Menu

Friday, October 7, 2016

Mylan To Pay $465M To Settle EpiPen Medicaid Pricing Scandal; Critics Call Deal “Inadequate”

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Amid recent revelations that EpiPen maker Mylan has been overcharging U.S. taxpayers for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars since at least 2011, the drug company says it has agreed to pay $465 million to close the book on a federal investigation into its Mecidaid pricing — all without admitting any liability.

To quickly recap, drug companies whose medications are purchased by Medicaid reimburse the program through mandatory rebates. The rate of those rebates is based on whether the drug is an “innovator” medication (often a newer, higher-cost drug with little or no competition) or a “non-innovator multiple source” (NIMS) drug (often an older drug with competition from generics).

Since 2010, the rebate rate for a NIMS drug is 13% of the average manufacturer price during the rebate period. Innovator drugs face a significantly higher rebate, of at least 23.1%.

It’s up to each drug company to properly categorize their drugs in the rebate program, but if a company is caught mis-classifying a drug in order to pay a lower rebate, they could be in violation of the False Claims Act, which prohibits the submission of bogus invoices to the federal government.

This week, after a number of lawmakers called on the U.S. Attorney General’s office to investigate this possible Medicaid fraud, Andrew Slavitt, Acting Administrator for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), confirmed to Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) that Mylan had indeed mis-classified EpiPen as a NIMS drug and had been paying rebates that were at least 10% smaller than what the company should have paid.

Given that Medicaid has purchased around $1 billion in EpiPens since 2011, this disparity could mean the government was shortchanged by hundreds of millions of dollars by Mylan. However, in his letter to Wyden, Slavitt said that his office had not yet determined how much the drug companied owed.

Today’s settlement has been confirmed by Mylan and disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but as of the time of publishing this story, neither the DOJ nor CMS were commenting on the deal.

“The settlement terms provide for resolution of all potential rebate liability claims by federal and state governments as to whether the product should have been classified as an innovator drug for CMS purposes and subject to a higher rebate formula,” reads the statement from Mylan. “In connection with the settlement, Mylan expects to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Mylan will continue to work with the government to finalize the settlement.”

While Mylan’s settlement is substantial, today’s announcement has some critics calling foul.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) called the deal “a shadow of what it should be,” and accused it of “lacking real accountability for Mylan’s apparent lawbreaking.”

According to Blumenthal, who had been among the senators pushing for a proper DOJ investigation into this matter, Mylan has short-circuited any such probe or the fact-finding process that would have been involved.

“This settlement is blatantly inadequate, not only in dollar amount, but also Mylan’s avoiding admission of moral and legal responsibility,” said Blumenthal.

Sen. Wyden was not as critical of the settlement, calling it a “first step for taxpayers to get what they are owed from drug companies,” while noting that he remains “extremely concerned by the alarming trend of rising drug prices straining family budgets and taxpayers, and by how this was allowed to happen in the first place.”

In a statement, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said there are still questions remaining after this announcement.

“It’s unclear whether this settlement is fair or in proportion to the amount Mylan overcharged the taxpayers. It’s also unclear how much money is going back to the states,” said Grassley. “The Justice Department should make all of the details as transparent as possible, including when it opened the investigation into Mylan. This is public money, and the public’s business generally ought to be public.”

Grassley and others voiced concerns that Mylan is merely one of many drug companies who may be shortchanging U.S. taxpayers.

“This settlement shows a big problem with just one company and one product,” explains Grassley. “Are there others and is CMS doing enough to look out for the taxpayers?”

Likewise, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN) said the EpiPen issue “must be the tip of the iceberg. If other drugs are misclassified, and surely EpiPen isn’t the only one, the public deserves to know it, the taxpayers need to get their money back, and the process needs to be changed to stop this from happening again.”


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Volkswagen And Audi Recall 334,000 Vehicles That May Have Fuel Leaks

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Hundreds of thousands of Audi and Volkswagen vehicles have a fuel leak problem that could lead to fires, and the company has recalled them, notifying customers that they can expect repairs, um, eventually. While the company announced both fuel leak recalls at the same time, they apparently have different causes.

Fuel leaks can cause fires, but a Volkswagen spokeswoman said that there have been no reported fires or injuries, and didn’t include a warning to, say, park the vehicles outside.

Audi Q5 SUV, gasoline engine only: Model years 2009-2012
Audi Q7 SUVs, gasoline engine only: Model years 2007-2012
Audi A6 and A7 sedans, gasoline engine only: Model years 2012-2013
VW Golf, SportWagen, GTI: Model years 2015-2016
Audi A3 and A3 Cabriolet: Model years 2015-2016

Car owners will receive a notification from Volkswagen when the needed parts become available to fix their vehicles, and a notification about the recall sometime in November.


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

UPDATE: Court Overturns Judge’s Order Barring Uber & Lyft In Philadelphia

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This week, a Common Pleas court judge in Philadelphia issued an order barring ridesharing services like Lyft and Uber’s UberX from operating in the city. This afternoon, an appeals court has overturned that order, allowing these companies to offer rides in Philly (which they hadn’t stopped doing anyway).

Uber filed an emergency petition with a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court seeking a temporary restraining order against the Philadelphia Parking Authority, the agency that regulates taxi services within Philly city limits.

While ridesharing services have authority to operate elsewhere in Pennsylvania, they have yet to reach a deal with the PPA that would let UberX and Lyft drivers pick up passengers in the city. In advance of the Democratic National Convention and in the middle of a regional rail crisis, state legislators passed a bill that authorized a 90-day truce.

Around the same time the president of the Taxi Workers Alliance of Philadelphia sued the PPA, alleging that the agency failed to provide equal protection to car service drivers in the city. This Thursday, Common Pleas Court Judge Linda Carpenter issued an injunction ordering UberX and Lyft to cease operating in Philadelphia.

Though that suit did not name Uber or Lyft as defendants, the companies argued in their appeal to the Commonwealth Court that they will be irreparably harmed by this injunction. The court agreed [PDF] and this afternoon granted Uber’s request for a restraining order.

“After today’s victory in Commonwealth Court, Uber is no longer subject to Judge Carpenter’s cease and desist order,” reads a statement from Uber to Consumerist.

The restraining order is not permanent, so it’s possible that UberX and Lyft drivers could soon once again be penalized for picking up passengers in the city. Uber’s UberBlack town car service is authorized to operate with the PPA, so that pricier option is not part of this ongoing dispute.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Amazon Will Charge $15 Monthly Fee For Prime Fresh, Not $299 Yearly Fee

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Amazon is definitely looking to expand its grocery delivery business. After experimenting with different pricing models in a few different markets, the company has settled on one scheme for the whole country, and it’s a lower barrier to entry than the previous $299 up-front annual fee. Now customers who want grocery delivery will only pay $14.99 per month… on top of their Prime subscription.

Where things get tricky is that the change doesn’t make Prime Fresh a lot cheaper: it just spreads out the cost to monthly payments. That’s because, as Jason Del Ray over at Recode calculates, the original version of Prime Fresh included a full-year Prime subscription, meaning that the grocery portion cost $200 or $16.66 per month.

The new version is an add-on and you need a regular Prime subscription first. Still, that’s a less overwhelming price, and also means customers can try it out for less than a year at a time after a free trial to see whether they like it. If you don’t pay the $15, there’s a $10 delivery fee per order.

The markets where delivery is available have also expanded signficantly, as we predicted back in May: even I can get Amazon Fresh deliveries, and I live in a place where grocery delivery isn’t super popular.


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Seamless, Grubhub Now Selling Digital Gift Cards

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Uber and Lyft aren’t the only on-demand service providers to allow customers the option of gifting friends: food delivery companies Grubhub and Seamless both launched gift card options this week. 

Grubhub and Seamless, which are part of the same company, announced the new gift cards on Thursday as a way to gift friends and family with food.

The cards, which are only available online — not in physical form like Uber and Lyft — give customers the ability to personalize designs to fit just about any occasion, the companies say.

Once purchased, customers have the option to either choose to send a card via email on a specific date or print them at home to gift to friends.

Cards can be for any dollar amount between $10 and $1,000 and do not come with an expiration date.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Report: Kroger Entertaining Idea Of Buying Whole Foods

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The largest grocery store chain in the country could be getting a bit bigger and a lot more organic, as the rumor mill began churning that Kroger is exploring the idea of buying Whole Foods. 

