Fw: [PUBCIT_PRESS] Public Citizen press release

[Guest guest]

FYI! mm

National Silicone Implant Foundation | Dallas Headquarters

" Supporting Survivors of Medical Implant Devices "

4416 Willow Lane

Dallas, TX 75244-7537

----- Original Message -----

From: " Public Citizen Press Office " <pcpress@...>

<PUBCIT_PRESS@...>

Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 4:19 PM

Subject: [PUBCIT_PRESS] Public Citizen press release

Public Citizen Press Releases

Providing the latest information about Public Citizen activities

-------------------------------------------

Public Citizen issued the following two press releases, Feb. 13

1. Bush Medicare Plan Hurts Seniors by Forcing Them Into HMOs and

Private Insurance PPO Plans for Drug Coverage

2. Congress Should Rein in Yucca Mountain Spending

Bush Medicare Plan Hurts Seniors by Forcing Them Into HMOs and Private

Insurance PPO Plans for Drug Coverage

WASHINGTON, D.C.-– President Bush's plan to push Medicare

beneficiaries into HMOs and Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) to

receive drug coverage would be a huge step backward for the Medicare

program, according to a report released today by Public Citizen. The

organization examined authoritative government and private sector

research on the Medicare program's current experience with private

sector plans under the Medicare+Choice program and found that coverage

offered through private insurers is unreliable, inefficient, confusing

to beneficiaries, results in added costs to taxpayers and limits

patients' choices of doctor.

The report documents that Medicare's experiment with relying on HMOs to

offer coverage for doctor and hospital care has been a failure, and it

shows that private plans should not be relied upon to offer prescription

drug coverage. Since 1999, HMOs have dropped 2.4 million seniors and

people with disabilities, forcing them to find new health care

providers. HMOs have left the program despite the fact that, according

to government reports, they are overpaid for the care they must provide

beneficiaries when they participate in the program.

Public Citizen also examined the benefits offered by PPOs under a Bush

administration demonstration program begun last year and found that

these plans also have significant drawbacks. PPOs are intended to give

seniors a much greater choice of providers than they have with HMOs. But

like HMOs, they are likely to be unreliable, because they probably will

withdraw from the program, forcing beneficiaries to find other coverage.

PPOs also charge significant additional premiums and offer meager

coverage for prescription drugs. Further, once the sizable additional

premium that beneficiaries must pay to enroll in the plans is taken into

account, their coverage for doctor and hospital visits is little better

than traditional Medicare. In some plans, hospitalized beneficiaries

must pay more out of pocket than if they had stayed in traditional

Medicare.

" This report shows why it would be foolish to privatize the Medicare

program - either to get drug coverage from private plans or to force

beneficiaries into HMOs for all coverage, " said Clemente, director

of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. " It will mean less choice of

doctors, unreliable coverage for beneficiaries and higher costs for

taxpayers due to the inefficiencies of private plans. "

Among the report's other major findings:

- The 10 states with the highest number of Medicare+Choice enrollees

who were dropped from their plans since 1999, including figures for

2003, are: Texas: 313,767; Florida: 264,170; California: 184,578; New

York: 179,941; Pennsylvania: 154,519; Ohio: 144,400; land: 116,273;

Connecticut: 110,783; Washington: 85,265; New Jersey: 79,733.

- HMOs offer unreliable coverage. The proportion of beneficiaries

enrolled in private plans has fallen from 17 percent in 1998 to 11

percent in 2003. Nationwide, the number of states in which HMO Medicare

drug coverage was unavailable nearly doubled, from 9 to 17 from 1999 to

2003.

- HMOs are overpaid but demand still higher payments for providing

coverage. HMOs are withdrawing from the Medicare program despite the

fact they are overpaid, according to government investigators. From 1998

to 2000, federal payments to Medicare HMOs exceeded by 13.2 percent the

costs the program would have incurred for treating patients. In 1998,

Medicare HMOs were overpaid $5.2 billion.

- HMOs are not viable in much of the country, particularly in rural

areas. In 2003, only 61 percent of beneficiaries have access to a

Medicare HMO. This represents a significant decline from 1998, when 74

percent of beneficiaries had access to an HMO.

