Current Events in June 2012

There, they said it. “Sale.”

When J.C. Penney began 2012 with a new strategy, CEO Ron Johnson vowed the department store chain was finished with coupons and sales. From now on, it would be “fair and square pricing,” which was a three-tiered system of prices.

Johnson said customers wouldn't be hearing the word “sale” again. Instead, the company would call these events “month-long values.”

Customers posting on ConsumerAffairs didn't like it and apparently, enough others didn't like it either. Penney's sales plunged in the first quarter of the year. This week Johnson told a Piper Jaffray investors conference that it failed to effectively communicate with its customers so the word “sale” is returning to its advertising.

Consumers like Amanda, of Tao Baja, Puerto Rico, are saying “told you so.”

“Since the new CEO changed the strategy to Fair and Square, we have practically stopped shopping,” Amanda wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post. “The store is mostly empty, there are no good sales and I know many people have drifted to Macys instead.”

And Amanda says she is not at all surprised to see the company changing course again.

“Of course,” she wrote. “The coupons and sales were excellent motivators and I know that the stores sold more this way than the way it is now.”

But Penney's isn't abandoning all its changes. Johnson says in August the chain will start remodeling stores that will be turned into a number of separate shops. And Johnson said the new pricing policy actually helped draw in more vendors that will draw in new customers over time.

With New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposing a ban on the sales of large sodas and other sugar-based drinks, the national debate on healthy verse non-healthy beverages is at an all-time high.

Between the vast array of diet sodas available, not to mention the bevy of health drinks, juices and organic beverages, consumers can feel quite confused about what's actually healthy and what's merely branded as such.

For starters, lets look at some of the more popular non-diet beverages and gauge what their actual calorie and sugar count is:

• Eight ounces of Coca-Cola contains 100 calories and 27 grams of sugar.
• Eight ounces of Pepsi has 100 calories and 28 grams of sugar
• Nestea Iced Tea with Lemon has 80 calories with 22 grams of sugar, in an eight ounce serving.
• Eight ounces of Rockstar Energy Drink contains 140 calories with 31 grams of sugar.
• Sprite contains 96 calories and 26 grams of sugar in an eight ounce serving.

Those who still consume heavy amounts of non-diet sodas, they run the risk of getting diabetes, tooth and even bone decay, according to health experts.

And what about diet sodas? The word diet alone engenders a feeling of safety for consumers who want a healthier beverage option, but many health experts say diet sodas can be more fattening than non-diet versions.

More fattening

In a recent study from the University of Texas, diet soda drinkers experienced a 70 percent increase in waist size compared with non-diet-soda-drinkers. 

The main culprit of weight gain among diet soda drinkers is an ingredient called aspartame, which is an artificial sweetener used in most diet sodas. Experts say perpetual consumption of aspartame could possibly lead to increased blood glucose levels, which could eventually cause diabetes.

Many consumers, who have been already hip to the health risks of drinking too much diet soda, have decided to drink zero calorie drinks instead. Many believe sodas like Coke Zero and Pepsi Max are a healthier product to buy, but experts say they're really not.

Many of the zero calorie beverages not only contain the aspartame ingredient, but also have an additive called Acesulfame Potassium, which is another artificial sweetener that could create even more health risks.

In lab tests, scientists have found the sugary additive potentially increased  the risk of cancer as well as insulin production levels in test animals.

Experts say AcesulfamePotassium is less risky than aspartame, but more research still needs to be done on both additives. The problem with zero calorie sodas, experts say, is they typically contain both artificial sweeteners, and each comes with its own potential health risk, not to mention possible weight gain.

But not always ...

But just as certain beverages can be the catalyst in weight gain and cause serious ailments, certain drinks can do the opposite, and thrust an individual into a healthier lifestyle.

"Some drinks have tremendous health benefits, from relieving minor ailments like indigestion to protecting against serious ones like osteoporosis," says Dan Nadeau, M.D., medical director of Exeter Hospital's HealthReach Diabetes, Endocrinology and Nutrition Center in Exeter, New Hampshire.

Besides water, here are some of the healthier drinks that experts say should be replacing your soda or sugary beverage intake:

Green Tea: Helps reduce risk of osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease and cavities. It also holds a natural antioxidant that can protect cells from receiving cancer-causing substances. Green tea can also lower the risk of heart disease, blood clots, and strokes.

Cranberry Juice: Prevents gum disease, urinary tract infection, and eliminates bacteria from the teeth and gums while eating. But doctors say to be mindful of your intake, as certain juices contain high levels of sugar. "Make sure the label says 100 percent juice, not 'juice drink' or 'cocktail,'" says Heidi Reichenberger, R.D., a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association.

Low-Sodium Tomato Juice: Protects against certain cancer types. Processed tomato products have the richest source of the antioxidant lycopene, which has been known to lower the risk of lung and stomach cancer, say experts. Tomato juice has also been known to reduce the chances of getting  pancreatic, colorectal, esophageal, oral, breast and cervical cancers.

Orange Juice: Many already drink the popular breakfast beverage for its taste, but orange juice also has some wonderful health benefits. It's a high source of vitamin C, and has antioxidants that can thwart off diseases like, cataracts, and certain types of cancers. It's also known to boost the immune system. However, it's even better to eat an orange, as you get more fiber that way.

A new report finds that workers in the food industry endure some of the lowest wages, poorest working conditions, fewest benefits, least opportunity for advancement and poorest safety training of any job in the U.S.

Aside from the effect on the food service workers, the poor working conditions expose consumers to health and safety risks that could be avoided, according to the report from the Food Chain Workers Alliance, which looks at wages and working conditions of workers across the entire food chain -- a sector that employs 20 million people in the U.S., comprising one-sixth of the nation's workforce.

The report is based on nearly 700 surveys and interviews with workers and employers in food production, processing, distribution, retail and service, which collectively sell over $1.8 trillion dollars in goods and services annually, accounting for over 13 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product.