News of a potential acquisition by Kroger — which operates more than 2,700 stores under brands such as Pick ’n Save and Fry’s in the U.S. — sent Whole Foods stock up nearly 5% late Thursday to $29.33, Investor’s Business Daily reports.

While both Kroger and Whole Foods declined to comment on the speculation of a deal, Cincinnati.com estimates — based on Kroger’s past purchases — that the acquisition could be valued at around $9.7 billion.

Despite the grocery chains’ closed lips, analysts believe such an agreement could make sense.

For starters, the potential acquisition of Whole Foods also follows Kroger’s rumored interest in buying The Fresh Market, which was sold earlier this year, Cincinnati.com reports.

Additionally, Kroger’s growing organic food ventures — it’s captured an estimated $1 billion in sales from house brand Simple Truth — and Whole Foods’ sagging sales make a deal more attractive.

According to Cincinnati.com, Whole Foods stock has nearly halved in value since 2013, with annual sales stagnating between $550 million and $580 million for the past three years.

Whole Foods Soars On Kroger Takeover Rumor, Wal-Mart Plans [Investor’s Business Daily]
Could Kroger buy out Whole Foods? [Cincinnati.com]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Attaching A “Love Lock” To The Brooklyn Bridge Can Now Earn You A $100 Fine

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

All we need is love, or so they say, but the New York City doesn’t need padlocks declaring your heart’s desire on the Brooklyn Bridge anymore.

The Department of Transportation is posting signs warning visitors against snapping so-called “love locks” — representing the unbreakable bond between two (or more) people — anywhere on the bridge, or face a $100 fine.

It’s not all finger-wagging and nagging; some of those 16 signs are humorous: for example, one features padlock and a bagel and lox, noting, “No lock, yes lox,” the New York Daily News reports. Mmm, bagels.

The thing is, love is grand and all, but the city is sick of having to cut off padlocks: folks have been clipping the locks on the bridge since 2009, officials say, and removal efforts cost NYC more than $100,000 annually.

“Unfortunately, each year we’re seeing more of these locks,” DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg told the New York Post. “It costs the city real money in terms of sending our personnel out there to remove them. It’s a lot of extra work.”

Besides costing the city precious money to get rid of them, the locks can pose a hazard to drivers down below, officials said: on Sept. 8, a wire attached to an overhead light on the bridge broke under the weight of all the locks attached to it, shutting down a lane of traffic for two hours.

City clamps down on couples littering Brooklyn Bridge with ‘love locks’ as it posts $100 fine warning signs [New York Daily News]
City is sick of couples leaving ‘love locks’ on Brooklyn Bridge [New York Post]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Amazon Flex Drivers Are Kind Of Freaking Customers Out

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Amazon Flex is the e-commerce behemoth’s new service meant to help meet its delivery demand without depending on the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, or FedEx. Flex drivers originally only made deliveries for same-day local orders through the Prime Now app, but recently let drivers deliver regular Amazon packages too. As Flex expands to more cities, it’s kind of freaking customers out.

That’s because people at home during the day are not super thrilled about random people in unmarked cars and vans wandering their neighborhoods. One woman first noticed a driver in an unmarked car who left an Amazon package at her door and took off.

“It was just a random guy,” she told CBS Pittsburgh. (Warning: auto-play video at that link) She expected a uniformed UPS or FedEx driver in a branded vehicle. Another mystery delivery driver rang the doorbell and waited, wearing a regular t-shirt and also driving an unmarked car.

That driver “didn’t give [her] an idea that he was with Amazon. It creeped me out,” she said, though she did know that there was a package from Amazon due that day.

Indeed, Flex drivers are just random guys (and gals) in their personal vehicles, which have to be a midsize sedan or larger.

Flex drivers are also in the news because some of them have filed a class action lawsuit claiming that they’re misclassified as independent cotnractors and are really employees.

The same attorney who filed class actions on behalf of Uber and Lyft drivers filed the Amazon Flex suit. Those cases led to proposed cash settlements and minor concessions, but did not win workers overtime, benefits, or coverage of their vehicle expenses.

Amazon’s New Delivery System Unnerves Some Moms [CBS Pittsburgh] (Warning: auto-play video)
Amazon delivery drivers sue company over job status [Seattle Times]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Analyst Calls Fire At Gap Distribution Center “A Fortuitous Reduction In Inventory”

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Ah, Gap: a company where a fire that destroys merchandise that the company would have a tough time selling due to its “unappealing” nature is seen as a good thing.

Shares of Gap Inc. had a one-day increase bigger than the company has seen since 2008 on Friday, Reuters reports, with a 14.9% boost to $26.16. That being said, the struggling retailer said comparable sales in September were down 3% compared to a 1% decrease during the same time period last year.

The company is blaming that drop on the ripples caused by a fire at one of its distribution centers in Fishkill, NY, which the company reported at the end of August. That location served as the company’s primary distribution center for the northeastern U.S.

Despite those disruptions, one analyst says it’s a good thing — now Gap doesn’t have to try to sell all that clothing that no one wants anyway.

“Given poor results at Gap and Banana Republic, likely attributable to unappealing merchandise assortments, we don’t view the product lost in the fire as an important loss but rather a fortuitous reduction in inventory,” Stifel analyst Richard wrote in a client note.

Was this helpful? We’re a non-profit! You can get more stories like this in our twice weekly ad-free newsletter! Click here to sign up.

Shares of Gap on track for biggest gain since 2008 [Reuters]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

USDA: Egg Board Waged Inappropriate War On Vegan Mayo

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Agriculture checkoff programs collect money from farmers and ranchers to promote their products in general: they use ads and recipes to encourage members of the public to eat more of a given product: notable programs exist for milk, eggs, avocados, pork, and beef. What they are not supposed to do is secretly plot against competing products with other ingredients.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture investigation found that the Egg Board improperly plotted against eggless Just Mayo. While the company was fighting competing mayo manufacturers and even the Food and Drug Administration over the word “mayo” in its name, the head of the Egg Board was joking about having Hampton Creek’s founder killed, and asked a consultant to see about having the product removed from Whole Foods.

Another activity deemed “improper” for a checkoff program was buying Google ads with pro-egg information intended for people searching for Hampton Creek’s products.

However, the agency concluded, while the checkoff program was acting against its own guidelines, it wasn’t doing anything illegal. The executive behind the shenanigans already took early retirement after the crusade became public, but the scandal revealed that the USDA doesn’t have a lot of power over checkoff program staff. It can’t force them to quit, for example: the egg board director retired voluntarily.

http://ift.tt/2dFIiyK target=”_blank”


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Facebook Launches Yet Another Standalone App, This Time For Events

http://ift.tt/2dyjryr

More than two years after Facebook forced mobile users to download the standalone Messenger app if they wanted to start private conversations with “friends,” the big blue social juggernaut could going down that road again with the launch of another standalone app for events. 

Facebook announced the entirely separate app — Events from Facebook — Friday, which allows users of the social networking site to find events near them.

The app, which is currently available on iOS and will launch on Android soon, functions much like the Events section on the Facebook’s web and mobile sites, allowing users to see what friends are up to or “interested in” and display any events tied to pages you have “liked” on the site.

events

 

If none of the curated events pique your interest, the app also allows users to explore events happening where you are or in places you like to go using the interactive map.

The app also features a calendar, you know, so you can keep all of those really important and exciting events in order. In addition, the app allows users to merge their phone’s calendar with the one inside Facebook, so you don’t overbook yourself.

All of the actions you take on the events app will also appear on Facebook, just in case your friends haven’t downloaded the standalone feature.

While it remains to be seen if Facebook will eventually require users to download the app to create, RSVP, or browse events, it’s not out of the realm of possibility. The company did just that with its private message service in 2014, when users were forced to download the Messenger app if they wanted to start private conversations with friends on their phones.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Netflix CEO: Movie Theaters Are “Strangling The Movie Business”

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

It’s no surprise that Netflix would disagree with the traditional release schedule movie theaters stick to — premiering new movies in theaters and delaying their release to TV or on-demand services months later — and today the company’s CEO Reed Hastings took that a step further, saying theater chains are discouraging innovation in the industry.

Hastings claims that movie studios want to “break the oligopoly” of movie theaters but they don’t know how to do that without going up against movie theater owners — who have brushed off ideas like opening-day home video releases in the past.

