Since 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General has published warnings and reports outlining the misuse of the hospice benefit. Last year, it listed hospice fraud as the government’s top area for criminal recoveries, after the pharmaceutical and home health sectors. “It’s an open secret that hospice is one of the poster children for fraud and abuse in Medicare,” said David Grabowski, a health policy professor at Harvard who serves on MedPac, the federal advisory panel on Medicare spending.

Some hospices boost profits by signing people up regardless of whether they are dying. Marketers present the program as free home health care or steal personal information to enroll “phantom patients.” Others target assisted living facilities and nursing home residents whose life expectancy exceeds six months.

This guide can help you research your hospice provider and spot common signs of hospice fraud. It is adapted from the Senior Medicare Patrol National Resource Center, a grantee of the Administration for Community Living at HHS, that assists Medicare beneficiaries, families and their caregivers to prevent, detect and report health care fraud, errors and abuse.

Click Read the rest to see the whole thing

Many people might be surprised to know that at least part of the death industry is regulated. What is regulated and what isn’t?

     Let’s talk about the federal [rules] because that’s most important to the basics of what people need to know. There’s something called the Funeral Rule, a regulation from the Federal Trade Commission, which gives consumers particular rights, and they would be very wise to exercise these rights.

    One, they have a right to get price quotes by phone.

    Number two, when they go to a funeral home in person to talk about a funeral arrangement, they have a right to a printed, itemized price list — think of it just like a menu at a restaurant.

    Number three, they have a right to pick and choose item by item. Funeral homes are not allowed to offer you only a package. They will try to offer you a package and they will often say, “You save money if you buy everything together in a bundle.” But just like all bundles, you have to take a look and see, is this actually something I would have spent money on, on its own? Am I really saving money? Or am I just getting a bunch of things that I wouldn’t have picked anyway?

What are the first steps to take after a loved one’s death?

     Number one, remember that death is not an emergency. When death occurs, by definition, that means the emergency is now over. The worst thing that can happen has already happened. The person isn’t going to get any deader, to put it plainly.

     Get on the phone and call at least five different funeral homes within a 20- to 30-mile radius of where the dead person is. Get price quotes. Take the time to at least look it over and compare some of the prices before you commit to having the funeral home remove the body. If the person dies at a hospital, which is more common, you have more options. Ask the hospital if the body can stay in the morgue for a couple of days while you make a considered decision about which funeral home to call.

     Two, take stock of your budget. You need to know that figure. Decide ahead of time what you can comfortably afford. And for God’s sake, please don’t do this: “Oh, money is no object. It’s my mother. She deserves the best,” and then three months from now, you’ve got a $15,000 bill that you can’t pay. . . .

Much more at link -- Read the whole thing

Recently, my truck was stolen, forcing me to get some new wheels. And, for the first time in my life, I've been looking to buy a new car. The process has involved hours of searching. Painful haggling. And encounters with many dealerships that, quite frankly, have been downright duplicitous. The whole thing has been kind of a nightmare.

Cars are, of course, expensive, especially with the supply chain fiasco creating shortages. But it's more than that. Shopping for cars is not like shopping for most other products. Unlike, say, computers or refrigerators, cars are typically not sold for one standard price. Ten people could go into a dealership and each pay a wildly different amount to buy the same exact vehicle.

Economists call this sort of pricing strategy "price discrimination." That's when, instead of charging everyone the same price, sellers charge people different prices based on their willingness to pay. In simpler terms, it means that the seller milks as much money as they can out of you. Not all dealerships engage in this pricing strategy, but many do it aggressively, often with snake oil-style salesmanship, deceptive marketing tactics, hidden fees, and overpriced add-ons, like floor mats, alarm systems, or anti-rust undercoating. Some consumers call the outfits that employ these tactics "stealerships." . . .

See the rest here.