According to the new report, there are some good jobs in the food system (13.5% of workers surveyed earn livable wages), but the vast majority are incredibly low-wage, with little or no access to paid sick days and health benefits, with dire consequences for consumers.More than 86 percent of workers reported earning subminimum, poverty, and low wages, resulting in a sad irony: food workers face higher levels of food insecurity, or the inability to afford to eat, than the rest of the U.S. workforce.

"Most people don't think about the millions of food system workers who make it possible for us to shop in grocery stores or eat in restaurants," says Joann Lo, Executive Director of the Food Chain Workers Alliance. "This report is intended to make these people visible, and serve as a wake-up call for policy makers, employers and consumers to make the entire system more just." 

Key findings

• Lack of Benefits: Seventy-nine percent of food system workers do not have a single paid sick day, or do not know if they have paid sick days, and 58 percent lack health coverage. Consequently, 53 percent have admitted to working while sick.
• Reliance on Public Support: Food system workers use food stamps at double the rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. Food industry employees are also more likely receive Medicaid than other industries. Nearly 28% of food system employees are on Medicaid, compared to 19.36% of all industries. Due to a lack of employer-provided health benefits, more than one third of all workers surveyed (34.8%) report using the emergency room for primary health care. In addition, 80 percent of these workers are unable to pay for such care. 
• Poor Quality of Life: A full 10 percent reported working more than 10 hours per day, and the vast majority of those reported working 60 or more hours per week. Almost half of the workers also reported working multiple jobs to make ends meet. 
• Lack of Upward Mobility: Despite taking on more duties, 81 percent never received a promotion.
• Improper Safety Training: More than half of all workers surveyed (52 percent) reported that they did not receive health and safety training from their employers. Almost one-third of all food system workers (32.7%) reported that their employers did not always provide necessary equipment to do their jobs.
• Gender and Race Discrimination: While about one quarter of Black and Latino workers and almost 40 percent of Asian workers reported earning less than the minimum wage, only 13.5 percent of white workers surveyed reported earning less than the minimum wage. Not surprisingly given these differences, more than one third of workers surveyed reported feeling that they had been discriminated against by their employer. Women food system workers take home slightly less than men in the food system; women earn median weekly wages of $400, while men reported a median weekly take-home of $421.

The report examines the five core food occupations and industries in the food system: farmworkers (production), slaughterhouse and other processing facilities workers (processing), warehouse workers (distribution), grocery store workers (retail), and restaurant and food service workers (service). It examines how corporate consolidation throughout the food chain has created universal impacts on workers in terms of low wages, small to midsize employers in terms of unfair competition, and consumers in terms of food quality and diversity. Employers interviewed unanimously commented on how multinational food corporations receiving government subsidies and tax breaks and buying up their own suppliers has created unfair and unmanageable competition.

Daria, of Highland, Ind., may be on some kind of list that she doesn't want to be on. She reports she was the target of two different, unrelated scams within 24 hours.

In a post on ConsumerAffairs, Daria reports that it all started with a pitch from a company that told her it hired “secret shoppers.” Daria was rightly skeptical.

“They tried to get me on the telephone, and when I did not fall for that they sent a letter with a check,” Daria writes. “I took the check to the bank for deposit. I had no intention using the money for the 'secret shopper' job until the check cleared.”

Other victims who have thought that way got in trouble because it can take weeks for the phony check from the scammer to be discovered. By then the victim has used her own money. Fortunately for Daria, the bank teller was able to examine the check closely and show that it was fake.

A scam was avoided and Daria was relieved, but her encounter with scammers wasn't over.

Another one

“No sooner than I get home from from the bank, I get the 'US Government Grant Department' on the phone telling me that I was selected for doing my taxes on time to receive $7,000 and how did I want to receive it,” Daria wrote. “He wanted my bank information. I told him that something was wrong with him if he thought I was going to give a stranger my account information.”

Daria was the target of two of the more common scams, and though they might seem unrelated, it is possible they are connected in some way. Scammers are known to compile lists of targets – especially people who have fallen for a scam in the past. In the scam world, retargeting a past victim is called “reloading.”

Similar M.O.

Both the secret shopper scam and the government grant scam work the same way. The victim is sent a large check, which is counterfeit. They are instructed to deposit it in their bank account and wire a portion of it back to the scammer.

Usually the transfer takes place before the bank finds out the check is fake. At that point, the money the victim sent to the scammer comes out of their account.

Very often, after hearing a pitch from a scammer a victim believes it is their lucky day. Luckily for Daria, she knew better.

Eating fish is good for you because it contains plenty of heart-healthy omega-3. However, some fish tends to contain more toxic material absorbed from its environment. That's not so good.

Which fish is best? Consumers have a hard time answering that question, according to researchers at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. A study there has determined that consumers are not getting all the information they need to make informed decisions about fish consumption.

The research team looked at fish consumption choice from toxicological, nutritional, ecological, and economic points of view. It evaluated scientific literature, public health guidelines and fish consumption advisories made in the U.S. and found that there is no one place that gives consumers a complete view of the advantages and disadvantages of various fish species.

"Our research shows that there is no one perfect fish when considering nutritional value, toxicity rates and the environmental and economic impact," said Susan Korrick, MD, of Brigham and Women's hospital. "Consumers are forced to decide what trade-offs they are willing to make. But as a consumer standing in a store, it is difficult to understand the pros and cons of a fish purchase, because the amount of readily available information is limited."

Generally healthy

Korrick points out that fish is generally a healthy food and because of periodic stories in the media about toxicity in some species, she worries that consumers will give up eating fish out of frustration.

"Our research highlights the need for the development of clear and simple consumer advice that describes the multiple impacts of fish consumption," Korrick said.

Fish's natural beneficial qualities can sometimes be outweighed by marine toxins, that contaminate the fish in its environment. These toxins are not always man-made pollution.

Marine toxins can be naturally occurring chemicals that can contaminate certain seafood. The seafood contaminated with these chemicals frequently looks, smells, and tastes normal. When humans eat this seafood, disease can result.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published an online list of some of the more common marine toxins that affect commercially-available fish. If you eat fish frequently, it might be a good idea to keep the list handy.

As in all things, moderation is the key. 

Though it rarely makes news, about 8,000 Americans are bitten by poisonous snakes each year, according to public health officials.

About 10 percent of these dangerous snake bites occur in one state – California – home to an abundance of snake species, but only one family is native and venomous: rattlesnakes.

“This is the time of year when we see a rise in snake bites,” said Richard Clark, MD, director of the Division of Medical Toxicology at UC San Diego Health System.

Toxin levels in rattler venom vary from year to year and season to season, but typically venom is weaker in winter and stronger in summer because snakes are more active, fighting for food and territory. In recent years, it seems the venom has become more deadly.

“We really don’t know why the venom is becoming increasingly potent,” Clark said. “Some speculate that with the modern world encroaching on nature it could be survival of the fittest. Perhaps only the strongest, most venomous snakes survive.”

Swelling and pain

The majority of the injuries are on hands, fingers and feet, and the most typical result is swelling and tissue damage that looks like blisters or frost bite.

Symptoms of severe bites can include: extreme pain at the location of the bite, nausea and sometimes diarrhea, followed by swelling in the mouth and throat, making it difficult to breathe. Within minutes, victims can get lightheaded, collapse and go into shock.

“Many of our snake bite victims show symptoms of severe weakness, trouble breathing and low blood pressure,” said Clark who is also medical director for the California Poison Control System (CPCS), San Diego Division. “For anyone who suspects a bite, their next move should be to a hospital emergency department.”

With some rattlesnake bites, no venom is injected into the wound, but because it is impossible to know if venom has or has not been injected, getting medical treatment quickly is important.

Treating a rattlesnake bite can be expensive. The anti-venom costs around $2,500 a vial. Patients may need a series of anti-venom shots and insurance does not always cover the treatment, Clark said.

What to do

If bitten by a snake, go to a hospital's emergency room or a nearby health care facility immediately. There are potential risks to applying ice, using a tourniquet or suctioning the wound.

For the direct application of ice, Clark says the main concern is the risk of a frostbite-like injury. If tourniquets are applied too tightly, they will decrease blood flow to the affected area and might also concentrate the venom, increasing local tissue damage. Suctioning the wound is ineffective in removing venom because the venom is usually injected too deeply into tissue. When people use their mouths to suck the bite site, they can actually make things worse by introducing harmful bacteria.

If you happen to be in a remote area when you're bitten by a rattler, first immobilize the wounded area, especially for a hand or arm bite, then proceed slowly to a vehicle. Moving slowly will keep the heart rate low and help prevent the venom from spreading.

West Marine Products is recalling about 1,200 Folding Deck Chairs. The chair cannot support the stated weight capacity. This poses a collapse hazard to consumers.

West Marine is aware of six incidents of the chair collapsing. No injuries were reported.

The recalled item is a West Marine Deluxe Deck Chair. It is a folding deck chair with metal legs and light-colored wood armrests. It has plastic feet on the corners of each leg. The seat and back are covered with blue and gray nylon fabric. The back can be adjusted to various angles. Model/SKU number “13110341” is printed on a coated paper tag attached to the chair frame.

The chairs were sold exclusively at: West Marine stores nationwide, online at westmarine.com and in the West Marine catalog from February 2012 to May 2012 for about $70. They were made in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the deck chairs and call West Marine for a full refund or store credit. Consumers may also return the chairs to any West Marine store to receive the refund or store credit.

For additional information, please contact West Marine toll-free at (800) 262-8464 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s website atwww.westmarine.com

The Federal Trade Commission has put a stop to the allegedly deceptive practices of a debt settlement operation that lured consumers with exaggerated claims about how it could help reduce their debts. The defendants behind the operation have agreed to a settlement that prohibits them from making any further misleading claims.

The FTC case against FDN Solutions, LLC and Timothy Daniels is part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress. The defendants claimed, mostly through Google ads and websites they used, such as everestdebtsolutions.com, 1800debtsettlement.com, and everestdebtrelief.com, that they could reduce consumers’ debts, typically by 40 percent to 60 percent, according to the FTC complaint.

However, the FTC charged that these savings claims were misleading, because they did not take into account the consumers who dropped out of the program, or the fact that the fees each client paid totaled 30 percent of the savings achieved. 

The settlement order imposes a judgment of $3.3 million but because they say they have no money, the defendants will pay only $85,000. If it is later determined that the financial information the defendants provided the FTC was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due.

Operating from offices in Tustin, California and Tampa, Florida, Daniels and FDN Solutions used paid search results on Google’s search engine and Google ads on third-party websites to advertise their services, telling consumers, “Reduce Debt 70% Want Proof?” and “Save up to 70% On Credit Card Debt,” according to the complaint. 

A bar chart on one of the defendants’ websites showed that a consumer with a $40,000 debt would pay only $22,000 by using the defendants’ services.

Unsupported claims

The FTC alleged that Daniels and his company, also doing business as Everest Debt Solutions, 1800debtsettlement.com, and everestdebtrelief.com, violated the Federal Trade Commission Act by making unsupported savings claims and by using a fake consumer testimonial.  One supposed testimonial attributed to “Alicia S., Lake Charles, LA” said, “Everest Debt Solutions was able to drop my credit card debt down 62%!  They are truly a Godsend!  God Bless.”

The defendants’ websites provided consumers with toll-free numbers they could call for more information.  When they called, the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting the amount of money or the percentage of the debt amount that a consumer could save by using their services, according to the complaint.

Consumers beware

Consumers looking for help with credit card debt should be wary of anyone who tells them to stop paying their bills, to pay someone other than their creditors, or to stop talking to their creditors. 