“It’s a real tragedy,” Hastings told The New Yorker editor David Remnick during the magazine’s TechFest conference in New York City, reported by USA Today. “The movie theaters are strangling the movie business. There’s [been] no innovation in distribution in movie theaters in the last 50 years. You can’t distribute a movie directly to consumers or they strike against the movie. They’ve got a lock hold on the movie studios. That’s driven flat line revenue.”

In March, the National Association of Theatre Owners argued that theatrical releases of movies are vital because “The exclusive theatrical release window makes new movies events. Success there establishes brand value and bolsters revenue in downstream markets.”

Reed also weighed in on Netflix’s future in China, saying the company won’t have a presence there in the near future. He cites the fact that Chinese regulators have shut down movie offerings from Disney and Apple.

“It doesn’t look good. We’re figuring our way out [in China], but we’re really focused on the rest of the world,” he says. “There is so much opportunity for us in India, Poland, Turkey and Latin America and Vietnam.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Hurricane Matthew Is Really Serious: Waffle House Is Closed

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

When there’s a disaster in certain areas of the country, people turn to an entity known for its careful preparation for times of crisis and its dependability to be the frist business in town to reopen, if it closed at all. With the imminent arrival of Hurricane Matthew, all eyes are on this key piece of our infrastructure: Waffle House.

Waffle House? Yes, the breakfast food chain is concentrated in the South, making it a useful gauge when a hriricane comes. Restaurants have a special storm menu, they keep an eye on the weather, and they have generators that will keep the restaurant going and customers fed in a crisis.

If you’re looking for a sign of how severe this oncoming storm is supposed to be, Waffle House has closed its restaurants across Florida.

The former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency even had an informal “Waffle House Index” showing that when Waffle House closes, things are serious, and the agency should come help. The system only works in the Southeast, of course, since the rest of the country is deprived of Waffle Houses, but those are areas where hurricanes and tornadoes hit, and emergency preparation is key.

“We’re a 24-hour restaurant, so oddly enough shutting down is a big deal for us,” the company’s vice president of culture told Fox News a few days ago, back when the company was planning to stick out the storm. Since then, it has decided to close in areas where the hurricane is projected to hit.


When Waffle House surrenders to a hurricane, you know it’s bad [Miami Herald]
When disaster strikes, FEMA turns to Waffle House [Marketplace]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Amazon’s Discount Music Streaming Service For Echo Reportedly Coming Soon

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Your Amazon Echo speaker could be singing a new tune by the end of the month, as reports suggest Amazon’s long-rumored discounted streaming music service is set to launch in the next few weeks. 

The Verge, citing the all-powerful “sources familiar with the matter,” reports that Amazon’s Echo-based music service — rumored to cost just $5/month — will be available for consumption soon, while the company’s larger, more widely available on-demand music service will launch soon after the new year.

The latter service will reportedly be called Amazon Music Unlimited, according to AFTVNews, which uncovered details of the service — which will have the slogan “listen to any song” — buried in code for Amazon’s new Music app for the Fire TV.

The services’ imminent launch may have been accelerated with competitor Spotify’s rumored acquisition of SoundCloud.

Amazon — which already offers Prime members access to the smaller PrimeMusic library — is reportedly waiting to finalize deals with a number of record labels before announcing plans for the service, but sources say most of those agreements are now wrapped up, or nearly completed.

“If [Amazon] wants to get the deals done they can get them done quickly,” one source tells The Verge.

Amazon’s soon-to-launch services take on two distinct avenues.

The first service would cost $10/month and appears to be nearly identical to services like Apple Music and Spotify: unlimited, ad-free music you can stream or download to take with you anywhere.

The Echo-only option — which is rumored to be launching first — would apparently offer the same type of service, but at around half the price. The discounted rate isn’t just for being a good Amazon customer; it’s also a trade-off for sacrificing portability. That is, unless you regularly haul your cylindrical Echo speaker from place to place with you.

Amazon’s music service for Echo users will launch in the next few weeks [The Verge]
Exclusive: Amazon’s music subscription service will be called Amazon Music Unlimited [AFTVNews]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Appeals Court Rules For Apple In One Of Its Patent Infringement Fights With Samsung

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Apple just won the latest round in one of its fights with Samsung over patent infringement, with a federal appeals court ruling that reinstates a $119.6 patent-infringement verdict it scored.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an 8-3 ruling [PDF] that three-judge panel shouldn’t have thrown out the verdict in February, and instructed the trial judge to consider whether Apple is actually due more money based on any intentional infringement by Samsung.

This fight centers on a number of software patents that Apple claims Samsung infringed, including autocorrect, a way to detect phone numbers so they can be tapped to initiate a phone call, and the slide-to-unlock feature for smartphones and tablets. In 2014, Apple said it wanted $40 for each phone sold that used one of the patents in question, for a total of about $2 billion in damages.

The court first issued a summary judgment that Samsung had infringed the patent for the autocorrect feature, and a jury then found that it had infringed the two other patents as well. Apple got damages of $119.6 million for those infringements.

Then in January 2016, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California banned Samsung from selling certain smartphones that infringed on those three patents held by its rival.

The next month, however, a three-judge panel threw out that $119.6 million verdict and ruled that Samsung didn’t infringe on Apple’s detection patent, and said the other two patents were invalid.

The court ruled today that that was not the right decision, because it relied on issues that were never raised on appeal or on information that was beyond the trial record, Bloomberg notes.

“The jury verdict on each issue is supported by substantial evidence in the record,” Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for the majority.

This is all separate from another patent infringement lawsuit going on between the two, which is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. Samsung is appealing a $548 million award it was ordered to pay for allegedly copying the look and feel of the iPhone — most notably the pinch-to-zoom feature.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Oculus Developing A Lower-End Standalone Virtual Reality Device

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

If you’re one of those people who was perhaps interested in buying the Oculus Rift, only you don’t own a computer powerful enough to handle it, the Facebook-owned company says it’s got a new virtual reality product in the works that won’t require a Windows PC or even a mobile phone to use it.

Facing competition from the likes of HTC, Sony, and Google, Facebook’s Oculus group said the lower-end, standalone device will cost less than the $599 Rift, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The pricey device had “a little bit of a slow start,” Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg admitted on Thursday at its developers conference in San Jose, CA.

Part of the problem with the Rift is Oculus doesn’t have a super popular game to attract mainstream consumers, WSJ notes. To that end, Zuckerberg said Facebook will shell out $250 million to developers creating virtual-reality content, in addition to the $250 million already spent.

Oculus could use a hit device: Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster told the WSJ that he projects the company will end the year with 180,000 units sold, a much more pessimistic outlook than the sales target of 500,000 units he set earlier this year.

Facebook’s Oculus Working on Stand-Alone Virtual-Reality Device [The Wall Street Journal]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

86K Infant Bathtubs Recalled Over Drowning Risk

http://ift.tt/2cX6aQY

The maker of an infant bathtub will recall 86,000 of its products after receiving reports that 11 children were injured when the sling holding them in place unexpectedly detached. 

Summer Infant announced the recall of 86,000 Lil’ Luxuries Whirlpool, Bubbling Spa & Shower with fabric slings after determining the slings are missing a clip that connects to the headrest to hold a child in place.

tub3

The infant bath tub is a battery-operated whirlpool bath with motorized jets intended for use with children from birth to two years

According to a recall notice posted with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the missing clip can cause the sling to slip down the tub’s side, posing an injury and drawing risk to babies.

So far, Summer Infant says that it has received reports of 91 incidents in which the sling detaches, including 11 reports of infants receiving a bump on the head.

The recalled products were sold between Oct. 2012 and Oct. 2013 at retailers such as Toys “R” Us, Babies “R” Us, Amazon, and others. The tubs can be identified by the item numbers 18840, 18850, 18863, and 18873.

The company warns customers who own the affected products to immediately stop using the fabric sling and contact Summer Infant for a replacement sling equipped with the needed plastic attachment clip.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Judge Orders UberX To Stop In Philadelphia, Companies Ignore Order

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In Philadelphia, consumers now have a definite preference for Uber over official medallion-sporting cabs, finding their use cheaper and more convenient. Naturally, taxi drivers and medallion owners disagree with this sentiment, and have been fighting the continued existence of the ride-hailing apps in court. Now a judge has ordered the services to shut down in Philadelphia, but they don’t plan to listen until the case has been appealed.

Temporarily, during a transportation crunch that included a partial shutdown of commuter rail and the Democratic National Convention coming to town, the services were allowed a reprieve. Those events are over now, and Uber at least told Philly.com that it had no plans to stop operating.