If you are having trouble sleeping one night but don’t mind a possible nightmare of being crushed by a multi-billion dollar corporation, you can read Experian’s Terms of Use Agreement here:
 https://www.experian.com/help/terms-and-conditions.html

So to reiterate – if you have a problem with Experian, you would have to air your grievances in arbitration, not any court. If you are not familiar with arbitration, you can think of it as a fake court that has been found to be very unfair in favor of businesses (who pay them). If you’re interested, you can learn more about how unfair forced arbitration is here https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ or here
https://www.citizen.org/article/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-discriminatory-and-unfair/

This should beg the questions: Why is Experian so worried about you suing them in court? Why are they so worried about class actions? And wait… are they luring you to click through this “agreement” with the promise of a higher credit score? Yes, they are. In exchange for a higher credit score, you have to promise to never sue them in court.

And if you’re wondering whether Experian ever goes so far as to enforce their forced arbitration clauses; yes, they do . . .

Agency Order Requires Grill Maker to Fix Warranty and Come Clean with Customers
July 7, 2022

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against grill maker Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products. The FTC’s complaint charges that Weber’s warranty included terms that conveyed that the warranty is void if customers use or install third-party parts on their grill products. Weber is being ordered to fix its warranty by removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair and come clean with customers about their ability to use third-party parts.

“This is the FTC’s third right-to-repair lawsuit in as many weeks,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that use their warranties to illegally restrict consumers’ right to repair should fix them now.”

Illinois-based Weber manufactures and sells grills and related products worldwide and offers limited warranties to consumers who buy its products that provide for no-cost repair or replacement, should the products have defects or other issues.

The FTC has made it a priority to protect consumers’ right to repair their products. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is one of the FTC’s tools to address repair restrictions. It prohibits a company from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s using any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free.

Following the FTC’s right to repair report Nixing the Fix, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on Repair Restrictions Imposed by Manufacturers pledging to ramp up investigations into illegal repair restrictions.

The FTC recently announced complaints and orders against Harley-Davidson and the maker of Westinghouse outdoor generators for similar issues.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Weber imposed illegal warranty terms that voided customers’ warranties if they used or installed any third-party parts on their grill products. The FTC alleges that these terms harm consumers and competition in multiple ways, including:

•      Restricting consumers’ choices: Consumers who buy a product covered by a warranty do so to protect their own interests, not the manufacturer’s. Weber’s warranty improperly implied that as a condition of maintaining warranty coverage, consumers had to use the company’s parts.
  

•      Costing consumers more money: By telling consumers their warranty will be voided if they choose third-party parts, Weber forced consumers to use potentially more expensive options provided by Weber itself. This violates the Warranty Act, which prohibits these clauses unless a manufacturer provides the required parts for free under the warranty or is granted an exception from the FTC.
  
•      Undercutting independent businesses: The Warranty Act’s tying prohibition protects not just consumers, but also independent repairers and the manufacturers of aftermarket parts. By conditioning its warranty on the use of Weber-branded parts, Weber infringed the right of independent repairers and manufacturers to compete on a level playing field. 
  
•      Reducing resiliency: Robust competition from aftermarket part manufacturers is critical to ensuring that consumers get the replacement parts they need when they need them and are not at the mercy of branded part supply chains. More resilient and repairable products also lead to less waste in the form of products that could otherwise be fixed. 
  

Enforcement Actions
Under the FTC Act and the Warranty Act, the FTC has the authority to take action against companies violating consumer protection laws, including those engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The FTC’s order in this case:

• 
  
•      Prohibits further violations: Weber will be prohibited from further violations of the Warranty Act. They will also be prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party parts, or that they should only use Weber-brand parts. If the company violates these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court.
  

•      Recognizes consumers’ right to repair: Weber will be required to add specific language to its warranty saying, “Using third-party parts will not void this warranty.”
  

•      Comes clean with consumers: Weber must send and post notices informing customers that their warranties will remain in effect even if they use or install third-party parts on their Weber grill products.
  

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $46,517.

Used-Car Certifications Often Not Meaningful
by Anthony Giorgianni
Last updated May 2022

Dealers promise rigorously inspected rides and peace-of-mind warranties, but we found some consumers get rebuilt wrecks and even a former crash-test vehicle.