Consumers also should be careful about paying for financial assistance before they receive it.  For more information on dealing with debt, including public service announcements about avoiding debt relief scams, see the Debt Relief Services page on the FTC’s Money Matters website for consumers.

Stockholm-based Autoliv Inc. has agreed to plead guilty for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels installed in U.S. cars to one automobile manufacturer and a separate conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts to another, the Department of Justice announced today.  And an executive of Japan-based Yazaki Corporation has agreed to plead guilty for his role in a separate conspiracy to fix prices of automotive wire harnesses and related products installed in U.S. cars. 

Autoliv has agreed to pay a $14.5 million criminal fine and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.  Kazuhiko Kashimoto, a Yazaki executive, has agreed to serve 14 months in a U.S. prison, to pay a $20,000 criminal fine and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.  The plea agreements for both Autoliv and Kashimoto are subject to court approval.

“By meeting in secret and agreeing to allocate the supply of various automotive parts, the conspirators colluded to rip off automotive manufacturers in the United States and abroad,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.  “These conspiracies eliminated competition and resulted in inflated prices to automotive manufacturers for parts in cars sold to U.S. consumers.”

According to a two-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, Autoliv engaged in conspiracies to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels sold to automakers in the United States and elsewhere. 

Seatbelts, airbags

According to court documents, Autoliv’s involvement in the conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels lasted from at least as early as March 2006 until at least February 2011, and its involvement in the second conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts lasted from at least as early as May 2008 to at least February 2011.  Autoliv and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracies by agreeing, during meetings and conversations, to allocate the supply of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels on a model-by-model basis.  The department said that Autoliv and the co-conspirators sold the occupant safety parts at noncompetitive prices to automakers in the United States and elsewhere. 

 According to a one-count felony charge also filed today in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, Kashimoto, along with co-conspirators, engaged in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of automotive wire harnesses and related products sold to a customer in the United States and elsewhere.  Automotive wire harnesses are automotive electrical distribution systems used to direct and control electronic components, wiring and circuit boards.  Related products include automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes and junction blocks.

Including Autoliv and Kashimoto, six companies and 10 individuals have been charged in the department’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and bid rigging in the auto parts industry.  Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd, DENSO Corporation, Yazaki Corporation and G.S. Electech Inc. pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay a total of more than $750 million in criminal fines. Fujikura Ltd has agreed to plead guilty.  Additionally, seven of the individuals have been sentenced to pay criminal fines and to serve jail sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years each.   

Sex sells, and a new study of magazine ads over the last three decades shows some things never change. Madison Avenue is tapping into our carnal desires like never before.

"Advertisers use sex because it can be very effective," said researcher Tom Reichert, professor and head of the department of advertising and public relations in the University of Georgia (UGA). "Sex sells because it attracts attention. People are hard wired to notice sexually relevant information so ads with sexual content get noticed."

The message to the consumer is simple: you buy this product, you get this result. That might be the message of an ad for lawn fertilizer, and then again it might be the message in a cologne ad. One, of course, is more likely to feature sex than the other.

"Some young men actually think Axe body spray will drive women crazy," Reichert said. "But, brand impressions are shaped by images in advertising, too. Arguable, Calvin Klein and Victoria's Secret are not much different than Hanes or Vassarette, but perception studies show those brands are perceived as ‘sexy,' and some customers want that."

20 percent of ads used sex

Looking at 3,232 full-page ads published in 1983, 1993 and 2003 in popular magazines Cosmopolitan, Redbook,Esquire, Playboy,Newsweek and Time, researchers found sexual imagery in 20 percent of the ads. Using sex to sell everything from alcohol to banking services has increased over the years: 15 percent of ads used sex to sell in 1983; that percentage grew to 27 percent in 2003.

Ads were categorized based on the models' clothing, or lack thereof, and physical contact between models. The researchers found that more ads feature sexual images.

But the aforementioned fertilizer ad doesn't use a sexy model. Ads that have gotten by over the years without selling sex by and large have not adopted it lately. Rather, Reichert says the increase in sexual ad content is found in alcohol, entertainment and beauty ads. In short, the products that used sex to sell in the past are using more sex to sell today.

The study also showed sex is primarily used to sell low-risk products purchased on impulse.

Where you won't find sexy ads

"Sex is not as effective when selling high-risk, informational products such as banking services, appliances and utility trucks," he said.

Out of 18 product categories, the study found those most often using sexual imagery in advertising were health and hygiene at 38 percent; beauty, 36 percent; drugs and medicine, 29 percent, clothing, 27 percent; travel, 23 percent; and entertainment, 21 percent.

"In almost every study I've seen, sexual content gives a purchase advantage in such instances," Reichert said.

Products not using sex in their ads were charitable organizations and computer companies. Not surprisingly, women are used to sell products most often when pitching sex. In ads sampled from 2003, 92 percent of beauty ads that contained models were female. Just under half the ads did not contain models.

With the exception of entertainment advertising, females overwhelming occupy the pages of sex-selling advertisements. Of the 38 percent of provocative health and hygiene advertisements that feature models, 31 percent feature females and 7 percent feature males.

Moral issue

"Perhaps more important, this analysis shows that the proportion for alcohol ads in 2003 increased to about one sexual ad for every three ads," Reichert said. "Using sex to sell products such as alcohol and tobacco is a moral issue."

Reichert said this upward trend in erotic ads is a reflection of society. After all, we are bombarded with sex, it seems, day and night and it takes more to get our attention.

"In the early 1900s, exposed arms and ankles of female models generated the same level of arousal as partially nude models do today,” Reichert said. “We can see during our lifetimes the changes in sexually explicit content on television, movies, books and other forms of media beyond just advertising."

Here's a true but scary statement: Not all hospitals are created equal.

According to the nonprofit agency The Leapfrog Group, nearly 400 people die every day due to preventable hospital error. In an effort to make improvements and make hospitals more accountable, over 2,600 thousand of them will now receive a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F in a Hospital Safety Score. Among other standards, hospitals will chiefly be judged on its level of patient safety.

The Hospital Safety Score was put together by The Leapfrog Group with the help of a Blue Ribbon Panel of health and safety experts.

"The Leapfrog Group's goal is to give patients the vital information they need and deserve before even entering a hospital," said Leah Binder, president and CEO of The Leapfrog Group. "We hope people will use this score to talk with their doctor, make informed decisions about where to seek care, and take the right precautions during a hospital stay."

The Leapfrog Group says the national grading system is the first of its kind for hospitals, and it will highlight America's best hospitals and point out the worst ones.

The nonprofit group also says that one in four Medicare patients will exit a hospital with a potentially fatal condition they didn't have prior to being hospitalized. In addition, over 180,000 Americans die each year from hospital accidents, errors and infections, according to Leapfrog.

Safety score

So that patients and their families can feel better and more educated on a particular hospital, Leapfrog has put together the Hospital Safety Score website.

Visitors can look up hospital scores for free, and read information on how to keep themselves and family members safe. Visitors can also access additional information from Leapfrog's sister site, on how to ensure safety in any hospital across the U.S.

Here are some of The Leapfrog Group's key hospital findings:

• Of the 2,652 general hospitals issued a Hospital Safety Score, 729 earned an "A," 679 earned a "B," and 1243 earned a "C" or below.
• Hospitals earning an "A" include academic medical centers Massachusetts General, NYU Langone Medical Center, and University of California San Francisco. Many rural hospitals earned an "A," including Grinnell Regional Medical Center in Iowa and Baptist Health South Florida Homestead Hospital in Florida.
• Hospitals with myriad national accolades, such as Mayo Clinic, Virginia Mason Medical Center, and University of Michigan Medical Center, each earned an "A."
• Less predictable were the "A" scores earned by hospitals serving highly vulnerable, impoverished, and/or health-challenged populations, such as Bellevue Hospital, Montefiore Hospital, and Detroit Receiving Hospital.
• "A" scores were awarded to for-profit hospitals including many in the HCA systems, as well as hundreds of not-for-profit and public hospitals.
• Community hospitals showed excellence as well, such as OSF St. Joseph Medical Center in Illinois.

"Developing the Hospital Safety Score was an intensive nine-month process led by a group of patient safety experts from across the country, and we believe it resulted in a fair metric to assess a hospital's performance on patient safety," said Dr. Jha.

"There is an overwhelming amount of information out there that could be useful when we are admitted to the hospital, but very few of us know what it is or where to find it. Everyone deserves the same information to protect their families. We've been glad to guide The Leapfrog Group in developing the Hospital Safety Score to give the public a way to guide their own decisions, he said."

The folks at Disney want children to eat healthier while watching their programming.

The Walt Disney Co.announced today that it will stop advertising junk-food products on its TV programs, radio shows and websites, and promote healthier snack items to its young viewing audience. 

Meanwhile, displaying the worst possible timing, Twitter said it would get into promoting alcoholic drinks after adding an age-verification process and it was reported that Facebook was planning to allow access by children under 13. 

The ill-timed and tone-deaf measures are likely to be the beginning of the end of Twitter and Facebook's reputations as cool, with-it, hipster sites and dump them into the "anything-for-money" trough so many businesses already occupy in the minds of American consumers.

According to Disney, which also owns the ABC broadcast network, it's the first major media company to make such a large change, and to voluntarily set new standards for responsible advertising to children.

Already, outside groups are praising Disney. John Leibowitz, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, says Disney is pushing ahead "at perhaps some peril to their revenues, so that's all the more reason why we should commend them. These self-imposed restrictions will be good for kids and empower parents."

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the percentage of unhealthy food ads aimed at children decreased from 94 to 86 percent between 2003 to 2009. Health advocates believe all companies both big and small, should make the responsible shift in eliminating unhealthy advertising to its young and vulnerable viewing audience.

First Lady Michelle Obama said: "This new initiative is truly a game changer for the health of our children. With this new initiative, Disney is doing what no major media company has ever done before in the U.S., and what I hope every company will do going forward. When it comes to the ads they show and the food they sell, they are asking themselves one simple question: 'Is this good for our kids?'"

It's not Disney's first foray into promoting healthier childhood nutrition. Back in 2006, Disney ended a ten-year marketing agreement with McDonald's. Reports at the time said Disney executives wanted to put some distance between themselves and complaints about fast food contributing to childhood obesity. 

Nutrition standards

Disney also says it will set new nutrition standards when creating new programming or when licensing its characters. This is an effort to decrease the childhood obesity epidemic, which has been a large part of the national conversation in recent years.

"Parents can be confident that foods associated with Disney characters or advertised on Disney platforms meet our new, healthier nutrition guidelines," Robert Iger, CEO and chairman of Disney said in a statement.

The company has a desire to shift its association with foods like potato chips, candies, sugary cereals and unhealthy beverages, and says it plans to work with major food companies to change any advertising that inspires kids to pick up the wrong  snacks. Both Robert Iger and First Lady Michelle Obama will make the full announcement later today.

This is the second phase of Disney's attempt to disassociate itself from junk-food, as the company first started eliminating junk-food products from its theme parks in 2006. Now cutting out its junk-food advertising, Disney feels its new efforts will greatly impact both its current and future customer base.

Alcohol marketers have to deal with all kinds of regulations set by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), so they don't promote products to under-aged consumers. But that hasn't stopped social networking sites like Facebook from linking up with major alcohol brands like Anheuser-Busch and Heineken.

But Twitter, which hasn't yet been heavily associated with beer, wine or liquor promotions, is looking to catch up to Facebook by implementing an age-checking component, that products like Coors Light have already tested and started using.

The reason Facebook has a jump on Twitter in the area of alcohol promotions, is because users have to enter their date of birth to sign up for the social site. However, anyone can create a Twitter account without age verification, which has made it nearly impossible to gauge what age each follower really is.

However, as Mark Huffman reported earlier today, critics say the Facebook system is faulty and consumer complaints are ignored.

“There are underage children on Facebook, even posting their age and country,” John of Brisbane, Australia, wrote in a ConsumerAffairs posting. “I have tried to report it so it can be fixed but just get ignored.”

Facebook, meanwhile, is said to be considering letting kids under 13 sign up for its site, which isn't expected to go over well with parents and child safety advocates.

Both Twitter and social media experts Buddy Media have created a new age verifier, in hopes that any alcohol that's marketed, will only be viewed by age-appropriate followers.

"For now, we are testing this solution with a small group of advertisers. We will determine next steps after the conclusion of these tests," Twitter said in a statement.

May not be enough

But simply adding an age verifier on social network pages, may not be enough to mollify the Federal Trade Commission, as the government agency continues to examine the data collection of social media pages.

"We believe it is time to launch a new major study to measure current compliance with the self-regulatory standards, to look into new developments in alcohol marketing and to determine what additional recommendations, if any, are warranted," said Janet Evans, senior attorney at the Federal Trade Commission, in a 2011 Ad Age interview.

Overall, the FTC found that 92 percent of radio, TV and print ads successfully complied with regulations of having to promote in areas were 70 percent of the audience is over 21. Digital Media companies also had to promote in online areas, where 70 percent of the users were 21 years or older. According to ComScore, 78.7 percent of Twitter users are at least 21 years of age.

The way Twitter chooses to verify age is by having the user provide their date of birth if they want to follow an alchohol product. Once a user decides to click on a brand, they have to complete a form within a 24-hour period, until they're able to permanently follow that alcohol brand.

So far the new age verifier has allowed major alcohol brands to partner with Twitter with apparent confidence that the FTC will not come and halt its advertising. Heineken, Dos Equis, the liquor company Beam, and Courvoisier have all decided to take a chance and market their products via Twitter.

Andrea Javor, Senior Manager of Beam's digital media division, said the company saw 60 percent of its social media presence come from Twitter, while only 30 percent came from Facebook. 

Does it work?

But, critics of both Twitter and Facebook's alcohol marketing believe the system in place can't truly verify a persons age, as users can enter any date of birth they want. However, Facebook spokesperson Annie Ta took extreme exception to this reasoning.

"We take the issue of underage drinking seriously," she said. "We require that all alcohol-related advertisements use our tools and demographic targeting options to restrict the ad to users who are over the legal drinking age" and "we strictly enforce this policy through proactive investigations and response to user reports. We also require developers to restrict access to alcohol-focused applications, and respond to all reports of breaches in this policy."

A representative of Twitter had a similar response: "We are trusting users to input their valid birth date, and we have no plans to cross reference this with third-party data."

A report in the Wall Street Journal is sure to embroil Facebook in yet another debate. The Journal this week reported the social network site is working on a set of policies and controls to allow children under 13 to use the site.

Presently, to set up a Facebook account a user must be at least 13 years old. However, it is widely accepted that children have learned how to circumvent the rules and have established profiles.

Twitter, meanwhile, is said to be planning to start carrying liquor advertising and plans to establish an age-verification system.

John of Brisbane, Australia, is an activist working to protect children online. He recently posted to ConsumerAffairs that he had been trying for weeks to bring the issue to Facebook's attention.

“There are underage children on Facebook, even posting their age and country,” John wrote. “I have tried to report it so it can be fixed but just get ignored.”

While some critics were quick to denounce Facebook for a ploy to add to its already huge membership roles, others suggested a set of safeguards for young users would be an improvement. According to the Journal article, the children's accounts would be connected to their parents' so that parents could exercise control over whom their kids can select as friends and what applications they can use.

Something to consider?

Technology journalist Larry Magid suggests letting children on Facebook under proper controls could make them safer than they are now. Writing on the Huffington Post, Magid said he broached the subject with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a year ago and found Zuckerberg open to the idea but mindful of the many hurdles it would entail.

Magid also noted Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler was quoted in the Journal article saying he was in favor of Facebook creating a safe space for kids, with the proper safeguards.

The current danger, of course, is that sexual predators will use Facebook to find victims if they can communicate with children unfiltered. And many of the children now illegally using the site are doing so to communicate with grandparents and other family members.

Meanwhile, activists and concerned parents like John are frustrated that there is no way to effectively alert Facebook when they see problems.  

There's growing buzz about a new smartphone even though it's not made by Apple. The Samsung Galaxy S III, which runs on Google's Android platform, can be ordered from Sprint today and AT&T and Verizon starting tomorrow, June 6. T-Mobile will also offer a version of the device.

The Galaxy S III features options for sharing and streamlining many of life's tasks. For sharing, Samsung's AllShare Play, Group Cast and Share Shot functions help users share photos with a group of friends or a presentation with co-workers. S-Beam allows easy transfer of large files from one Galaxy S III to another by touching the backs of the two devices.

SVoice features natural language recognition to allow customers to control applications and services with words instead of touch. The Galaxy S III also includes simple to use camera features like Best Shot to choose the best image from a series when taking a photo.

"The addition of the Samsung Galaxy S III to our portfolio of 4G-LTE devices gives our customers another truly cutting-edge smartphone to choose from," said Jeff Bradley, senior vice president, Devices, AT&T Mobility. "With an exclusive red color this summer and the power of the nation's largest 4G network, AT&T delivers the best wireless experience for Galaxy S III fans."

Specs

The Galaxy S III has a 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED display and runs Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. It allows users to watch a video while texting friends or surfing the Web at 4G LTE speeds with Pop Up Play. Videos can be played in a small window while customers use the rest of the display to complete other tasks such as typing emails, organizing calendars and updating their social networks.

Galaxy S III customers can share live video broadcasts using the Color app, which Verizon says is an exclusive feature.

The Galaxy S III has similar pricing on both networks. The phone will sell for $199.99 for the 16 GB model after a two-year service agreement. AT&T stores will also feature a 16 GB MicroSD card at $3  for a total of 32 GB for under $238.99.

At Verizon, the Galaxy S III will be available in 16 GB and 32 GB models for $199.99 amd $249.99 respectively with a new two-year customer agreement. Customers will also have the choice of the Galaxy S III in two colors, Marble White or Pebble Blue.Promo

Some people work on their cars and trucks themselves. Others take them to an auto service center.

When the automotive website AutoMD recently quizzed both groups, they found that do-it-yourselfers tended to save money on auto repair while those who patronized repair shops spent more than average on maintenance and repairs.

But it wasn't just a case of saving money on labor. The do-it-yourselfers tended to avoid common mistakes that run up the cost of owning and operating a vehicle. Even if you use a repair shop, avoiding these mistakes, it seems, will help you save money.

Neglecting preventative maintenance and minor repairs

Ignoring simple preventative maintenance, like changing the engine oil and filter, could damage your engine and replacing that engine could cost thousands of dollars. It can mean the difference in getting another four or five years out of your vehicle. Failing to make minor car repairs today, such as replacing a thermostat or front brake pads, could mean more expensive repairs tomorrow.

Other simple, but important, repair and maintenance tasks car owners can do on their own – or have a mechanic perform at an affordable price –include changing the transmission fluid; checking the coolant level, mixture, and condition, and checking the vehicle's tire pressure on a regular basis.

Not asking for your parts back

If a part needs to be replaced on your car, always ask for your old part back; simply ask the mechanic to place the old part in the new part's box. Unfortunately, some dishonest repair shops may charge you for work that was not done or repairs that are not necessary. Asking for your old parts back confirms that the new part was actually installed, and it keeps the mechanic from replacing a part that is still good.

Neglecting your tires

Driving on underinflated tires can shorten the life of your tires, increase tire wear and lead to significant tire damage from heat, potholes and other road hazards. If the tire fails completely, you could lose control of the vehicle. Plus, keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure can improve your gas mileage by up to 3.3 percent.

And don't be tempted to get more mileage out of your tires than they can safely give by driving on them when they are bald. Driving on bald tires can reduce vehicle traction and lead to an accident.

Ignoring dashboard warning lights

Dashboard warning lights are just that, warning lights! Pay attention to them – they could be warning you about a serious maintenance problem that could lead to expensive repairs or unsafe driving. Be sure to read your owner's manual and familiarize yourself with what the different warning lights on your car's dashboard mean – Check Engine Light, Oil Light, Temperature Light, Brake Light – and what action you should take for each.

Never ignore your Check Engine Light, thinking the car is running fine. Your MPG could be reduced by as much as 30 percent.  A blinking Check Engine light indicates a severe misfire that could damage your car's expensive catalytic converter.

Ignoring the oil and temperature lights can result in an engine replacement meaning thousands of dollars out of your pocket.

Telling your mechanic what parts to replace

Today's vehicles are extremely complex, and while it is a good idea to do your research, some vehicle symptoms can be misleading. For example, you may be convinced that your car needs new spark plugs or an engine tune-up, when you really need the MAF sensor cleaned. If you tell your mechanic to replace the spark plugs instead of asking him to diagnose the problem, he will do it and charge you for it, leaving you with the same unresolved issue.

Not doing simple repairs yourself

Rather than spending time and money at the repair shop, try doing some of the easiest repairs yourself, such as replacing wiper blades, replacing a light bulb, even replacing a fuse and an air filter. Reference your owner's manual and go online for videos and how to guides. And, these jobs just may provide a stepping stone and the courage you need to attempt even more of your own car repairs, which can lead to more savings.

Failing to properly communicate your repair issue

If you can't describe the problem effectively, your mechanic will spend more time diagnosing, meaning more labor costs, and may come to the wrong conclusion. Write down what you hear, feel, see, and smell before you arrive and keep a log of exactly when the symptoms occur and share this with your mechanic.

Also, note the location and frequency of the symptoms, and if any repairs were done on the vehicle recently -- sometimes a problem is related to the last repair.

Driving on fumes

Most cars on the road today have electric fuel pumps mounted inside the fuel tank. Back in the 70s and 80s, when cars had carburetors, you could drive until all the gas was gone, refuel, and drive again with no problem. However, most of today's vehicles have fuel-injected engines that rely on in-tank electric pumps that use gas to cool and lubricate its components.

Driving your fuel injected engine frequently on fumes could cause the pump to fail, leading to a repair costing hundreds of dollars.

Visiting the dealership for every repair/maintenance issue

Car owners can save an estimated $300+ a year on average by opting for their local independent repair shop versus the car dealership. In some cases, the dealership service center can make more sense than the local repair shop for recalls, warranty work or very complex repair issues. However, for many jobs, if you do your research and find the right independent repair shop, a repair can be done by an expert mechanic at a savings of potentially hundreds of dollars.

Accepting the first repair shop quote

When it comes to a major auto repair, get a second opinion, and even more if you aren't satisfied. Comparing shops and prices can also help you avoid being charged for unnecessary repairs. Before authorizing work, go online to research various repair shops, read reviews, get ratings, etc. and be sure to call to get several quotes over the phone.  

Large insurance companies routinely "lowball" personal injury claims to squeeze consumers and generate large profits, according to a report released  by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA).

CFA said that computerized claims’ systems used by most of the nation’s largest insurance companies can be easily adjusted to make broad-scale “lowball” claims’ payments to injured consumers that are less than what they should receive under their insurance policies. The primary author of the report is an expert on insurance claims’ practices and was a longtime insurance executive.

“This report is a wake-up call for consumers and regulators who are not aware of the many ways that computer claims’ software  can be manipulated to produce unjustifiably low injury payments to consumers and tens of millions of dollars in illegitimate ‘savings’ for insurers,” said Mark Romano, CFA’s Claims Project Director.  Romano was the “subject matter expert” on the Colossus injury claims’ evaluation system at Allstate and Encompass insurance companies for almost ten years. Colossus, which is the dominant claims’ system in the marketplace, is sold by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC).

“When CSC and its competitors talk publicly about computer-based claims’ systems, they stress that the programs allow insurers to more consistently evaluate bodily injury claims,” said Romano.  “Consistency is a legitimate goal, but these companies tell a different story behind closed doors.   Software marketing representatives acknowledge that the real reason insurance companies are willing to invest millions in these systems is that they can dial down claims’ payments to thousands of consumers at a time, regardless of whether these payouts are fair.”

Tuned for profit

The report details the history of the use of Colossus and similar software products by insurance companies.  It provides considerable information about how these programs are set up, “tuned” to reach particular claims’ payment monetary goals and adjusted over time. 

The report also identifies specific techniques that insurers can use to directly and indirectly produce “lowball” claims:

• Directly reduce payments by a predetermined amount across-the-board, without determining whether this will lead to unjustifiably low payments for individual claims.
• Selectively remove higher-cost claims from data used to determine the acceptable range of payments for particular injuries.  This has the effect of lowering payments for all claims of this type.
• Require insurance adjusters without medical training or credentials to second-guess medical professionals by altering injury determinations, thus dictating lower payments for certain injuries.
• Encourage adjusters to downplay or even ignore the likelihood that injured consumers will need future medical treatment or will be permanently impaired, thus lowering payouts.
• Encourage adjusters to determine that drivers are partly at-fault for the auto accident that injured them, even when they may not be.

“Many of the concerns about Colossus and similar programs have focused on the potential for insurers to manipulate these systems directly in order to reduce claims’ payouts,” said Romano.  “But insurers can also use many techniques to unjustifiably lower payments in a more subtle manner, by putting biased or incomplete information into the system.”

The report includes excerpts from recently released court records in a major class action lawsuit, Hensley v. Computer Sciences Corporation, that reveal disturbing information about how Colossus and similar products are marketed to and used by insurance companies.

“These documents show that most of the nation’s top insurers used the Colossus system in ways that put millions of American consumers at risk of not getting the claims payments that they paid for with their premiums,” said J. Robert Hunter, CFA’s Director of Insurance and former Federal Insurance Administrator and Texas Insurance Commissioner.  “The documents also reveal, unfortunately, that top executives at these companies violated their obligation to deliver fair claims’ payments to their own policyholders on a huge scale, in order to increase profits.”

It's pretty hard to escape the ads and commercials for Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, the Brooks Brothers wannabe that's constantly running sales and claiming that this is the very last day to get, let's say, two suits for the price of one.

A couple of New Jersey consumers don't think this is fitting and have filed a class action complaint in federal court charging that the clothing chain's merchandise is "perpetually on sale and the sale price is actually the price at which the merchandise is regularly offered."

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers said in a regulatory filing that it intends to "defend this lawsuit vigorously."

The lawsuit charges that Bank's advertising "cultivates the perception that consumers are being offered a discount from the Company's regular prices when, in fact, they are not."

The plaintiffs say they bought suits and shirts thinking they were getting a special deal only to find that the same merchandise was offered at the same price after the supposed sale had ended.

"Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased Jos. A. Bank merchandise, or would have paid significantly less for the merchandise, if Jos. A. Bank had not represented that the merchandise had a 'regular price' that was well above the 'sale' price," the suit charges. "As a result, Jos. A. Bank has handsomely profited from its misrepresentations to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class ..."

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) hearing panel has ruled that Brookstone Securities of Lakeland, FL, and the firm's Owner/CEO Antony Turbeville and one of the firm's brokers, Christopher Kline, made fraudulent sales of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) to unsophisticated, elderly and retired investors.

The panel fined Brookstone $1 million and ordered it to pay restitution of more than $1.6 million to customers, with $440,600 of that amount imposed jointly and severally with Turbeville, and the remaining $1,179,500 imposed jointly and severally with Kline. 

The panel also barred Turbeville and Kline from the securities industry, and barred Brookstone's former Chief Compliance Officer David Locy from acting in any supervisory or principal capacity, suspended him in all capacities for two years and fined him $25,000. The ruling resolves charges brought by FINRA in December 2009.

Fraudulent misrepresentations

The panel found that from July 2005 through July 2007, Turbeville and Kline intentionally made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to elderly and unsophisticated customers regarding the risks associated with investing in CMOs. All of the affected customers were retired investors looking for safer alternatives to equity investments.

According to the decision, Turbeville and Kline "preyed on their elderly customers' greatest fears," such as losing their assets to nursing homes and becoming destitute during their retirement and old age, in order to induce them to purchase unsuitable CMOs.

By 2005, interest rates were increasing, and the negative effect on CMOs was evident to Turbeville and Kline, yet they did not explain the changing conditions to their customers. Instead, they led customers to believe that the CMOs were "government-guaranteed bonds" that preserved capital and generated 10 percent to 15 percent returns.

During the two-year period, Brookstone made $492,500 in commissions on CMO bond transactions from seven customers named in the December 2009 complaint, while those same customers lost $1,620,100. 

Two of Kline's customers were elderly widows with very limited investment knowledge, who, vulnerable after their husbands' deaths, were convinced to invest their retirement savings in risky CMOs. Kline told the widows that they could not lose money in CMOs because they were government-guaranteed bonds, and Kline further increased their risk by trading on margin.

Also, the panel noted that Locy completely ignored his responsibility as chief compliance officer and "should have been a line of defense against Turbeville's and Kline's egregious conduct," but instead "he looked the other way while Turbeville and Kline traded CMO accounts that were unsuitable for their customers."