Technically, the companies aren’t named in the suit: it was filed against the Philadelpha Parking Authority, not the companies or their independent contractor drivers. While the UberBlack service that uses town cars with licensed livery vehicles gets sto stay in busness, new laws would affect the amateur-powered UberX and Lyft.

Judge orders UberX and Lyft to stop operating in Philly, but the businesses aren’t saying they’ll comply [Philly.com]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Exec Of Company That Sold Fake Parmesan Cheese May Avoid Jail With Food Pantry Work

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Remember the company that peddled imitation grated Parmesan cheese and billed it as the real deal (silly question — of course you do, no one could forget such a crime against cheese)? U.S. prosecutors are now asking that the executive of Castle Cheese Inc. be sentenced to time working in a food pantry or soup kitchen.

In a move that shows the U.S. apparently trusts Michelle Myrter, president of Castle, to potentially come into contact with real Parmesan cheese, prosecutors filed sentencing documents this week asking that she get zero to six months in jail, as well as community service, Bloomberg reports. Her lawyer is asking for probation.

Myrter pleaded guilty in March to federal misdemeanor charges involving food adulteration. Her company and two others associated with her family were accused of selling imitation grated cheese as real, and of passing off cheaper cheeses like cheddar and Swiss as the more expensive Parmesan and Romano.

“Specifically, your product labels declare that the products are parmesan cheese or romano cheese, but they are in fact a mixture of trimmings of various cheeses and other ingredients,” the Food and Drug Administration told the company in a 2013 warning letter. “In addition, your parmesan cheese products do not contain any parmesan cheese.”

Universal Cheese & Drying Inc. and International Packing LLC pleaded guilty as well to charges of conspiracy and money laundry, and then ceased operations. They’ve been unable to pay the $1 million in fines ordered as part of their plea agreement.

“The motive for doing so was simple – it was less costly for the Corporate Defendants to produce cheap, fake cheese while customers paid premium prices for real cheese,” prosecutors wrote in the sentencing documents. The companies “reaped the benefit of the difference between the lower costs and the higher revenue.”

Parmesan Fraudster May Get Food Pantry Time Instead of Jail [Bloomberg]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Nordstrom Removes Clothing Line That Features Prescription Bottle Purses, Pill-Decorated Dresses

http://ift.tt/2e9iz4x

Just because a high-end fashion designer makes a purse that looks like a pill bottle doesn’t mean consumers are going to find it any less controversial than the syringe pens sold at Target or the prescription pill bottle shot glasses from Urban Outfitters. For that reason, Nordstrom says it will no longer sell a line of clothing from Italian designer Moschino. 

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Nordstrom has pulled the designs — which also feature a dress covered in pill capsules — from stores after consumers started a petition accusing the company of ignoring the national drug epidemic.

An official for Nordstrom confirmed that it would no longer sell the high-end “Capsule” line from Moschino that was introduced during New York 2016 Fashion Week.

moschino

Saks, which also sells the Moschino line, did not respond to the Tribune’s request for comment on possibly pulling the designs.

An alcohol and drug counselor who started the online petition last weekend tells the Tribune that the company’s decision to remove the line was a victory, noting that his concern was centered on the retailer and fashion line’s apparent unmindfulness about drug issues in the U.S.

The collection, which was inspired by the packaging and instructional inserts of over-the-counter medication, ranges from a $950 prescription bottle purse and a $650 short black dress covered in colorful pills, to a $1,095 pill-package-inspired pursue and a $175 pill-decorated umbrella.

While the items aren’t quite on par with the “Hairroin” hypodermic needle pens once sold at Urban Outfitters, the counselor points out that even prescription drugs have come to the forefront of drug issues. He notes that many people who became addicted to opioids started with a legal prescription from a physician after an injury or medical procedure.

Nordstrom reverses course, yanks controversial drug-themed clothing by Moschino [The Minneapolis Star Tribune]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Comcast Expands Data Caps To Another 23 Markets Starting Nov. 1

http://ift.tt/2dPSc07

We’ve all been guessing it was going to happen for months, but that doesn’t make it any more fun when it actually does: data caps are marching across the nation, and coming for millions of Comcast customers from coast to coast.

The caps (they gave up on “thresholds“) have been slowly spreading across new cities for years, and in a a blog post today, Comcast confirmed that it’s bringing “data plans” (read as: broadband service limits) to “many markets” nationwide.

Users who go over the limit of 1 TB of data used in a billing cycle will get a stern warning. Customers get two “courtesy months” in a year without being billed for overage. After that, it’s overage charges, much like a traditional wireless plan. Your service won’t be cut off or throttled; you’ll just suddenly see extra charges on your next bill.

The full list of states and metro areas now subject to the cap is a few scrolls down in Comcast’s updated FAQ, and you can check at Comcast’s dedicated “data plan” site to see if the ZIP code where you live is subject to a cap or not.

Comcast is emailing customers in affected markets to let them know about the change, which goes into effect at the beginning of next month. Consumerist readers in several metro areas, including Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, forwarded their Comcast emails to us.

The form letter comes in two varieties, and which one a customer receives varies based on their average recent usage. Customers with low data usage receive soothing messages saying, “Based on your usage history you can still … do whatever you want to do online, worry free,” like this example from a customer in greater Indianapolis:

xfinitydatacaplowuse

High-usage customers, on the other hand, receive a somewhat more passive-aggressive message saying that “The vast majority of our customers would consider one terabyte to be a massive amount of data,” before conceding, “it may not be enough for everyone,” like this example from a customer outside of Detroit:

xfinitydatacaphighuse

Comcast is, of course, cheerfully praising the generosity of its 1 terabyte limit, without actually mentioning that it’s not really necessary to impose such a limit on most customers at all.

If it’s true that “more than 99% of [Comcast’s] customers do not use 1 TB of data in a given month,” why cap at all? After all, the company has admitted before that data caps are not actually a network or congestion-management tool, and surely there’s a limit on how much extra revenue they can extract from that remaining 1%.

Comcast also reiterates several times — in their FAQ, in their blog post, in the e-mails to customers — that, “Our data plans are based on a principle of fairness. Those who use more Internet data, pay more. And those who use less Internet data, pay less.”

And yet that is not, in fact, true. If 99% of their customers, as they claim, use less than 1 TB of data per month, then those who use less are not paying less. Those who use less — everyone but the one-percenters, as it were — are all paying the same, without an opportunity or method to reduce their bills.

Several readers who forwarded their letters from Comcast to us also expressed concern about Comcast’s ability accurately to meter their usage. As we’ve seen several times before, Comcast’s usage meters are far from infallible, and when something goes wrong there’s basically no recourse for consumers.

One high-usage customer shared with us his usage graph of 3270-3360 GB per month over the past several months, and wondered how Comcast turned that into an average of 2766 GB in the letter they sent him. “I’m not sure what kinda math they use,” he told us, although admittedly their confusion is in his favor.

“I gotta love just how strong they push the ‘it won’t affect you’ part,” one reader tells Consumerist. “Reminds me of politicians announcing a new toll road.”

As for options, well, they’re slim. Another reader wrote to us about his service options — Comcast or DSL — before concluding he was stuck: “No one else has something like this in [his city] speed-wise,” he wrote. Another asked us, “what can consumers do about this in markets without competition?”

And unfortunately, that answer continues to be: basically nothing.


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Verizon Reportedly Trying To Get $1B Discount On Yahoo Purchase

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

It’s normal to get cold feet before a wedding, especially if your intended is a technology company that is facing legal action after millions of user accounts were breached, and everyone was saying you’d created a spy tool for the government to snoop on users’ emails. That’s reportedly why Verizon is angling to get $1 billion off the $4.8 billion price it agreed to pay to purchase Yahoo’s internet business.

The New York Post cites that ever mysterious “source familiar” with the matter who say the request came in the wake of Yahoo’s recent go-around in the news. The deal isn’t off, but it seems passions have cooled a bit and Verizon feels like Yahoo’s value has taken a ding.

“In the last day we’ve heard that [AOL CEO] Tim [Armstrong] is getting cold feet. He’s pretty upset about the lack of disclosure and he’s saying can we get out of this or can we reduce the price?” the source said of Verizon’s thinking.

Maybe Verizon is just trying to spook Yahoo a bit so the tech company will drop that price tag, but the insiders say Yahoo’s deal team has been pushing back against negotiation attempts: a deal is a deal, the insiders say, and Verizon doesn’t have any legal recourse to change the terms now.

