Current Events in June 2011

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it has found no evidence of a potential cancer risk in certain medications – known as angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) – used to treat high blood pressure.

Brand names of some of the more popular ARBs include Atacand, Avapro, Benicar, Cozaar, Diovan, Micardis, and Teveten (complete list below).

The FDA launched thesafety review of ARBs after a published meta-analysis of 5 randomized clinical trials reported a small but statistically significant increase in risk of cancer in patients taking an ARB compared to patients not taking an ARB.

To further evaluate the link, FDA conducted a trial-level meta-analysis of clinical trials that included 31 trials and approximately 156,000 patients, far more than the approximately 62,000 in the published analysis. FDA’s more comprehensive meta-analysis did not show an increased risk of cancer in the patients taking an ARB medication.

Based on the review and analysis of all currently available data, the FDA said it has concluded that treatment with an ARB medication does not increase the risk of cancer.

The agency had this advice for patients:

• Do not stop taking your ARB medication without talking to your healthcare professional.

• Discuss any questions or concerns about ARB medications with your healthcare professional.

• Report any side effects you may experience to the FDA MedWatch program using the information in the “Contact Us” box at the bottom of the page.

Additional Information for Healthcare Professionals

• Know that FDA’s meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials comparing ARBs to other treatment found no evidence of an increased risk of incident (new) cancer, cancer-related death, breast cancer, lung cancer, or prostate cancer in patients receiving ARBs.

• Report adverse events involving ARB medications to the FDA MedWatch program, using the information in the “Contact Us” box at the bottom of the page.

Table 1.Approved Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

Single Ingredient Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

Combination Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

The Department of Education has released final regulations that place requirements on for-profit colleges not generally required of traditional public and private colleges and universities.

Over the next four years, for-profit institutions, such as University of Phoenix, Devry and ITT Technical Institute, must show that students getting degrees actually get jobs, in order to maintain access to student financial aid.

The new regulations are designed to address complaints from students who say they come out of school saddled in debt but have few job prospects. Carl, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., says his wife graduated from the University of Phoenix, while racking up significant student loans over four and a half years.

The bill

“We just received loan statements from both CitiBank and FedLoans totaling $49,000.00 for a B.S. Degree,” Carl told ConsumerAffairs.com. “How could an online school cost so much? There are no classrooms, air conditioning or light bills as overhead.”

While many career college programs are helping to prepare America's workforce for the jobs of the future, the government says far too many students at these schools are taking on unsustainable debt in exchange for degrees and certificates that fail to help them get the jobs they need or were promised.

"These new regulations will help ensure that students at these schools are getting what they pay for: solid preparation for a good job," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said. "We're giving career colleges every opportunity to reform themselves but we're not letting them off the hook, because too many vulnerable students are being hurt."

New requirements

To qualify for Federal aid, the law requires that most for-profit programs and certificate programs at nonprofit and public institutions prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.

Under the new regulations, a program would be considered to lead to gainful employment if it meets at least one of the following three metrics:

• at least 35 percent of former students are repaying their loans (defined as reducing the loan balance by at least $1);
• the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate does not exceed 30 percent of his or her discretionary income;
• or the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate does not exceed 12 percent of his or her total earnings. While the regulations apply to occupational training programs at all types of institutions, for-profit programs are most likely to leave their students with unaffordable debts and poor employment prospects.

Excluded students

As admission standards for traditional non-profit colleges have risen, many of these excluded students have turned to for-profit schools for a degree. Also, students already in the workforce make up a significant portion of the enrollment, since many classes are in the evening or can be taken online.

According to the Department of Education, students at for-profit institutions represent 12 percent of all higher education students, 26 percent of all student loans and 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default.

The median Federal student loan debt carried by students earning associate degrees at for-profit institutions was $14,000, while the majority of students at community colleges do not borrow. More than a quarter of for-profit institutions receive 80 percent of their revenues from taxpayer-financed Federal student aid.

"While for-profit schools have profited and prospered thanks to Federal dollars, some of their students have not,” Duncan said. “This is a disservice to students and taxpayers, and undermines the valuable work being done by the for-profit education industry as a whole."

Two classes of ice-cream buyers have standing to sue Ben & Jerry's and Breyers for using "all natural" labels on ice cream made with synthetic chemical processes, a federal judge ruled.

The plaintiffs in the case allege that Ben & Jerry's and Breyers misrepresented their ice cream containing “Dutch” chocolate as “all natural” when in fact it is processed with potassium carbonate, a man-made ingredient.

The suit notes that on August 12, 2010, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) sent a letter to the ice cream companies identifying about 50 products, including chocolate ice cream and frozen yogurt, that it said were mislabeled.

In September 2010, Ben & Jerry's agreed to phase out the use of the “all natural” phrase for products containing synthetic ingredients.

The suit, filed in federal district court in Northern California charged the companies with fraud, false advertising and unjust enrichment and raised the possibility that Ben & Jerry's might at some unknown time in the future begin using the “all natural” claim again.

