Insurance

Controls urged for medical insurers;

April 12, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>Some lawmakers and consumer advocates are supporting a new effort to regulate insurance rates in California.</h3><p class="source">Los Angeles Times</p> <p>The foundation (FTCR), one of the backers of Jones' bill, also said that since 2002, four insurers -- Blue Cross of California, PacifiCare, Health Net and Aetna -- have sent $3.2 billion of California premiums to their national parent companies as profit. Jerry Flanagan, an advocate at the foundation, said that California's success in regulating auto rates through Proposition 103 in 1988 showed that such oversight saves money. Between 1989 and 2003, auto premiums dropped 7% in California while premiums in the rest of the country increased 47%, he said.</p>

Lawmaker: Regulate health costs;

April 12, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>PROPOSAL TO HAVE STATE SET RATES FACES TOUGH GOING</h3><p class="source">The San Jose Mercury News (California)</p> <p>Jerry Flanagan, the health care policy director for the consumers and taxpayers group, said that Jones' bill would give regulators more power to scrutinize how insurers are spending premium dollars, and decide whether rate increases are justified. He said the consolidation of the health insurance market in California -- recent corporate mergers have left five companies in control of 80 percent of the health-maintenance organization market -- demands a bigger role for government.</p>

Cell phone donations challenged

April 11, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">UPI - United Press International</p> <p>The wireless industry is making money from a program that lets cell phone users donate to the American Red Cross. The Text 2Help program is a business strategy masquerading as a charity, the Foundations for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights claimed.</p>

Union Disunity;

April 11, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>The secret deal worked out between SEIU bosses and nursing home owners denies union members the right to speak out strike, or protect patients</h3><p class="source">San Francisco Weekly (California)</p>

Group Questions Cellphone Fund-Raising

April 11, 2007  ·  Jamie Court

<p class="source">The New York Times</p> <p>''The wireless industry has made a very direct appeal here to the hearts of Americans to use these short codes to make charitable donations, but people don't realize that every short code comes with a bill,'' Jamie Court, president of the group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said about the five-digit codes used to send text messages.</p>

Mass. Would Junk Quality, Affordability Promises of Health Insurance Mandate

April 8, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Health Insurance Law Weekly</p> <p>"We can only imagine that the Board is considering an HDHP exemption in response to criticism that health plans recently approved by the Connector are still unaffordable for many," wrote Carmen Balber, consumer advocate with the nonprofit, nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR), in a letter to the board implementing the Massachusetts law.</p>

PTO Agrees To Re-Examine WARF Claims In Stem Cells

April 4, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">BIOWORLD Today</p> <p>Dated March 30, the PTO's preliminary decision became known Tuesday. WARF has two months to appeal the finding that favors the arguments of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, California's main watchdog organization, which filed opposing paperwork last July. The Public Patent Foundation, a not-for-profit legal services outfit, joined the FTCR in the effort.</p>

INSURERS’ DENIALS HITTING CHILDREN;

April 3, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>MODESTO MAN'S REQUEST FOR COVERAGE FOR HIS SON REJECTED FOR 1 EAR INFECTION</h3><p class="source">Modesto Bee</p> <p>Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica-based consumer group, said insurers are known to deny coverage for adults and children for about any condition. The foundation obtained internal underwriting guidelines from four major insurers and made them public in January.</p>

Mercury Insurance Legislation Seeks to Allow Higher Auto Insurance Prices, Deceptive Advertising

April 3, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>SB 975 (Calderon) and Krumme v. Mercury </h3> <p>This memo explains the history of Mercury Insurance's illegal broker fees and the effort to protect them in 2007 with SB 975.</p>

Good news for state’s stem-cell research institute

April 3, 2007  ·  John M. Simpson

<p class="source">San Jose Mercury News (California)</p> <p>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected three University of Wisconsin patents for human embryonic stem cells, which consumer advocates had claimed might hamper stem-cell research in California. The federal agency's ruling was received Monday by two consumer groups that challenged the patents, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and the Public Patent Foundation.</p>

Patents for human stem cells invalidated;

April 3, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>The protections were blamed for slowing medical research.</h3><p class="source">Los Angeles Times</p> <p>The office ruled the discovery of embryonic stem cells from primates -- including humans -- was not worthy of patent protection because scientists had used similar methods to isolate embryonic stem cells from mice and other mammals, and described the cells' potential for producing medical therapies. "They rejected every one of the claims," said John Simpson, stem cell project director at the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, one of the public interest groups that brought the challenge last year.</p>

Key stem cell patents revoked

April 3, 2007  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">New Scientist Magazine</p> <p>The examiners said the Wisconsin cells -- based on the work of James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison -- appeared to be either the same or obvious variations of cells described in previous patents issued to others or published in scientific papers. The decision came as the result of a challenge filed in July 2006 by the US Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) and the Public Patent Foundation.</p>