Most used-car shoppers find the process a stressful ordeal filled with possible perils. They worry they’ll end up with an unreliable vehicle, and they don’t feel comfortable dealing with car salespeople: A 2022 Gallup poll found them to be the second-most-hated profession in the U.S.; only lobbyists fared worse. Worst of all, supply-chain problems for new-car factories have created a surge in demand for used ones—during the first quarter of 2022, average prices for secondhand rides were up 35 percent compared to the previous 12 months. Competition is so stiff that many used cars are purchased sight unseen by desperate buyers.

To reassure used-car buyers worried about getting stuck with a lemon, manufacturers in the 1990s began offering “certified” used cars. They’re marketed as the crème de la crème of the secondhand auto world and even come with manufacturer-backed warranties.


But our research uncovered that certified labels don’t guarantee vehicles won’t have serious hidden mechanical or structural problems. We were astonished by some of the flaws we discovered, many that should have been noticed during promised inspections. We also found certified cars that were totaled wrecks that were rebuilt and resold, and even an SUV previously owned by the government and used in crash tests.


Because manufacturers count on their dealers to conduct the promised inspections needed to certify vehicles, certification labels are only as reliable as the diligence of the dealerships and their mechanics in doing the screening tasks and fixing any problems they find. And our research indicates they’re not always diligent. . . .

(Read the whole thing at https://www.checkbook.org/puget-sound-area/used-car-certifications-often-not-meaningful/)

Today, the New York State legislature passed an electronics Right to Repair bill: As of mid 2023, manufacturers who sell “digital electronic products” in New York will have to make parts, tools, information, and software available to consumers and independent repair shops. We still await a final signing by the governor, but advocates don’t expect a challenge. . . .

For independent repair shops, this news is huge: Independent shops will finally be able to compete with manufacturers, resisting the repair market consolidation manufacturers have created by restricting access to parts and tools. In a recent California survey, 59% of independent repair shops said they might have to close their doors without the passage of Right to Repair. 

For the rest of us, the passage of this bill means that repairs should become less expensive and more comprehensive: People who want to fix their own stuff can. And your repair experience should improve even if you’re intimidated by the thought of cracking open your laptop or phone (Don’t be! You’ve got this! We can help!). Where before, manufacturers could push consumers to use manufacturer-authorized shops, now they’ll have to compete. Independent repair shops are often able to do repairs the manufacturer told a customer were impossible. Every day, microsolderers like Jessa Jones’s crack team of former stay-at-home moms breathe life back into devices authorized repair shops had written off as dead.   
Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director of the Repair Association, said, “Every consumer in New York is going to benefit from this landmark legislation. We’ll all be able to fix the stuff we like,  stop being forced to buy new things we don’t want, and make it possible for the secondary market to provide high quality options for reuse.”
This bill covers most products containing electronics, but has some notable carve outs. It does not include motor vehicles (these are already handled by a national Right to Repair agreement between the automakers and the aftermarket), home appliances, medical devices, public safety communications equipment like police radios, agricultural equipment, and off-road equipment. We expect to see future legislation address these sectors.

New Analysis Finds Consumers Reported Losing More than
$1 Billion in Cryptocurrency to Scams since 2021

Most of the Losses Consumers Reported were to Bogus Cryptocurrency Investment Scams

Consumers reported losing over $1 billion to fraud involving cryptocurrencies from January 2021 through March 2022, according to a new analysis from the Federal Trade Commission. Fraud reports suggest cryptocurrency is quickly becoming the payment of choice for many scammers, with about one out of every four dollars reported lost to fraud paid in cryptocurrency.

The FTC’s latest Consumer Protection Data Spotlight finds that most of the cryptocurrency losses consumers reported involved bogus cryptocurrency investment opportunities, which totaled $575 million in reported losses since January 2021. These scams often falsely promise potential investors that they can earn huge returns by investing in their cryptocurrency schemes, but people report losing all the money they “invest.”
After cryptocurrency investment schemes, the next largest losses reported by consumers were on:

• Romance Scams: These often involve a love interest who tries to entice someone into investing in what turns out to be a cryptocurrency scam.
• Business and Government Impersonation Scams: Reports show these scammers often target consumers by claiming their money is at risk because of fraud or a government investigation and the only way to protect their cash is by converting it to cryptocurrency.

Reports suggest that cryptocurrency-related scams often begin on social media. Nearly half of consumers who reported a cryptocurrency related scam since 2021 said it started with an ad, post or message on a social media platform.
People ages 20 to 49 were more than three times as likely as older age groups to have reported losing money to a cryptocurrency scam. Older age groups, however, reported losing more money when they did report a cryptocurrency-related scam.

Some of the red flags consumers should watch out for include:

• * anyone who claims they can guarantee profits or big returns by investing in cryptocurrency;
  
• * people who require you to buy or pay in cryptocurrency;
  
• * and a love interest who wants to show you how to invest in cryptocurrency or to send them cryptocurrency.
  

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.

Anyone who has EVER thought of "investing" in cryptocurrency or "non-fungible tokens" (NFTs) should watch this priceless expose.

Pat Dennis @patdennis

Sick of people calling everything in crypto a Ponzi scheme. Some crypto projects are pump and dump schemes, while others are pyramid schemes. Others are just standard-issue fraud. Others are just middlemen skimming off the top. Stop glossing over the diversity in the industry.

How to opt out of Venmo’s new arbitration clause

Keep your rights to class action
By Barbara Krasnoff  Apr 25, 2022, 2:52pm EDT

. . .  We’ll tell you how you can opt out — but first, a little info about arbitration clauses.
Arbitration clauses have become extremely popular in agreements between companies and consumers. (For example, here’s a 2019 article explaining how to opt out of the arbitration clause that emerged when Apple added a credit card.)

It’s not surprising. When you agree to arbitration, you are basically putting most of the advantages in the company’s court.

For example, most arbitration clauses deny you the opportunity to become part of a class action suit or to individually sue the company. Instead, an arbitrator (often chosen by the company) reviews the case and then makes a ruling that cannot be appealed.


MOST ARBITRATION CLAUSES DENY YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PART OF A CLASS ACTION SUIT

And, in fact, this is exactly what the arbitration clause that Venmo is adding is meant to do.

. . .

here’s the short version of what you need to do:

• 
  
• Download and print out the Venmo Opt-Out Notice Form
  
• Fill out the entire form
  
• Mail it (yes, the kind of mail with an envelope and a stamp) to:
  

PayPal, Inc.
Attn: Litigation Department
Re: Venmo Opt-Out Notice
2211 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95131


1) .... if you accepted the user agreement for the first time on or after May 23rd, 2022, then your form has to be postmarked up to 30 days after that date.

If you’ve been a Venmo member for longer, you have until June 22nd, 2022.

2) ... Send it so it can be traced or, even better, so somebody has to sign for it.

This will cost more, but if you foresee yourself possibly needing to take Venmo to court anytime in the future (especially if you plan to use the service extensively), then it pays to be sure.

Right to Repair 

The Freedom to Repair Act Will Make All Electronic Repairs Legal

Article by: Elizabeth Chamberlain @elizzybeth

• February 2, 2022
  

Restoring our right to repair what we own is being considered in the US House of Representatives right now. Today, Representatives Mondaire Jones of New York (D) and Victoria Spartz of Indiana (R) introduced the Freedom to Repair Act. The bill would permanently fix an important aspect of copyright law, making almost all electronic repairs legal by default.
Copyright law shouldn’t prevent repair, but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 made it illegal to circumvent technological protection measures for any purpose, repair included. More and more products have technological protection measures, to the point where fixing your Xbox or Keurig has become illegal. Every three years, we fight to get the Copyright Office to grant specific repair exemptions to the DMCA. We’ve had some success, but the limited exemptions we’ve received don’t allow people to  share the tools or software necessary for these repairs.


The Jones-Spartz bill would simplify all of this. It would clarify that working around digital locks when fixing things isn’t a copyright violation. Making tools and software for those repairs would become legal. All products with embedded electronics are included, with the exception of medical devices. (We’re not thrilled about this exception.)