However, as we noted previously, the language of the deal between the companies means that Verizon could either back out — or negotiate a lower price — if a court finds that the breach is an adverse event that lowers Yahoo’s value.

Yahoo’s next board meeting is in two weeks, and in the meantime the two sides will continue to talk things over, the Post reports, while both companies declined to comment.

Verizon wants $1B discount on Yahoo deal after reports of hacking, spying [The New York Post]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Sprint Customers Can Trade In Replacement Note 7 Phones For Any Other Model

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Days after a Southwest Airlines flight from Louisville to Baltimore had to be evacuated after smoke and fire began to spew out of a supposedly safer replacement Samsung Galaxy Note 7, Sprint has announced it will allow owners of the Samsung smartphones — whether it is recalled or one of the recently replaced devices — choose a phone from any other manufacturer. 

Under Samsung’s initial recall of millions of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, the company gave customers two options: exchange their defective phone for a new non-defective one, or exchange their device for a Galaxy S7 or S7 Edge and receive a refund in the price difference, Recode reports.

The phone manufacturer noted at the time it began the exchange program that it had pinpointed the original issue — a battery problem — and had fixed the defect in the replacement phones.

While many users of the Note 7 have reported difficulty in acquiring their replacements, the recent Southwest flight debacle — which is under investigation by federal regulators — is the first to really put the safety of the new devices into question.

For that reason, Sprint will let customers with second thoughts about the safety of their replacement Note 7 exchange it (again) for a different model.

“If a Sprint customer with a replacement Note 7 has any concerns regarding their device, we will exchange it for any other device at any Sprint retail store during the investigation window,” a rep for Sprint tells Recode, noting that the company is “working collaboratively with Samsung to better understand the most recent concerns regarding replacement Samsung Galaxy Note 7 smartphones.”

Other carriers aren’t yet following in Sprint’s footsteps: T-Mobile, which began selling the Note 7 again this week, said it will allow customers who purchase the device to exchange it within 14 days; AT&T and Verizon did not provide comment on their exchange options.

Sprint will let Samsung Galaxy Note 7 owners trade their replacement devices for any other phone [Recode]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/2cZ8YIx

Here are six of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last two weeks, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

t f
 Freaktography
Mike Matney
Byron Chin
Mike Matney
George

Want to see your pictures on our site? Our Flickr pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Thursday, October 6, 2016

CEO Of Backpage.com Charged With Allegedly Pimping A Minor, Conspiracy To Commit Pimping

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Popular listings site Backpage.com has long been a topic of debate for its decision to continue advertising escorts even as other sites like Craigslist tried to back away from these lucrative listings. But now comes news from California that the state has actually arrested the website’s CEO and charged him, along with two of Backpage’s controlling shareholders, with illegally promoting prostitution.

According to the criminal complaint [PDF] Backpage.com CEO Carl Ferrer, along with shareholders Michael Lacey and James Larkin, have been charged with conspiracy to commit pimping, in violation of California state law. Additionally, Ferrer has been charged with pimping, and pimping a minor — including some escorts allegedly under the age of 16.

Until July 2015, prostitutes and other sex workers could pay to advertise on Backpage using their credit cards. Then Visa and MasterCard both shut off payments to the site, following a very public campaign by the sheriff of Cook County, IL.

According to the complaint, before the card networks shut off payments to the site Backpage was pulling in $2 million per month just from adult advertising in California.

The state also contends that even though Backpage had created a system for screening escort ads, it nonetheless accepted multiple ads from escorts who were not only illegally selling sexual services, but were under the age of 18 at the time.

The complaint lists five instances of minors allegedly paying to advertise on Backpage in California. Of these five escorts, the state says four had not yet turned 16 at the time the site ran their ads.

In addition to Backpage.com, the state says the defendants ran other sites — EvilEmpire.com and BigCity.com — that are allegedly nothing more than extended platforms for Ferrer to promote the BackPage escort listings.

EvilEmpire describes itself as a an “escort service phone number directory,” but the state notes that while there are plenty of listings to look at on the site, there doesn’t appear to be any way for the escort to upload or pay for a listing.

That’s because, according to the state, EvilEmpire.com is just using data scraped from escort listings on BackPage. In fact, on each escort’s profile page the only clickable link takes you back to their BackPage.com listing page.

In a sworn declaration [PDF] filed in support of the arrest warrant, a special agent for the California Department of Justice details his part in the years-long investigation that led up to the arrest.

Starting in May 2014, CA DOJ agents would place calls to set up “dates” with escorts. Not surprisingly, the state says that each of these dates was in actuality an appointment for prostitution. Once the escort began negotiating the cash-for-sex deal, the ruse was up, but the escorts were only interviewed and not arrested.

These interviews included the underage escorts referenced in the criminal complaint, all identified only by initials. One 15-year-old, E.S., told the agent she’d been a prostitute since she was 13. The same for 16-year-old A.C., who claimed that she met up to a dozen clients a day. When asked if she’d ever had difficulty posting to BackPage because she was a minor with no credit card, she explained that she used a prepaid money card to pay for the ad, and besides, “how are they supposed to know I’m underage?”

In a statement regarding today’s announcement, California Attorney General Kamala Harris claimed that “Backpage and its executives purposefully and unlawfully designed Backpage to be the world’s top online brothel.”

We’ve reached out to attorneys currently representing BackPage in its ongoing legal dispute with the Cook County sheriff to see if their clients have any statement to share. We will update if we hear back.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

That FiOS Expansion In Boston May Be Wireless, Not Fiber

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Hey, remember earlier this year when Verizon said that it was thinking about expanding FiOS into Boston, a city that longs for fiber internet access? The problem with that plan is that it won’t necessarily mean fiber lines leading to every home. Instead, Verizon’s high-speed deployment in Boston is mostly going to be wireless, probably 5G under the FiOS brand.

MORE: What The Heck Is 5G Anyway, And Why Does It Matter?

Verizon wouldn’t be alone in that: its competitors, including Google and AT&T, are looking for ways to deploy wide-scale fiber internet without running wires to individual customers’ homes.

According to telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick, Verizon CFO Francis Shammo explained at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference that if wireless broadband works, it would save Verizon a lot of money, since connecting individual households theoretically becomes a lot simpler.

“Now I can deliver a beam into a window with a credit card-size receptor on it that delivers it to a wireless router, and there’s really no labor involved and there’s no real hardware other than the router,” Shammo said.

One hidden benefit, from the corporate overlords’ point of view? The Verizon Wireless workforce is less unionized than the regular Verizon workforce. That’s something that you may condemn or applaud, depending on your opinion about unions, but there’s a major problem if wireless 5G is Verizon’s long-term plan to upgrade Boston: we don’t know whether wide deployment of wireless broadband is actually going to work.

Kushnick describes the technology as “vaporware,” since Verizon still has to put fiber in the ground to reach individual neighborhoods. The technology being tested now has a range of about 500 feet. Maybe the range will improve and we’ll learn that the product works in the next few years, but Verizon is actually counting on that to happen.

Meanwhile, Verizon is shutting down, selling, and definitely not repairing its existing copper phone lines. If a FiOS buildout isn’t happening, that leaves Verizon’s customers who are hungry for updated internet access with… what, exactly?

Verizon’s ‘FiOS Deployment’ to Boston Will be Mostly Wireless [DSLReports]
Fiber to the Home is Dead. The Plan: Shut Off the Wires and Replace it with Wireless Vaporware. [Huffington Post]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Report: Snapchat Toying With IPO Valued At $25B

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Three years after some folks laughed at Snapchat for reportedly turning down $3 billion from Facebook and $4 billion from Google, the messaging platform is apparently planning to go public with an initial offering that values the company at several times those earlier amounts.

The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reports that Snap Inc., the company behind Snapchat, is preparing paperwork that could lead to a $25 billion IPO as early as March.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the company will go forward with the IPO, sources say, noting that Snap has yet to bring in banks to discuss the idea.

Still, a potential IPO at $25 billion would make Snapchat the biggest company to go public since 2014, when Alibaba debuted, the WSJ reports.

The $25 billion valuation is also significantly higher than Snap’s previous value of $17.8 billion estimated earlier this year.

The sources tell the WSJ that the company, which brings in a bulk of its revenue from advertisements in filters and promoted stories, could use the funds from an IPO for acquisitions of virtual-reality companies.

