schwarzenegger to come to Pasadena Monday for a no-Democrats AARP health care forum</h3><p class="source">Pasadena Weekly (California)</p> <p>"If you're an insurance company, you'd have to be breaking out a cigar in celebration over the fact that none of these three new proposals is going to do anything to regulate health insurance rates or make the finances of the for-profit insurance companies any more transparent," said Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.</p>

HMO Regulator Finds Blue Cross Batting Average Is Zero in Proving Patients Lied Before Retroactively Canceling Coverage

April 9, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Managed Care Law Weekly</p> <p>"Out of 90 cases reviewed to determine whether Blue Cross abided by state law, Blue Cross struck out 90 times. This survey is damning evidence that Blue Cross has put patients at risk of medical bankruptcy by flagrantly violating state patient protection laws," said Jerry Flanagan, health care policy director for FTCR. </p>

Retroactively Canceling Insurance Lands Blue Cross in Flurry of Litigation

April 5, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Los Angeles Daily Journal</p> <p>Jerry Flanagan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights was not surprised. "Generally, plans get caught red-handed, and they want to settle," he said. "The last thing they want is to have this exposed publicly in the courts."</p>

Stem cell grant OKd for L.A. center linked to allegations

March 27, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Los Angeles Times</p> <p>Critics of the closed-door grant reviews arranged by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine say the decision is a reason to open the process more to public scrutiny. "Had everyone known that a grant was being discussed to that organization, things would have gone slower and questions would have been raised then," said John Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica.</p>

Delay is urged on stem cell cloning grant

March 23, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">The San Francisco Chronicle</p> <p>Separately, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica sent a letter to Dr. Zach Hall, president and chief scientific officer of the stem cell agency, also calling for an investigation.</p>

Chains weigh in on access;

February 26, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>The FAH joins the throng offering proposals to solve the uninsured crisis, but some say their plan lacks a key element.</h3><p class="source">Modern Healthcare</p> <p>A few dismissed the plan outright, pegging it as little more than an effort by profit-driven hospitals to protect their own interests at a time when Congress is looking to overhaul the healthcare system. "The biggest players in the for-profit healthcare world, or those that have the most to lose from significant reforms, are simply attempting to write themselves into the solution,'' said Jerry Flanagan, a healthcare advocate with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a consumer group. "They're seeing the writing on the wall and they're trying to get in front on the issue by saying: Eureka! We have the answer.''</p>

Beware what the medical-industrial complex loves

February 22, 2007  ·  Jamie Court

<p class="source">The San Francisco Chronicle</p> <p>The "shared burden" proposals of both Schwarzenegger and Perata would require Californians who don't have health insurance through an employer or incomes low enough to qualify for government subsidies to buy it on the open market, or face punishment at tax time. Yet the yearly income cutoff for a subsidy would be $52,000 to $60,000 for a family of four, and the average annual cost of market-rate insurance for that family today is about $11,000, not counting co-pays and deductibles. Mom could take a night job, but there's no other way to squeeze almost an extra $1,000 a month from an already tight family budget.</p>

Beware what the medical-industrial complex loves

February 22, 2007  ·  Jamie Court

<p class="source">The San Francisco Chronicle</p> <p>The "shared burden" proposals of both Schwarzenegger and Perata would require Californians who don't have health insurance through an employer or incomes low enough to qualify for government subsidies to buy it on the open market, or face punishment at tax time. Yet the yearly income cutoff for a subsidy would be $52,000 to $60,000 for a family of four, and the average annual cost of market-rate insurance for that family today is about $11,000, not counting co-pays and deductibles. Mom could take a night job, but there's no other way to squeeze almost an extra $1,000 a month from an already tight family budget.</p>