- PPOs offer meager drug benefits. Of the most generous plans offered

in each of 18 geographic areas, only four will provide any coverage for

brand-name drugs. In six of the plans, beneficiaries will pay more in

annual enrollment premiums than they will receive in prescription drug

coverage.

- Some PPOs double bill beneficiaries. Beneficiaries who stay in the

hospital for an extended period will find that some PPO plans, seven of

46 available, will charge them more than if they had stayed in

traditional Medicare. Given that PPOs generally charge sizable

additional premiums, averaging about $1,000 a year, this amounts to

double billing on the part of the PPOs.

- HMOs and private insurers are far less efficient than the Medicare

program. The Medicare program spends a mere 2 percent of its budget on

administrative costs. By contrast, HMOs on average spend 15 percent of

their revenue on administrative costs. Some HMOs spend as much as 32

percent of their revenue on administration. Private insurers that offer

supplemental insurance to Medicare enrollees (Medigap policies) spend an

average of more than 20 cents of each premium dollar on agents' fees,

marketing, advertising, administration and profits - not on health

care.

- Private insurers don't have the clout to negotiate drug price

discounts that are as deep as those the federal government gets. For

example, the federal government's Veterans and Defense departments

negotiate price cuts of 52 percent off the price paid at the pharmacy.

HMOs and other private sector purchasers negotiate discounts of only 12

to 40 percent.

- Health problems among seniors make proposals relying on choice

unworkable. Nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Medicare beneficiaries have

health (e.g., poor hearing or eyesight) or cognitive problems. One

national survey found that 44 percent of adults over 60 are functionally

illiterate.

The report is at

http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/rx_benefits/drug_benefit/articles.cfm

?ID=8298.

*********************************************

Congress Should Rein in Yucca Mountain Spending

Group Letter to Appropriators Criticizes Budget for Proposed Nuclear

Dump

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congress should object to provisions in the Bush

administration's 2004 budget affecting the controversial Yucca Mountain

nuclear waste project, national environmental, public interest and

public health organizations said in a letter sent today to House and

Senate appropriators.

Last summer, Congress voted to allow the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) to proceed with a license application to transport 77,000

tons of high-level radioactive waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain,

80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nev. Critics of the project have

raised concerns about the dangers of transporting nuclear waste, federal

regulatory rollbacks that have weakened environmental standards for the

project, and outstanding technical issues surrounding the suitability of

the site.

" None of our longstanding concerns about the Yucca Mountain project

have been resolved, " the groups wrote in the letter. " More than ever, at

this crucial juncture, the project requires careful congressional

oversight and budget scrutiny. "

The groups urged appropriators to withhold full funding for the Yucca

Mountain program in 2004, budgeted at $591 million – a 28 percent

increase over the funding levels agreed to in this year's omnibus

appropriations bill. The groups also criticized the administration's

proposal to stop funding monitoring and oversight activities carried out

by the state of Nevada.

The groups also drew attention to a new proposal to reserve funds for

the Yucca Mountain project within discretionary cap adjustments, a

measure expected to be considered by House and Senate budget committees

later this spring. This would inappropriately limit the discretionary

authority of appropriators to balance various budget priorities,

essentially granting the DOE a blank check for Yucca Mountain spending,

the groups said.

" Fiscally as well as environmentally, this unusual maneuver would be

grossly irresponsible, particularly given the DOE's track record of cost

overruns and financial mismanagement in its nuclear programs, " said Joan

Claybrook, president of Public Citizen.

Fourteen national organizations endorsed the letter. The letter can be

viewed online at

http://www.citizen.org/documents/yuccaappropriation.pdf.

###

-------------------------------------------

To be removed from this list send an email to pcpress@... with

" unsubscribe pubcit_press " in the message.