No damage?

The companies had filed a motion seeking dismissal of the suits, claiming among other things that the plaintiffs had not shown any damages.

The ice cream companies also argued that the plaintiffs could not reasonably claim they had suffered economic injury since, by their own admission, they not only bought but also consumed the ice cream in question.

If they were dissatisfied with their ice cream-eating experience, the companies argued, they should have applied for a refund under the companies' “satisfaction guaranteed or your money back policy.”

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, concede that while they have indeed purchased and consumed many pints of the suspect ice cream, they did so under the false belief that the frozen confection was “all natural” and that it would never have passed their lips had they been apprised of its allegedly synthetic nature.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the companies' motions, allowing the case to proceed.

In a class action lawsuit, graduates of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego claim that "for more than 15 years, TJSL has churned out law school graduates, many of whom have little or no hope of working as attorneys at any point in their careers," and they say the school lures in new meat by misrepresenting the employment and salary records of its graduates.

The private law school, founded in 1995, was accredited in 2001 and enrolls about 680 students annually. Tuition is currently $38,700 annually.

In the suit, Anna Alaburda claims that the average Jefferson graduate is carrying student debt of $135,000 and that Jefferson graduates' bar passage rate is “consistently” below 50 percent, which she says is well below the average in California.

Alaburda alleges that to continue attracting students despite these dismal statistics, the school misrepresents its graduates employment statistics, claiming that its graduates enjoy an employment rate that typically exceed 70 percent, while concealing that these figures include part-time and non-law employment.

Working as waiters

A TJSL graduate would be considered employed if he worked as a waiter or convenience store clerk, she said.

“Prospective students are led to believe that they will be hired as full-time attorneys when they graduate, even though that is frequently not the case,” the suit alleges.

Alaburda speaks from experience. She graduated from TJSL with honors in 2008, having incurred more than $150,000 in debt from student loans but has been unable to find lucrative work as an attorney.

“Law schools are cranking out graduates at an unprecedented rate,” awarding more than 43,000 law degrees last year, up 11 percent from the previous decade, the suit notes.

Law schools inflate statistics and present misleading figures to U.S. News & World Report, whose annual ranking of law schools is used by many students as they review the schools available to them, the suit argues. It alleges that, for example, the dean of Villanova Law School recently admitted that the school “knowingly reported” false information to the American Bar Association.

Enron standards

The suit quotes one law school dean as saying “Enron-type accounting standards have become the norm.”

Alaburda graduated from New York University, one of the top undergraduate schools in the nation, in 2002 and, after reviewing U.S. News & World Report's law school rankings, applied to TJSL, relying on the school's claim that 80 percent of its graduates were employed nine months after graduation.

She graduated from TJSL with honors and passed the bar exam on her first attempt but has never been employed as a full-time attorney. She said she has had to seek “contract work” reviewing documents and working on a project-by-project basis for law firms.

In the suit, Alaburda said she has been told by many law firms that they do not hire TJSL graduates and that the school's reputation in the legal industry is well below average.

The suit, filed in San Diego Superior Court, seeks class action status on behalf of all TJSL graduates. It accuses the school of unfair business practices, fraud, false advertising and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks damages of $50 million.

Final indignity

Well, you might be saying to yourself, at least Ms. Alaburda got something from her expensive law school education -- she was able to file her own lawsuit. 

Wrong.

The suit was filed on behalf of Alaburda and her classmates by Brian Procel of the Los Angeles firm Miller Barondess LLP.

Nevada's attorney general is warning seniors that a new scam is targeting Medicare recipients, trying to obtain personal information that could be used for identity theft.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has issued a consumer alert after a senior in her state reported an attempt to steal his Medicare number.

According to Masto, the scam worked like this: a caller reached the senior by telephone and told him they are eligible for new diabetic meters that are generally covered by Medicare under Medicare Part B.

The caller claimed to be a government agency representative and informed the Medicare beneficiary he was eligible for a new glucose meter. The caller then asked the beneficiary to confirm “you are who you say you are” and requested the beneficiary’s Medicare number.

Didn't fall for it

In this particular case, the Nevada beneficiary told the caller he was not comfortable providing that information over the phone and asked the caller to send a form to provide the information. The caller then promptly hung up.

“Luckily, this senior was aware enough to realize that the caller was a scammer looking for personal information in an attempt to victimize him,” said Masto. “Although seniors are becoming increasingly more vigilant in protecting

their Medicare numbers and other personal information, there’s always the possibility that a scammer calling a senior could persuade him or her to provide information that could open the senior to potential ID theft and medical identity theft.”

Research shows that people are usually more vulnerable to a scam if it involves getting something for free. Consumers should be especially wary of offers of free items that require you to provide personal or credit card information.

Medicare, or course, will never make unsolicited calls to a beneficiary. If seniors receive any phone calls such as this scam, they should report it to their state attorney general and the Medicare Fraud Line in Washington.