Such a move would make sense, the sources say, after the company recently changed its name to Snap in order to be seen as more than a messaging service, and announced it would launch sunglasses equipped with video cameras.

Snapchat Parent Working on IPO Valuing Firm at $25 Billion or More [The Wall Street Journal]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Scammy Indian Call Centers Made Up To $225K/Day Pretending To Be From IRS

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

No one wants to get a call from the Internal Revenue Service, and for many people the tax return process is confusing and fraught with potential for errors. So when someone calls claiming to be from the IRS and in need of more information, or saying you need to pay up or face arrest, you might assume it’s a legitimate call. It’s not. This week, police in India detained hundreds of employees from three different call centers for allegedly making these sorts of scam calls — and raking in big money in the process.

News reports out of India say that police in the city of Thane were tipped off by a disgruntled call center employee that these centers were calling American phone numbers, claiming to be from the IRS and telling their victims that they had defaulted on their tax debt and must now pay — anywhere from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, which would be remitted via prepaid cash card.

We know what you’re thinking: I would never fall for that. You’re probably correct, and that’s awesome, but a lot of people fell for this. Thane police say the scammy call centers were raking in anywhere from $150,000 TO $225,000 each day, and that the operators of this scam brought in around $75 million in a little more than a year. Not bad money for being an evil jerk.

There may also be victims outside the U.S., Thane police chief Param Bir Singh told the press: “It could be the tip of the iceberg and the amount could multiply as our probe progresses.”

Additionally, police say that there may be Americans involved in the scheme. The lists of potential victims appear to have been purchased for thousands of dollars from the black market.

The number of those arrested seems to vary from report to report, though Singh is quoted in the Indian Express as saying that 772 people were detained during the raid. Of those, 70 have been charged with 630 “listed accused but not arrested yet.” Some 70 others were released after police determined that they were not connected to the scam.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Federal Jury Awards Tiffany Another $8.2 Million In Costco Ring Dispute

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Last week, a federal jury found in favor of the high-end jewelry brand Tiffany, concluding that Costco’s 2012 collection of “Tiffany” engagement rings was a trademark infringement, and wasn’t just the name of a popular diamond setting. The jury awarded $5.5 million in actual damages to Tiffany for the infringing ring sales, and has now awarded Costco $8.25 million in punitive damages for infringing on the brand’s copyright.

The case has been litigated for this long because it’s really over an important question in the jewelry industry: is “Tiffany” a respected brand, and what do consumers think when they see a ring next to a sign that says “Tiffany” at Costco? What if it’s in a light blue box?

It was a concerned customer who alerted Tiffany to the items at Costco, noting that the salesperson called them “Tiffany” rings as well. Other shoppers may not have questioned it, either assuming that the rings were a Tiffany-type setting or that yet another luxury brand was selling cheap at Costco or had licensed its brand.

Costco later offered refunds to any customers who thought they had been misled.

The jurors concluded that Costco did mean for customers to believe that the rings were from Tiffany, and awarded damages accordingly.

“The award validates the strength of the Tiffany trademark, the value of our brand, and most importantly, sends a clear and powerful message to Costco and others who infringe the Tiffany mark,” the company’s general counsel told Fortune. “It is critically important that the Tiffany name not be used to sell any engagement ring that is not its own.”

Costco will most likely appeal the decision.

Costco Now Has to Pay $8.25 Million in Punitive Damages for Selling Fake Tiffany Rings [Fortune]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Facebook, Shopify Let Users Buy Stuff Straight From Messenger

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

For all its popularity, Facebook has yet to convince users or businesses to think of the social media network as an e-commerce platform; but not for lack of trying.  It recently tested shops built directly into retailers’ Facebook pages, created a dedicated shopping feed, and just this week launched Marketplace, a competitor to Craigslist.  Now comes a new feature that will let Facebook users browse and buy from retailers through Facebook Messenger.

The “Shop Now” option, a result of a partnership with Shopify, enables prospective customers to begin a conversation with a retailer, acquire that company’s entire product catalogue, and make purchases, without ever visiting a separate website.

In order to use the service, retailers must add Messenger to their Shopify account and connect it to their Facebook business page. The companies can then pick and choose what products are available through the service.

On the customer side, a chatbot will suggest products to a customer directly from a conversation that the user begins on the retailers’ Facebook page.

Once the conversation is started and a customer views the products, they can tap the “shop now” button that takes them to the checkout form. Because all of Shopify’s checkout portal is integrated with Messenger, the purchaser never has to leave the conversation to complete the order.

Shopify product manager Brandon Chu tells TechCrunch that the new system is similar to how typical shopping experiences used to occur: a customer would walk into a store, talk to an employee, and view suggested products.

“From an end-consumer perspective, it’s still pretty novel to think of messaging a business first when you want to interact with them,” he said. “The outcome is moving to an internet version of what retail used to be.”

[via TechCrunch]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Administrator: Mylan Has Overcharged Medicaid For EpiPen By At Least 10%

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Though the EpiPen emergency allergy treatment has been around for decades, the increased demand for the drug and its soaring price tag have caused Medicaid spending on EpiPen to go from around $66 million in 2011 to $365 million in 2015. All this time, claims Andrew Slavitt, Acting Administrator for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mylan’s parent company has been shortchanging Medicaid on rebates.
As we’ve mentioned in previous stories, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires drugmakers to pay back a portion of their Medicaid revenue to the states through rebates.

The size of those rebates is determined by whether the drug is considered an “innovator” medication (often a newer, higher-cost drug with little or no competition) or a “non-innovator multiple source” (NIMS) drug (often an older drug with competition from generics). Since 2010, the rebate rate for a NIMS drug is 13% of the average manufacturer price during the rebate period. Innovator drugs face a significantly higher rebate, of at least 23.1%.

Drug companies are effectively on their honor to properly categorize a drug with the rebate program, though any drugmaker found to have deliberately mis-categorized an innovator drug as NIMS to avoid the higher rebate rate could face significant penalties.

Which brings us to EpiPen. In a letter [PDF] sent yesterday to Sen. Ron Wyden (OR), Acting Administrator Slavitt confirms earlier reports that CMS had recently determined that Mylan had inaccurately categorized EpiPen as a NIMS drug.

In fact, the NIMS categorization goes back two decades, long before Mylan acquired EpiPen as part of its purchase of Merck’s generics business. Toward the end of 1997, the company that then owned EpiPen changed the classification from single-source to multiple-source, even though competition in this market has been few and far between.

“EpiPen is approved under a New Drug Application by the Food and Drug Administration, has patent protection, and has no FDA-approved therapeutic equivalents,” writes Slavitt. “These facts indicate EpiPen does not meet the definition of a multiple source drug, but, in fact, meets the definition of a single source drug or brand drug.”

Between 2011 and 2015, according to the letter, Medicaid has paid a total of $960 million toward EpiPen purchases. Because of the NIMS classification, Mylan has only paid a rebate rate of 13%. Medicaid’s net spending on the drug during those years was around $797 million, but should have been significantly less, claims Slavitt, who claims the CMS has expressly told Mylan that EpiPen is mis-classified. He also notes that CMS has not yet determined how much Mylan should owe because of this alleged error.

“When it comes to CMS’s attention that the manufacturer’s categorization is incorrect, CMS notifies the manufacturer and tries to reach an agreement,” he explains.

Manufacturers caught incorrectly categorizing drugs in the rebate program could be in violation of the False Claims Act for overcharging the government, which comes with potential financial penalties.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey has already announced that his office is actively investigating whether or not EpiPen’s apparent mis-categorization amounts to Medicaid fraud. Last week, several U.S. senators wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch calling for the Department of Justice to probe this matter.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Final FCC ISP Privacy Rule Doesn’t Ban Pay-For-Privacy, Does Require Some Opt-Ins

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The FCC certainly is keeping busy this fall. After six months of mulling it over, commission chairman Tom Wheeler announced today that the final version of a privacy rule that would limit what your broadband carrier can do with your personal data is in fact real and on the agenda for the FCC’s October meeting later this month.

This one, like many other high-profile consumer protection actions the FCC has taken in recent years (net neutrality, anyone?) has proven contentious from the start. The proceeding has more than 250,000 comments, letters, notices, and filings attached to it, which is… pretty big.

So after all that, here’s an outline of what the FCC came up with.