Nathan Proctor with US PIRG weighed in, “Manufacturers have gone too far by locking repair functions. Congress never intended to outlaw repair. It’s no surprise that fixing this oversight is bipartisan. It’s common sense.” 


Eschewing unnecessary lock-outs also supports technology education, too, as cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler pointed out at a right to repair hearing in Washington recently. When “manufacturers restrict the right to poke around in their devices,” she said, it damages the opportunity for “curious minds to explore” and makes it harder for her, as an employer, to find employees with knowledge and skill.


Momentum for Right to Repair is growing. Yesterday, Senator Tester (D) introduced a Federal agriculture equipment right to repair bill. And state bills have moved out of key committees in Washington and Massachusetts this week.
Making more devices repairable will empower recyclers and refurbishers to reduce e-waste by extending the useful life of these products.


“We shouldn’t have to beg permission from the Copyright Office every three years for the right to fix our stuff. Repair isn’t piracy and it’s not how copyrights are infringed. This bill helps make repair practical again,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director of Repair.org. “When passed, this reform will improve choice in repair markets, which means better service at lower costs for consumers.”

Let your congressional representatives know that you support the bipartisan Freedom to Repair Act and the legal right to repair.

Veterans, active duty can take advantage of Public Service Loan Forgiveness program
News Sections: Education, Top Stories

Published On: January 26th, 2022|624 words|2.1 min readVAntage Point Contributor

Veterans and active duty service members can get one step closer to student loan forgiveness through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

You will need to submit your application by October 31, 2022.
By cancelling loans after 10 years of public service, PSLF removes the burden of student debt on public servants, makes it possible for many borrowers to stay in their jobs, and entices others to work in high-need fields.

Months on active duty countThe Department of Education will allow months spent on active duty to count toward PSLF, even if the service member’s loans were on a deferment or forbearance rather than in active repayment. This change addresses one major challenge service members face in accessing PSLF.

Service members on active duty can qualify for student loan deferments and forbearances that help them through periods in which service inhibits their ability to make payments. But too often, members of the military find out that those same deferments or forbearances granted while they served our country did not count toward PSLF.

This change ensures that members of the military will not need to focus on their student loans while serving our country. Federal Student Aid will develop and implement a process to address periods of student loan deferments and forbearance for active-duty service members and will update affected borrowers to let them know what they need to do to take advantage of this change.

Giving federal employees creditThe Department of Education will begin automatically giving federal employees credit for PSLF by matching Department of Education data with information held by other federal agencies about service members and the federal workforce. These matches will help the Department of Education identify others who may also be eligible but cannot benefit automatically, like those with FFEL loans.

Qualifying employersAny U.S. federal, state, local or tribal government agency is considered a government employer for the PSLF Program. This includes employers such as the U.S. military, public elementary and secondary schools, public colleges and universities, public child and family service agencies, and special governmental districts (including entities such as public transportation, water, bridge district, or housing authorities).
A government contractor isn’t considered a government employer.
You can visit the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Help Tool, which will help you determine if an employer is considered a qualifying employer under the PSLF Program.

Income doesn’t matterThere is no income requirement to qualify for PSLF. However, since your required monthly payment amount under most of the qualifying PSLF repayment plans is based on your income, your income level over the course of your public service employment might be a factor in determining whether you have a remaining loan balance to be forgiven after making 120 qualifying payments.

Know you have creditable service?If you know that you have qualifying employment that you have not yet certified with the Department of Education, you can certify that employment now by using the PSLF Help Tool at www.StudentAid.gov/pslf.
Haven’t applied yet?You will need to submit a PSLF form so the Department of Education can review your loans under the simplified rules and determine whether your current or past employers qualify for PSLF. You can submit this form through the PSLF Help Tool at StudentAid.gov/PSLF. Because the Department of Education expects an influx of applicants due to this announcement, you may see some delays in having your application processed.

Learn moreFact Sheet: Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program Overhaul | U.S. Department of Education
Public Service Loan Forgiveness FAQs | Federal Student Aid
U.S. Department of Education Announces Transformational Changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, Will Put Over 550,000 Public Service Workers Closer to Loan Forgiveness | U.S. Department of Education