Please visit our website at www.citizen.org

[Guest guest]

FYI! mm

Martha Murdock, Director

National Silicone Implant Foundation | Dallas Headquarters

" Supporting Survivors of Medical Implant Devices "

4416 Willow Lane

Dallas, TX 75244-7537

----- Original Message -----

From: " Public Citizen Press Office " <pcpress@...>

<PUBCIT_PRESS@...>

Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:14 PM

Subject: [PUBCIT_PRESS] Public Citizen press release

Public Citizen Press Releases

Providing the latest information about Public Citizen activities

-------------------------------------------

Public Citizen issued the following two press releases March 17

1. Capping Awards for Pain and Suffering Would Not Halt Increases in

Malpractice Payouts, Study Shows

2. Public Citizen Urges Texas Supreme Court to Overturn Ruling That

Would Strand Victims of Financial Fraud, Insulate Companies

Capping Awards for Pain and Suffering Would Not Halt

Increases in Malpractice Payouts, Study Shows

Rise in Medical Malpractice Awards Largely Due to Increase in Health

Care Costs, Damages Awarded for Lost Wages - Not Pain-and-Suffering or

Punitive Damage Awards

AUSTIN – Capping the damages awarded to victims of medical

malpractice for pain and suffering, a measure being considered by the

Texas legislature, would do little, if anything, to stop the rise in the

amount of overall malpractice payouts, according to an analysis of state

data conducted by Public Citizen.

By separating malpractice payouts into their components - economic

damages (for lost income and medical care), non-economic damages (for

pain and suffering) and exemplary damages (punitive) - and charting the

rise and fall of each, it is clear that the rising value of payouts has

been caused by an increase in economic damages, not awards for pain and

suffering. The data came from the Texas Department of Insurance's closed

claims reports of all malpractice claims that led to a payment, either

by settlement, jury verdict or arbitration.

" This clearly shows that limiting the compensation to malpractice

victims for their pain and suffering wouldn't significantly affect

malpractice awards and therefore would not resolve the liability

crisis, " said Reggie , director of Consumers Union's Southwest

Regional Office. " Capping non-economic damages, as the legislature is

considering, would disproportionately harm children and elderly victims

of malpractice. The most vulnerable - those with little or no income -

receive the least in economic damages. "

The data show that:

- Economic damage awards have risen, from about $88 million in 1988 to

$315 million in 1999. In 2000, they totaled $298 million;

- The total amount of non-economic damages awarded to malpractice

victims has remained between $55 million and $85 million over the past

13 years;

- In 2000, the latest year for which data are available, the total

amount of non-economic damages dropped below the 1988 level, to $40

million, and the percentage of payouts in which non- economic damages

were awarded has dropped from a high of nearly 40 percent to below 10

percent;

- Punitive damages have remained constant at about $1 million annually.

They now represent less than one-third of 1 percent of total awards, the

lowest level since 1988; and

- Ninety-five percent of all cases are settled before a jury reaches a

verdict.

A second Public Citizen analysis of data provided by the state

Insurance Commissioner shows that investment earnings for insurance

companies that offer medical malpractice coverage in Texas plummeted by

$800 million between 1997 and 2000. The total yield on their invested

assets decreased from almost $2 billion to $1.17 billion during that

period. In 1997, earnings on investments were 1.4 percent; in 2000

insurers lost 5.1 percent on their investments, for a total drop of 6.5

percent. These earnings rebounded slightly in 2001, to $1.2 billion,

but not nearly enough to recoup the investment losses.

" This bolsters the argument that insurance companies are charging

doctors more for malpractice premiums to help make up for rising health

care costs and investment losses, not because of jury awards in

malpractice cases, " said Tom " Smitty " , director of Public

Citizen's Texas office.

Two ways to address malpractice premiums are to discipline those

" repeat offender " doctors who commit the bulk of malpractice and reform

the rate-setting process for malpractice insurance, said. Between

September 1990 and September 2002, just 6.5 percent of Texas doctors

were responsible for 51.3 percent of the medical malpractice payouts.

Those doctors each made two or more malpractice payouts worth a total of

more than $1 billion. Just 2.2 percent of the doctors were responsible

for 25 percent of the payouts, according to information obtained from

the federal government's National Practitioner Data Bank. (To read

Public Citizen's report on the malpractice spikes in Texas, go to

www.citizen.org.)

The Texas Senate took some good first steps to toughen discipline for

the worst doctors in Texas by increasing disclosure of information about

doctor errors. The Senate also required the state medical board to

review doctors who have been the subject of three or more medical

malpractice expert reports in a five-year period; these reports indicate

that the doctor has given substandard care. The House should adopt these

amendments and go further by establishing a patient advocates' office,

said.

" The only cure for rising medical liability insurance premiums is

meaningful insurance reform, " said Dan Lambe, executive director of

Texas Watch. " We should not allow the insurance and medical industries

to point the finger of blame at innocent Texas patients. "

******************************************************

Public Citizen Urges Texas Supreme Court to Overturn Ruling That Would

Strand Victims of Financial Fraud, Insulate Companies

Dean Witter Brokerage Firm Should Be Liable for Employee's Fraud

AUSTIN, Texas - Public Citizen today urged the Texas Supreme Court to

review a ruling that, if allowed to stand, would insulate brokerage

firms and other financial institutions from most, if not all,

intentional fraud perpetrated by their employees.

The ruling makes it far less likely that victims of fraud will be

compensated for their losses. It also would send a message to firms that

they won't have to monitor their employees as closely as they do now,

Public Citizen said in an amicus brief.

Courts throughout the country have ruled that employers are liable for

their workers' misdeeds when the workers commit those acts as part of

their general scope of authority - that is, when the employer has the

right and power to direct and control the worker in the performance of

the act that caused the harm.

In the case, Millan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. , 90 S.W.3d 760, the

Fourth District Court of Appeals in San acknowledged that the

Dean Witter employee in question, Millan, stole about $287,000

over a three-year period from his mother's Dean Witter account that he

had established in his role as a Dean Witter broker. Millan engaged in a

series of deceitful acts, such as forging his mother's name on checks

and creating false account statements. Dean Witter was hardly

blameless, as it failed, for instance, to follow special rules for

oversight of familial accounts.

The Court of Appeals ruled last year that, because Dean Witter had not

specifically authorized Millan to engage in fraud, the brokerage firm

was not liable for Millan's wrongdoing.

But the appellate court was confusing specific authority with the

general authority that Dean Witter had given Millan, Public Citizen said

in the brief. If employers could be held liable only for acts they

specifically authorized, employers would usually escape liability for

fraud, because they would never authorize an employee to steal, the

brief said.

" The Court of Appeals should have focused on 's general acts -

the opening of the Dean Witter account, the receipt of money for

investment, and the like, " the brief says. " That conduct was in

furtherance of the employer's business, and [these] were exactly the

kinds of acts that was hired to do. "

Recent corporate scandals have shown that there is increased need to

protect consumers from abuse whether it be at the hands of brokers,

accounting firms, or other corporate actors, and yet the Court of

Appeals decision moves in the other direction. The brief notes that,

unless the Texas Supreme Court steps in, defrauded Texans will have

little recourse, because the industry will hide behind its employees,

who don't have the resources to fully compensate their victims, said

Wolfman, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group, who

filed the brief.

" The appellate court ruling is very disturbing because it flies in the

face of settled law, " Wolfman said. " If the Texas Supreme Court doesn't

overturn this decision, financial institutions will have far less

incentive to oversee their employees' conduct. Fraud victims could be

left out in the cold. "

Said Tom " Smitty " , director of Public Citizen's Texas office, " If

the appellate court ruling stands, big corporations would be shielded,

while consumers will be stripped of their assets and left without many

options to recoup their losses. "

To read Public Citizen's brief, go to

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization

based in Washington, D.C. with an office in Austin. For more

information, please visit www.citizen.org.

-------------------------------------------

To be removed from this list send an email to pcpress@... with

" unsubscribe pubcit_press " in the message.

Please visit our website at www.citizen.org

[Guest guest]

FYI! mm

Martha Murdock, Director

National Silicone Implant Foundation | Dallas Headquarters

" Supporting Survivors of Medical Implant Devices "

4416 Willow Lane

Dallas, TX 75244-7537

----- Original Message -----

From: " Public Citizen Press Office " <pcpress@...>

<PUBCIT_PRESS@...>

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:35 PM

Subject: [PUBCIT_PRESS] Public Citizen press release

> Public Citizen Press Releases

> Providing the latest information about Public Citizen activities

> -------------------------------------------

>

> Public Citizen issued the following two press releases, April 10

>

> 1. Sweeping Civil Justice Legislation is Anti-Consumer, Should Be

> Rejected

> 2. Public Citizen Urges Lawmakers to Reject Bush Plan to Build New

> Nuclear Reactors, Subsidize Nuclear Industry With Taxpayer Money

> *******************************************

>

> Sweeping Civil Justice Legislation is Anti-Consumer, Should Be

> Rejected

>

> Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook Testifies Today

> Before Texas Lawmakers

>

> AUSTIN - A bill pending before the Texas legislature would severely

> curtail the rights of consumers while giving an enormous handout to

> corporations, including product manufacturers, Public Citizen

> representatives said today.

>

> Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook, who is scheduled to testify

> today before Texas lawmakers, denounced H.B. 4, calling it anti-consumer

> and warning that it would dramatically undermine the legal landscape in

> Texas. Claybrook is a longtime consumer advocate and auto safety expert.

> From 1977 to 1981, she was administrator of the National Highway Traffic

> Safety Administration.

>

> " This bill reads like a corporate bean counter's wish list, " she

> said. " Each provision will facilitate practices ranging from

> corner-cutting to outright scams. The sponsors appear to have accepted

> in their entirety the suggestions of business lobbyists without any

> attempt to balance the concerns of business with the safety and health

> interests of consumers. "

>

> Added Tom " Smitty " , director of Public Citizen's Texas office,

> " This is draconian legislation that would do untold harm to the people

> of Texas. The fact that the bill is chock full of everything industry

> wants is a testament to the influence of industry lobbyists. We hope

> lawmakers see the dangers of this bill and soundly reject it. "

>

> In her testimony, Claybrook focused on a portion of the bill that would

> change state product liability law to the detriment of consumers by

> limiting manufacturers' liability for products that injure or kill

> people if those products comply with federal safety standards. But

> regulatory standards alone are not sufficient to guarantee the

> manufacture of safe products, Claybrook said.

>

> Federal safety rules set minimum thresholds and often remain unchanged

> for long periods, thereby becoming outdated. They don't reflect the

> capability of a manufacturer to make a product safer because they apply

> industry-wide. Further, federal rules don't regulate the safety of

> products over their foreseeable lifetime, but rather apply only at the

> time of manufacture. Also, they are often a function of political

> legislative decisions, which frequently are influenced by the industries

> that will be affected.

>

>

> " Broad government performance standards are not a reliable predictor of

> defective designs and should not be a shield behind which companies can

> hide to avoid liability for their negligent or intentionally unsafe

> products, " Claybrook said.

>

> Consider the Ford-Firestone debacle, which involved defective Firestone

> tires that were prone to tread separations, leading to catastrophic

> crashes, many of them rollovers. More than 200 people were killed and

> 700 people injured seriously in crashes involving the tires. The tires

> passed the antiquated, 30-year-old federal tire safety standard, but the

> U.S. Department of Transportation found them to be defective and

> required them to be recalled. Under H.B. 4, Firestone wouldn't be

> liable for injuries or deaths caused by the defect because the tires met

> the federal safety standards.

>

> Consider also that numerous people, particularly police officers, have

> been killed or burned by explosions of the gas tanks of Ford Crown

> s when the vehicle is rear-ended at highway speeds. The car

> meets the federal gas tank standard, which has not kept up with

> technology improvements since it was set in 1974. Common law rightly

> requires manufacturers to take this information into account and be

> responsible for design flaws. But under H.B. 4, the manufacturer

> wouldn't be liable for those killed and injured in Crown

> gas tank explosions even if the government were to rule that the vehicle

> is unreasonably dangerous.

>

> Making manufacturers liable for harmful products is important not only

> because consumers deserve to be compensated for injuries caused by the

> products, but because manufacturers need incentives to incorporate

> state-of-the-art safety elements into product designs, Claybrook said.

> Liability also provides incentive for victims, survivors and their

> attorneys to investigate whether a product is unreasonably dangerous.

>

> " Time after time, lawsuits have exposed dangerous products, forced

> manufacturers to make them safer, compensated injured victims, and

> alerted the public and federal agencies to safety defects and hazards, "

> Claybrook said. " Legal action was critical to consumers injured by the

> Dalkon shield intrauterine device, the Ford Pinto that exploded in

> rear-end crashes, super-absorbency tampons that caused toxic-shock

> syndrome in some women, and Redux, a drug that was frequently part of

> the weight loss combination Fen-Phen, was recalled from the market after

> widespread reports it was related to primary pulmonary hypertension,

> heart valve problems, and neuropsychological damage to the brain. "

>

> Claybrook and blasted several other provisions of the bill:

>

> - It would put class action lawsuits in jeopardy if a state agency has

> jurisdiction over the subject matter.

> - It called for a losing plaintiff (usually the consumer) to pay the

> attorney fees of the defendant (usually a corporation), but if a

> defendant loses, it need not pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.

> - It would immunize retailers from liability for defective products,

> which is particularly unfair with large sellers such as Wal-Mart, which

> for example, imports toys from foreign companies that are hard to sue.

> ************************************************************************

> Public Citizen Urges Lawmakers to Reject Bush Plan to Build New Nuclear

> Reactors, Subsidize Nuclear Industry With Taxpayer Money

>

> Public Citizen Analysis Concludes " Nuclear Power 2010 " Hurts Taxpayers,

>

> Makes Them Responsible for Nuclear Risks

>

> WASHINGTON, D.C. - Public Citizen is urging lawmakers to cancel the

> Bush administration's nuclear power expansion plan, known as Nuclear

> Power 2010, and reject the recommendations of a government consultant

> that suggested ways to lower the industry's capital costs of new reactor

> construction at the expense of taxpayers.

>

> The administration's initiative to promote the construction of new

> nuclear reactors is enshrined in House and Senate energy legislation. On

> Thursday, the House is scheduled to vote on the energy bill (H.R.6), and

> senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will vote on the

> nuclear title of a separate bill drafted by Chairman Pete Domenici

> (R-NM).

>

> Both bills direct the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to implement the

> Nuclear Power 2010 program and authorize spending taxpayer money on it.

> Senate legislation more specifically opens the door to unusual and

> unacceptable taxpayer subsidies for new reactors, including loan

> guarantees and power purchase agreements between the government and

> plant operators.

>

> More details about this program's likely direction surfaced in a report

> commissioned by the DOE, which sought recommendations on how the

> government can promote investor interest in nuclear power expansion.

> That report, prepared by Scully Capital Services, Inc., a

> Washington-based investment banking and financial services firm, is

> entitled Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants: Bringing Public and

> Private Resources Together for Nuclear Energy.

>

> The Business Case report recommended various extreme measures needed to

> promote the construction of new nuclear power plants. Among the

> recommendations are government power purchase agreements at above market

> price, subsidized federal loans, tax-exempt financing and

> taxpayer-backed insurance of last resort.

>

> The report also recommended government action on three " show-stoppers "

> that now prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants - nuclear

> waste, liabilities associated with catastrophic accidents, and the

> potential that successful interventions, such as lawsuits, could block

> plants' operating licenses.

>

> " Nuclear power poses safety and security risks unlike any other source

> of electricity, and the issue of long-term nuclear waste management

> remains a costly problem, " said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public

> Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. " Throwing more

> tax dollars at nuclear power will not make it safer, cleaner or more

> economical. Lawmakers should reject the corporate welfare

> recommendations contained in the Business Case report. "

>

> Public Citizen has prepared an analysis of the Business Case report's

> recommendations. The analysis is available at

> http://www.citizen.org/documents/nuke2010analysis.pdf.

>

> ###

>

> Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in

> Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org

>

> -------------------------------------------

> To be removed from this list send an email to pcpress@... with

" unsubscribe pubcit_press " in the message.

>

> Please visit our website at www.citizen.org

>