Opting In, Opting Out, and What’s “Sensitive” Anyway

According to the fact sheet it released today (PDF), the Commission has, with some modification, stuck with Wheeler’s original three-bucket proposal from March.

Some data your ISP can use without asking, because it needs to. Some data it can use without asking, but it has to give you the ability to opt-out at any time. And some data it can’t use at all until and unless you specifically opt-in.

The opt-in bucket is where “sensitive” data goes. Information that the FCC will consider “sensitive” under this rule includes:

  • Geographic location
  • Children’s information
  • Health information
  • Financial information
  • Social Security numbers
  • Web browsing history
  • App usage history
  • The content of communications

Some of those data types — specifically, children’s information, health information, and financial information — have some privacy rules attached to them already.

However, those rules apply not just to what type of data it is but, specifically and crucially, to who is handling it. Doctors, lenders, and other entities have a legal mandate to handle certain kinds of sensitive or identifiable information in a particular way… but other parties do not, as we’ve seen before. This rule would limit where some of that data can go without your permission.

The opt-out bucket is for, basically, everything else. Some examples of non-sensitive data given by senior FCC officials included your name, your address, and your current service-level tier. Anything not on the delineated opt-in list, including your IP address, goes in that bucket.

There’s also another bucket of data, though: that which is anonymized. ISPs will be able to use “legitimately de-identified” data (and also aggregated data) outside of the opt-in and opt-out schemes. Senior FCC officials said that the FCC will require that the data be anonymized and be unable to be linked back to a single user in any way in accordance with existing FTC guidance from 2012. How well that actually works (survey says: not well at all) is another matter.

Your Money Or Your Privacy

The FCC’s proposal also speaks directly to the kind of pay-for-privacy, financial incentive program that AT&T just ended last week.

Opting in or out of having your data used in a certain way doesn’t actually mean anything if it’s not a real choice. So to that end, the FCC is forbidding ISPs from putting in any sort of “take it or leave it” approach.

That means that agreeing to opt in (or refusing to opt out) cannot be a mandatory part of getting service. Your ISP has to agree to let you sign up, and to keep serving you, even if you tell them to keep their hands off your private data.

However, pay-for-privacy agreements are not banned. In short, the FCC has decided not to stand in the way of “financial incentives.”

Arrangements whereby you receive a discount for allowing your ISP to do what it wants with your sensitive data are permitted, but they require explicit, affirmative opt-in consent and “heightened disclosure,” a senior FCC official said. That means you can basically agree to a $30 a month discount in exchange for your data, but first the ISP has to be very clear about what information it’s gathering and for what specific purposes, and to let you know you’re making that trade-off.

The Commission will review any complaints about these offerings on a case-by-case basis, FCC officials said.

Also, Data Always Gets Lost

While the ability to opt into and out of certain kinds of data usage is the keystone of the proposal, the rule also includes requirements related to data breaches.

If adopted, the rule would set up regulations around who an ISP has to tell when they suffer a data breach, and how long the ISP has to make the notification. From the date of discovery (so, the moment someone in IT says, “oh, CRAP”), an ISP will have, at most, 7 days to notify the FCC, the FBI, and the Secret Service of any identified breach, and 30 days to notify consumers.

The rule also requires that ISPs holding data take reasonable steps not to get breached. Each provider would be expected to implement “up-to-date and relevant industry best practices,” provide “robust customer authentication tools,” and take other steps to make sure that people are who they say they are and that their data remains comparatively safe.

Additionally, it requires that any data deletion or disposal be done in a manner consistent with best practice guidance developed by the FTC , and in accordance with the White House’s proposed consumer privacy bill of rights.

So Now What?

You can safely expect to hear a lot of commentary — both for and against the proposal — in the coming days.

Your ISP has “a broad view of all of your unencrypted online activity – when you are online, the websites you visit, and the apps you use. If you have a mobile device, your provider can track your physical location throughout the day in real time,” Wheeler said in a blog post today.

“Even when data is encrypted, your broadband provider can piece together significant amounts of information about you – including private information such as a chronic medical condition or financial problems – based on your online activity,” he continued before addressing the big enforcement gap that exists.

See, the FTC has authority over what “edge providers” — companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Netflix — can and can’t do with your personal data, and what they need to disclose to you about the ways in which they use it. The FCC, on the other hand, has authority over what telephone and cable companies can do. It all adds up to one big patchwork of protections that leaves a lot of holes in the middle.

Those holes, and that friction, have become the target of most of the public objection to the FCC’s proposal so far. As recently as Monday, insiders and watchers speculated that the FCC would adopt an FTC-style approach, abandoning the “must require consumers to opt-in” tack in favor of a “must permit opt-out” one.

Despite D.C. insiders and the broadband industry making much hay over the FTC/FCC turf war, however, the FTC seems largely supportive of the proposal.

“We know that consumers care deeply about their privacy, and I am pleased to see the FCC moving forward to protect the privacy of millions of broadband users across the country,” FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement today. “The FTC, which has protected consumers’ privacy for decades in both the online and brick-and-mortar worlds, provided formal comment to the FCC on the proposed rulemaking, and I believe that our input has helped strengthen this important initiative.”

The broadband industry has been hugely, overwhelmingly, against the proposed limits from the start. The vote even to consider making a rule was contentious, and since then we’ve seen repeated objections from carriers — notably AT&T and Comcast — to the mere idea.

The Commission is clearly prepared to face down legal challenges that industry may bring. Several times in the fact sheet, and during a press call with reporters, FCC officials stressed that the commission took into account all the comments and feedback it received to the proceeding when crafting the rule. They also made clear under what legal authority (section 222 of the Communications Act) they have crafted the rule, and why.

As to charges from AT&T and others that it’s not fair for the FCC to make privacy demands of them and leave companies like Google and Amazon alone, a senior FCC official said, “What we’re doing here is frankly what we’ve done for decades with communications networks, and that’s a duty that Congress have given us, to say that when consumers are on their communications networks, they have certain statutory protections. We are implementing those statutory protections here.”

He added, “We are looking at the relationship between the customer and the ISP, and we do think there are some specific protections customers deserve in that context.” The relationship consumers have with services they access through that ISP doesn’t enter into it.

Privacy advocates, meanwhile, are cheering the FCC on. “This proposal offers consumers the much needed safeguards and desired control over their own personal information. For the first time, ISPs would have to obtain customer consent for the use of web browsing and app usage history for advertising purposes,” Katharina Kopp, deputy director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said in a statement.

“Given the unique position of ISPs as gatekeepers to vast amounts of customer data, the FCC’s proposed broadband privacy rule is a critical step in preserving a free and open Internet into the 21st century,” Kopp added. “We will work to ensure this proposal is effectively implemented and that ISP broadband consumers receive the privacy protections they deserve.

Usually the FCC votes (as often as not, 3-2) to adopt these big-ticket proposals three weeks after Wheeler’s office announces he’s circulating them. However as we saw last month, when the vote on final proposal to replace set-top boxes was scrapped at the last minute, surprises can still happen.

Provided that talks among the commissioners do not go pear-shaped again, you can expect the FCC to vote whether to adopt this rule on Oct. 27.


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Fox News Anchor’s Toy Hamster Lawsuit Quietly Scampers Away

http://ift.tt/2dy4CL8

Just over a year ago, a very odd lawsuit made the news: a Fox News anchor was suing toy maker Hasbro over a toy hamster. Harris Faulkner objected to the existence of a Littlest Toy Shop collection toy hamster named… Harris Faulkner. This was either a really weird coincidence or a some very niche cross-marketing on Hasbro’s part. The case has now ended, though we don’t know whether there was a financial settlement.

hamster_pack

What we do know is that the judge in this case issued an opinion [PDF] dismissing Faulkner’s claim that the toy hamster violates her right to publicity — that is, to approve and make money from any products made in her image, something that she chooses not to do as a journalist.

Some states have explicit laws on the books protecting a person’s right to publicity, but New Jersey is not one of them. In a brief in support of Hasbro’s argument that the hamster didn’t violate Faulkner’s publicity rights, things got a bit surreal, with attorneys noting that the hamster “has no apparent gender or
profession.”

cursory_comparison

The anchor’s attorneys has argued that the toy “bear[s] a physical resemblance to Faulkner’s traditional professional appearance,” possibly only pbecause the animal appears to be wearing eyeliner and mascara.

The Littlest Pet Shop toys circulate in and out of stores, and Harris Faulkner the hamster is no longer on the market. The case has now been dismissed with prejudice [PDF], meaning that it can’t be resurrected. If Hasbro did settle with Faulkner on the counts that didn’t involve publicity, that isn’t in the public record.

Fox anchor settles with Hasbro over hamster doll with her name [CNN]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Indiana Pacers Using New System That Directs Fans To The Shortest Concession Stand Lines

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

You know the feeling: you’re stranded in line at the arena/stadium/field waiting to get a beer and a hot dog while your team is out there kicking butt and taking names. It’s a waste of time that one NBA team is trying to prevent with a new system that takes photos of concession stand lines and directs fans to the shortest queue.

The Indiana Pacers are working with a startup called WaitTime to equip the arena with cameras capable of snapping 10 photos per second, Bloomberg Technology reports.

Through the magic of software, those photos are turned into information that’s posted on monitors throughout the venue, telling fans how long the wait will be at certain spots. They can also access the information through the Pacers’ mobile app.

It’s a win-win: fans stay fed, watered, and happy, and the Pacers get information about the customer experience that could translate into increased revenues: Oracle Corp. reported this year that about 40% of Americans have given up on waiting in lines and left without buying anything. If wait times were cut by half, fans would spend 42% more, the report found.

The Pacers will be able to find out in real time how long it takes for customers to receive an order and how many folks abandoned the line, and then use that information to redistribute concession workers or dispatch a food truck to the areas with longer lines.

“We already know our sales numbers per stand,” Pacers’ Chief Technology Officer Ed Frederici said. “Now we’ll know how long someone waits in line per stand, and how much attrition there is per stand. We’ll have a finer grain of detail to optimize the fan experience.”

NBA’s Pacers Have a Plan to Connect Fans to Beer, Burgers Faster [Bloomberg Technology]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Patients Say UnitedHealth Illegally Overcharged For Prescription Drugs

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

With the high costs of some prescription drugs facing increased scrutiny, some consumers are fighting back against insurance companies who cover a portion of those costs. Case in point: some UnitedHealth customers are suing the insurer claiming it overcharged for prescription drugs. 

The potential class-action lawsuit, filed this week by three UnitedHealth customers in a federal court in Minnesota, accuses the insurer of creating a “secret” system that charged clients co-payments far in excess of the costs of actual drugs, and then pocketing the difference.

According to the complaint [PDF], UnitedHealth’s charges were “improper and illegal” because the insurer was already paid to provide prescription drugs through health-insurance premiums.

These premiums are the result of agreements between the insurance company and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM). In most cases, a health insurance policy provides prescription drug benefits, and a PBM is the agent of the insurance company hired to administer the prescription drug to retail pharmacies.

When a patient either presents or picks up a prescription at a pharmacy, key information such as the patient’s name, drug dispensed, and quantity dispensed is transmitted to the correct PBM.

The PBM instantaneously processes the claim according to the benefits plan assigned to the patient, and sends that information — including any payment from the customer owed to the pharmacy.

In the case of UnitedHealth, the customers claim the company, which manages its own PBM called Optum, created a system in which the client’s co-payment was in excess of the price negotiated with the pharmacy. This created a “clawback” or overcharge that was then returned to the insurer.

For example, one of the plaintiffs claim in the suit that he paid a $50 co-payment for a contraceptive prescription, while UnitedHealth paid the pharmacy only $11.65. Under the pharmacy and insurer agreement, once the customer paid, the pharmacy was directed to pay the excess $38.85 to UnitedHealth.

UnitedHealth’s co-payment is not a “‘co-‘ payment for a prescription drug because the insurer is paying nothing, but instead is getting a material portion the insured’s payment funneled back to it in secret,” according to the complaint.

This, despite the fact that co-payments are defined in the policy section of UnitedHealth’s agreements as “Cost-Sharing,” where the expense is shared between the insured and the insurer.

The lawsuit claims UnitedHealth’s co-payments violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and in some cases also violate a federal law governing employee benefit plans.

A rep for UnitedHealth tells Bloomberg that it has not yet been served with the complaint, but noted that “pharmacy benefits are administered in line with the coverage described in the plan documents.”

UnitedHealth Accused of Gouging Customers on Prescription Drugs [Bloomberg]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Why Are Fewer People Watching The NFL So Far This Season?

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Maybe it’s the lack of Tom Brady. Maybe it’s the election season. Maybe everyone’s out apple-picking instead of at home watching football. Maybe it’s because you’ve already cratered in your office fantasy football league because you invested too heavily in the Carolina Panthers? (Why are you looking at me like that?) Whatever the cause, fewer people seem to be watching pro football in 2016.

The Wall Street Journal points to Nielsen data that shows live NFL viewership is down 10% overall (on all networks) through the first four weeks of the season, with the Thursday, Sunday, and Monday night games seeing even bigger declines in viewership.

Given that the NFL has survived striking players, replacement reps, repeated allegations of violence and substance abuse by athletes, and Terry Bradshaw’s singing, it comes as a bit of surprise to some that something is failing to lure viewers to the TV.

Yeah, there was the absence of New England’s handsome quarterback (and lover of expensive, unmade bed), but he’s just one player on one team (a team that continued to win, for the most part, without him under center).

What about the election? The Sept. 26 presidential debate was indeed watched by more than 81 million people, and that surely cut into some of the audience for that Monday Night Football game between the Atlanta Falcons and the New Orleans Saints, but again that’s just a single game.

The upcoming Oct. 9 debate is the only of the remaining pre-election primetime events that will go head-to-head with the NFL. This time, the candidates will be up against heavier competition for TV eyes as the Sunday Night Football matchup is between the New York Giants and Green Bay Packers, two teams with large fan bases.

The Journal notes that while NFL viewership is down so far this year, ratings for cable news networks are up during this — to put it mildly — contentious election season, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all or most of the people tuning in for the latest political news are turning off football.

It could also be a simple case of lost interest from the most casual NFL fans, who may have been tuning in out of habit rather than having any vested interest. Consumers may also feel overwhelmed by the constant presence of the NFL in advertising (see the earlier referenced Tom Brady mattress ad, not to mention the omnipresence, however charming, of Peyton Manning) and other non-football content (we’re looking at you, Dancing With The Stars).

After all pizza might be wildly popular, but not everyone wants pizza all day Sunday, and three nights a week for dinner (plus college pizza all day Saturday and maybe high school pizza on Friday).

One ad-buying exec tells the Journal that his folks are befuddled by the cause of the drop in NFL viewership through the so-called quarter pole: “We cannot pinpoint any specific reason why the numbers are down. It is probably being caused by a confluence of events.”

The Thursday and Monday night games, on CBS and ESPN, respectively, are taking the brunt of the ratings decline this season. Primetime national sporting events can be a big ratings risk, as you’re asking all of America (many of whom have strong rooting interests for a single team) to forgo other primetime programming to spend three to four hours watching two teams they might not care about play a game that has little or no impact on their team of choice.

A lackluster matchup, or a blowout that doesn’t provide any drama for viewers without a built-in rooting interest, can be a difficult sell. If the Monday Night game is already decided by halftime, are you sticking around to find out who gets the Gruden Grinder at the end of the game?


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Verizon Joins AT&T In Testing Drones That Act As Flying LTE Antennae

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

There are certain times in every wireless company’s life when their network needs a boost, whether it’s because of a natural disaster or the pope’s in town. On the heels of AT&T’s announcement that it’s testing drones as flying LTE antennae, Verizon Wireless says it’s been doing basically the same thing, and has been working on it for the past few years.

Verizon announced that it’s running a trial today out of Cape May, NJ today with a high-altitude drone to show how the company’s 4G LTE network could “help first responders and emergency management personnel enhance disaster recovery efforts.”

The company previously held a controlled trial with a drone that has a 17-foot wingspan that tested advanced aerial inspection techniques that the company says can be applied to anything from inspecting rural pipeline to connecting customers nationwide to the LTE network when service is spotty.

“This latest trial demonstrated how emerging technology combined with wireless networks can improve safety and security,” said Mike Haberman, vice president, Network Operations, Verizon. “A nationwide reliable 4G LTE network is the foundation for the future of mobile IoT in the air.”

As we noted before, if drone-based LTE proves feasible, wireless companies might use the aerial devices to provide temporary service in areas where mobile cell towers — Cell on Wheels, or COWs — can’t be deployed easily. So when a wireless company needs to restore service after a natural disaster, the drones would be able to get into the air before bulky COWs could be trucked to the site.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist