Idaho Patient Act a model for other states for protecting consumers from medical debt

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

I spent a week last month in Boise with two members of the staff of Melaleuca—a company that makes more than 400 nutritional, cleaning, personal care, and cosmetic products—making lobbying visits to the Idaho legislature. Katie Hart and Jay Cobb work for Frank Vandersloot, CEO of Melaleuca. Vandersloot is a highly successful, conservative businessman who is committed to protecting Idaho residents from abusive medical debt collection practices after discovering that one of his employees was hit with thousands of dollars in bills—including hefty lawyers’ fees and court costs—based on a $294 medical debt that she couldn’t even identify. The stark reality is that 50 percent of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical debt. He was championing a bill called the Idaho Patient Act, House Bill 515.

Many people believe federal law provides broad protections for people in debt. While the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), enforced by Federal Trade Commission, makes it illegal for debt collectors to use abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices when they collect debts, it doesn’t address how debts are calculated or curb predatory fees, penalties and court costs.

NCL has worked with Melaleuca for several years, first to fight a bill in Congress that would have essentially legalized pyramid scheme activity. Last October, I flew to Melaleuca headquarters in Idaho Falls to meet nearly half of the state’s legislators who came to town as part of their tour of businesses in Idaho. At that gathering, Vandersloot discussed his hope to pass a bill to address these predatory collection practices, aiming his fire at the practice of ginning up the cost to patients of medical debts with thousands in lawyers’ and court fees; often patients have no idea where the debt is from and debt collectors aren’t required to provide that information to them. The Idaho Patient Act addresses that issue.

Vandersloot also puts his money where his mouth is: not only did he propose a legislative remedy, he and his wife Belinda created a $1 million fund to provide legal counsel to Idahoans who have been hit with these attorney bills. Consumer advocates like NCL have been working for decades to curb the excesses of this industry. But to see  a conservative CEO take on this issue gives the effort a new push.

Sticking up for the little guy is not out of character for Vandersloot. He spoke with the same fervor when we worked together fighting a bill that would have legalized pyramid schemes. In neither case was there any financial reward coming to Melaleuca—Vandersloot took a stand on this issue because he felt it was the right thing to do. Though we may disagree on a host of other matters, on this we are aligned and that is a good thing for vulnerable consumers. Strange bedfellows are a big advantage when it comes to getting things done in the political arena.

Katie Hart has been wisely deployed to live and work in Boise while the legislature is in session and navigate this important bill through the complicated legislative process. She’s a smart and charismatic lawyer—she and Jay Cobb, an expert strategist, could teach Lobbying 101: they’ve met with the Idaho Hospital Association, Idaho doctors, insurance companies, and the Idaho trial lawyers and revised the bill to address their concerns. 

Specifically, the Idaho Patient Act proposes the following:

  1. All health care providers must submit all charges for procedures performed to an insurance carrier within 45 days.
  2. Within 60 days, the patient must receive a summary of services rendered during treatment and recovery, including the names and contact information for all entities that may be billing the patient separately, such as an individual doctor.
  3. All providers must then send a final statement with a total amount owed by the patient after insurance. The bill must correspond with the original list of services.
  4. Health care providers must wait 60 days after sending the final notice before charging a patient interest on an outstanding bill and hiring a collection agency. They must wait 90 days from the final statement before they take “extraordinary collection actions,” which means a lawsuit, or reporting a patient to a credit bureau for failure to pay.
  5. Finally, in medical debt cases that result in litigation, the legislation limits the amount attorney fees and costs that can be shifted to the patient to $350 for uncontested cases and $750 for contested cases. Currently, there is no official cap for fees that can be charged to delinquent patients by collection agencies and their representing lawyers.

In Boise, my first order of business was to register in the Idaho capitol building as a lobbyist, even though I was only going to be there for the day.  We wanted to do everything by the book! For $11 the Secretary of State’s office put me into the system and off we went.

Jay Cobb explained that Idaho is very conservative where rules or regulations are frowned upon. Of the 70 members of the Idaho House, 56 are Republican and some of those lean far right. 14 are Democrats. Of the 35 members of the Senate, only 7 are Democrat. The Governor is Republican, as is the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.

Katie and Jay have been working for months with elected officials, revising the bill without compromising its impact, and last week the measure was  reported favorably from the House Business Committee by a 15-2 vote (after a 5 hour hearing with many witnesses and terribly sad stories). Adding to the challenge of getting this bill enacted the second Vice Chair of the Republican Party in Idaho, and a member of the Idaho legislature were adamantly opposed to the legislation because as their egregious medical debt collection practices were epicenter of the problem.  Now the bill goes to the full House and over to the Senate.

While in the state house, we met with Senator Grant Burgoyne, a democrat who has provided legal representation to the collections industry. His observation? this bill would rein in “bad actors,” and the collections industry as a whole doesn’t oppose it. Senator Michelle Stennett, a democrat from Ketchum, told us about the challenges of getting what she thought were reasonable measures out of committee in Idaho because members are so loathe to pass any laws. The longest serving Democratic House member told us she believes the bill will pass, and the very smart and entertaining newly elected Boise Representative Steve Berch, who ran five times as a democrat in a red district and finally got elected, also predicts a positive outcome for this bill.  

To cap off the day, both U.S. Senators were in the State House and I had the chance to say hello to one of them, Senator James Risch (R-ID) and meet his DC staff.

The calculus changes when a conservative CEO with political clout backs a bill to offer protections to consumers who -through no fault of their own -have medical debt. Thanks to Frank Vandersloot, Katie Hart and Jay Cobb and the whole team at Melaleuca for making their case to the Idaho legislature so persuasively.

We hope this bill gets enacted in Idaho. If it does, the law will become a template for other states to put reasonable guardrails around collection of medical debt and offer some much-needed consumer protections. And maybe we can even hope that Vandersloot’s willingness to use his clout and bully pulpit to speak out on behalf of those who have no voice will be emulated by other CEOs.

Postscript

On March 9, the Idaho Senate passed the Idaho Patient Act 32-1. On March 16 Idaho Governor Brad Little signed the bill into law.

Congratulations to Frank Vandersloot, Melaleuca’s CEO, to his talented team of Katie Hart and Jay Cobb, and to all the members of the Idaho state legislature, who stood up for consumers and understood that one in seven Idahoans struggle with medical debt.

To quote the words on the Hanukkah dreidel, “A great miracle happened there.”

Imposter scams drive big increases in phishing and spoofing complaints in annual top ten scam report

/in , , , , , , , , /by

February 27, 2020

At the start of National Consumer Protection Week 2020 (March 1-7), watchdog group issues warning about most common scams plaguing Americans 

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832 

Washington, DC—Consumers on the receiving end of scary calls and emails claiming that the government is coming after them drove a big increase in phishing and spoofing complaints to the National Consumers League’s Fraud.org campaign in 2019, according to the organization’s annual Top Ten Scams report issued today. With National Consumer Protection Week 2020 kicking off this weekend and being observed next week (March 1-7), the national consumer watchdog org is cautioning consumers against imposter frauds and the other most common scams that plagued Americans in 2019. 

In 2019, consumers submitted 5,647 complaints to Fraud.org. Fifty-three percent of complaints reported a monetary loss; the median loss reported was $749. 

In 2019, the percentage of complaints Fraud.org received about scams involving phishing or spoofing nearly tripled versus the previous year. NCL attributes the increase to the high number of imposter scam calls that consumers reported receiving. Scammers reportedly impersonated government agencies such as the IRS, FBI, and USCIS, and some of these criminals even claimed to be representatives of the National Consumers League.  

“Scammers know all too well that impersonating a government agency and threatening consumers is one of the best ways to get victims to pay up, and they depend on authentic-looking emails or spoofing Caller ID to get victims to pay attention to their threats,” said John Breyault, NCL Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud and the new report’s author. “The best advice for consumers is to remember that a government agency will never reach out to you via email or telephone to demand money, so hang up or delete. If you’re worried about back-taxes, your immigration status, or a debt you may owe, look up the phone number for the bank or government agency yourself and call to check. Don’t take the word of someone on the phone making threats.” 

Top Ten Scams of 2019

  1. Internet: Gen Merchandise
  2. Fake Check Scams
  3. Advance Fee Loans, Credit Arrangers
  4. Phishing/Spoofing
  5. Friendship & Sweetheart Swindles
  6. Prizes/Sweepstakes/Free Gifts
  7. Investment Related
  8. Computers: Equipment/Software
  9. Employ Agency/Job Counsel/Overseas Work
  10. Internet: Info/Adult Services

Other topline findings from the report include: 

Romance scams and friendship swindles on the rise in 2019. 

The percentage of complaints involving romance scams increased by nearly 50 percent versus 2018. This is especially worrisome considering that romance scams tend to be among the most expensive type of fraud for victims. 

Web remains most common place scammers are finding victims. 

While the telephone was the method of first contact used by scammers in nearly a third of complaints to Fraud.org in 2019, the Internet remains the most likely place for complainants to have encountered a scammer. Almost 45 percent of complaints to Fraud.org in 2019 said that they first encountered a scammer on the Web. 

Wire transfer no longer scammers’ top choice of payment method. 

After many years of wire transfer being the payment method of choice by scammers, credit cards bumped wire transfers as the most frequently-reported method of payment in 2019. More than 44 percent of complainants to Fraud.org reported that their loss occurred because a scammer charged their credit card. 

Read the full 2019 Top Scams report from NCL.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneering consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

 

Enough is enough! It’s time for the FTC to protect consumers from deceptive automatic renewal clauses

/in , , , , /by

Brian Young

If you’re like most Americans ,you have probably had a bad experience with an automatic renewal or—as they are sometimes referred to—a negative option clause. Regardless of the name they go by, these clauses cause contracts and subscriptions (ranging from equipment leases to gym memberships) to renew if a consumer fails to cancel the contract. Unfortunately for consumers, these clauses are increasingly being slipped into the fine print of contracts or misleadingly disclosed to customers during the checkout process.  

Some companies take this practice a step further by offering a free or low-fee trials to a customer only to later lock them into an expensive and lengthy contract without obtaining their informed consent. One survey found that this has happened to 59 percent of consumers, and that number appears to be growing. A Better Business Bureau study of FTC complaint data found that complaints about free trials doubled between 2015 and 2017. With the average loss rates for deceptive free trials reaching $186 per incident, it is clear that action is sorely needed.

While states like California and the District of Columbia have taken steps to protect their residents from these disreputable “gotcha” clauses, a majority of Americans still lack adequate protections. Some businesses will not only utilize deceptive negative option clauses, but also place unnecessary barriers in the cancelation process to prevent consumers from managing or canceling their subscriptions and contracts. Indeed, nearly 42 percent of Americans have complained about the difficulty companies have created  in the cancellation process.

Thankfully, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is finally considering improving consumer protections in this space. While the FTC already offers a few modest protections through laws and regulations like the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), a series of loopholes exist, allowing companies to mask rate hikes, roll consumers into lengthy trials without their informed consent, and hide these clauses in the fine print.

To help encourage the FTC to require meaningful protections, NCL recently filed a comment letter urging the Commission to:

  • Require clear and conspicuous disclosure of any automatic renewal clause, regardless of where or how the consumer enters into it;
  • Require companies to provide meaningful notifications prior to any contract or subscription renewal;
  • Ensure that businesses receive a consumer’s consent for their free or low-fee trial to be rolled over into a contract; and
  • End the practice of businesses making it difficult for consumers to amend, manage, or cancel their subscription.

NCL believes that the FTC has a real opportunity to extend long overdue automatic renewal protections to all Americans. As more companies incorporate the use of negative option clauses in their contracts, consumers need meaningful notifications and protections that ensure that they remain in control of their financial decisions. A strong FTC negative option rule will ensure that businesses compete over quality and price, not over who can create the most painful cancellation procedures or earn the most revenue by slamming consumers with unexpected and costly contracts. The time is now for the FTC to act.

Read NCL’s full comment filing here (PDF).

NCL calls upon state legislators to protect their residents from dishonest automatically renewing contracts

/in , , , , , , , /by

August 12, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL), the nation’s pioneering consumers and worker advocacy organization, calls upon state legislatures across the country to take action to protect consumers from deceptive automatic renewal clauses.

While automatic renewal provisions in consumer contracts, also known as negative option clauses, are billed as helping consumers avoid service disruptions, they can result in financial hardship for consumers. Dishonest companies continue to place these clauses into the fine print of contracts to mask rate hikes, renew gym memberships, generate recurring deliveries, or cause other services to renew without a consumers’ knowledge or consent.

The following statement is attributable to Brian Young, NCL’s public policy manager:

At least 22 states have some protections from automatically renewing contracts; however media reports have shown that companies are now using the guise of a ‘free trial’ to secretly roll consumers into binding contracts, sometimes after as little as a few days. Such clauses can trap consumers in expensive and unwanted contract renewals.

NCL is calling upon each state legislature to review their laws and enact comprehensive legislation. Recently enacted legislation in the District of Columbia is a model bill which requires:

  • clear disclosure of all automatic renewal clauses;
  • a consumer’s affirmative consent for free trials to be rolled over into a contract at the end of a free trial period; and
  • notification by mail, email, or another method of the consumer’s choosing, to be sent to consumers if their long-term contract is set to renew to a “month to month” or longer subscription.

Thirty-five percent of consumers have complained that they have signed up for an automatically renewing contract without realizing it. Likewise, 48 percent of consumers have had a free trial roll over into a contract without their knowledge. The time is long overdue for state legislators to step in and take action to ensure consumers are not tricked into costly and deceptive business practices.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

No more surprises: Congress and patients alike sick of surprise billing

/in , , , , , , /by

headshot of NCL Health Policy intern Alexa

By NCL Health Policy intern Alexa Beeson

This July, the House Energy and Commerce’s Health Subcommittee passed the No Surprises Act (H.R. 3630) to protect patients from surprise billing. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee also passed its companion to address surprise billing, the Lower Health Care Costs Act (S.1895). These bills were being considered after a press conference at which President Trump called for reform in surprise billing.

Stakeholder witnesses at the House hearing this June on H.R. 3630 included patient, provider, and insurance payer groups. Reimbursement models were discussed at length, but the unifying theme was that patients should be held harmless in surprise billing situations.

Surprise billing happens mostly in a small subsect of out-of-network providers; the patient has no idea about who’s in or out of network. Some professionals are out-of-network technicians subcontracted by an in-network facility, such as a last-minute anesthesiologist switch for a surgery, or any other non-disclosed provider. To get reimbursed for their services, providers send a bill to the patient for whatever wasn’t covered by the insurance company.

Surprise billing also occurred among patients who should receive reduced prices for care. Johns Hopkins Hospital filed suit on more than 2,400 patients in the last decade, collecting the equivalent of 0.03 percent of its operating revenue. Some of these patients were never told about their right to charity care, and many who qualify never received a discounted rate. These bill collections are inconsequential for Johns Hopkins but could bankrupt a patient.

Legislation to address balance or surprise bills will protect patients, ensuring they will only have to pay in-network rates for out-of-network emergency care. This will help patients avoid bills that can set them back, sometimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although surprise bills only come from a small portion of providers, 1 in 7 insured adults will receive a surprise medical bill from an in-network hospital. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 70 percent of such patients were not aware that the provider was out-of-network when they received the care.

Panelist Sonji Wilkes, a patient advocate, presented testimony about her struggle with a surprise bill sent after the birth of her son, who was diagnosed with hemophilia. That child was treated by a charitable out-of-network hematologist who did not charge them for her services. However, the NICU that observed the boy was subcontracted to a third-party provider. This meant that the NICU was out-of-network. The Wilkes were sent a $50,000 bill by the hospital that still haunts them 15 years later.

Thomas Nickels, the executive vice president of the American Hospitals Association, claimed that fixed reimbursement rates, such as a median benchmark or percentage of the Medicaid reimbursement value, would disincentivize insurers from maintaining adequate provider networks. Nickels supported the Alternative Dispute Resolutions method, which involves baseball-style arbitration where providers and payers settle on reimbursement value on a case-by-case basis.

Jeanette Thornton, a senior vice president at America’s Health Insurance Plans, argued that the New York model of baseball-style arbitration would create immense clerical burden, resulting in lost time and greater administrative costs. She argued the arbitration reimbursement model would raise costs for patients in the end. Instead, she advocated for the government-dictated fixed reimbursement rates.

Both versions of the bill call for a benchmark to resolve payments between insurance plans and out-of-network providers. This benchmark says health plans would reimburse providers with the median in-network rate already contracted within specific geographic areas. The House bill contains binding arbitration as a fallback in case either the provider or payer decide the payment was an unfair price.

The National Consumers League supports Congress’ tackling of this issue of surprise or balance billing. NCL has taken no position on how these bills are settled between the payer and provider, as long as patients are protected from outrageously expensive bills they can never hope to pay and were never anticipating. In addition, medical debt is the greatest contributor to consumers declaring bankruptcy, and balance billing is a contributor to that troubling consumer issue. The bottom line is that a bill for medical services should never cause bankruptcy, and a patient should never have to choose between medical treatment and food or housing. We are hopeful this issue will be resolved during this Congressional session.

Alexa is a student at Washington University in St. Louis where she studies Classics and Anthropology and concentrates in global health and the environment. She expects to graduate in May of 2020

The ‘tampon tax’: an unconstitutional loss to American consumers

/in , , , , /by

headshot of NCL LifeSmarts intern Alexa

By NCL LifeSmarts intern Elaina Pevide

Bingo supplies in Missouri, tattoos in Georgia, cotton candy in Iowa, gun club membership in Wisconsin; what do these products and services have in common? They are all treated as tax-exempt by states that still put a tax on tampons.

Sales taxes on menstrual products, often referred to as “tampon taxes”, are still present in 35 states. Tampon taxes are cited as a major contributor to the “pink tax”, the heightened cost of products and services marketed toward women. For example, a purple can of sweet-smelling shaving cream for women will almost always cost more than its male counterpart across the aisle. This trend translates across industries. A 2015 study from the Joint Economic Committee found that women pay more 42 percent of the time for products from pink pens to dry cleaning. These pricier goods and services serve no benefit to the consumer and have no apparent improvement in function or quality. The pink tax cuts into women’s spending power and takes advantage of consumers simply on the basis of gender.

Tampon taxes and the pink tax have both been making waves recently as pressing feminist issues. While markups on products for women are unjust, activists are targeting the tampon tax as priority number one. Menstrual products, they argue, are necessities and states have the power to cut sales taxes on them by labeling them as such. States give tax exemptions to other items– like bingo supplies, tattoos, and cotton candy–that are far less vital to the health and success of consumers. Today, five states do not have sales taxes on any products, five states have always given hygiene products tax-exemption status, and five states have successfully fought to eliminate the tampon tax. Currently, 35 states remain with 32 having tried–and failed–to pass legislation on the matter.

States resistance to eliminate the tampon tax, typically for fiscal reasons, is at odds with the interests and demands of consumers. A survey of 2,000 women, conducted on behalf of menstrual cup company Intimina, found that three out of four women believe the tampon tax should be eradicated. Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed interpreted taxes on feminine products as a form of sexism.

Countless advocacy organizations have been established out of the need to provide consumers with affordable menstrual products and eliminate the tampon tax. One such group, Period Equity, recently launched a campaign with reproductive care company LOLA called “Tax Free. Period.”. Their campaign calls for the remaining 35 states with a tampon tax to eliminate it by Tax Day 2020. In the meantime, they’re gearing up for a legal battle to challenge the states that refuse to comply. Their argument? Taxes on a product that affect only women and other individuals who menstruate is a form of discrimination and thereby unconstitutional.

As reproductive rights groups await the response of state legislatures and federal courts on this issue, the half of Americans that use menstrual products in their lifetime are suffering. Women make less in wages than men but are forced to spend more. The tampon taxes expound gender inequality and costs American consumers millions of dollars each year–dollars that could benefit their families and stimulate the economy elsewhere. Period Equity’s tagline says it best: “Periods are not luxuries. Period.” It’s about time for American tax policy to reflect that reality.

Elaina Pevide is a student at Brandeis University where she majors in Public Policy and Psychology with a minor in Economics. She expects to graduate in May of 2020.

Coalition of consumer advocacy groups send letter DC Council regarding auto-renewal – National Consumers League

/in , , , , , /by

July 19, 2018

The Honorable Charles Allen
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20004

Dear Councilmember Charles Allen,

The undersigned 9 consumer and community advocacy groups urge your immediate action and support for Title II of the Consumer Disclosure Act of 2017 (B22-0020). The bill, which has been pending before the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee since January 2017, will prevent District residents from unknowingly becoming trapped in a complex web of hidden automatic renewal contract clauses they did not knowingly consent to.

In order to participate in commerce, consumers must sign lengthy fine print contracts. These contracts often contain automatic renewal clauses which will cause the contract or membership to renew automatically if the consumer fails to notify a merchant of their desire to cancel prior to a date of the merchant’s choosing. When these clauses are clearly disclosed, they can help consumers avoid service interruptions. However, unscrupulous merchants slip automatic renewal contract clauses into the fine print of contracts without properly disclosing their presence in order to trap consumers into lengthy contracts. The proliferation of these hidden automatically renewing contract clauses has caused one in three Americans to be tricked into agreeing to an automatically renewing contract.[i]

In the coming years, the trend of unscrupulous businesses hiding automatic renewal clauses in the fine print of contracts is unlikely to change. Deloitte predicts that online media subscriptions, subscriptions, which almost always contain these clauses, will grow by at least 20% in 2018.[ii] Fortunately, the Consumer Disclosure Act of 2017 would prevent these unwelcome financial surprises by:

  • Requiring clear disclosure of any automatic renewal clause; and
  • Requiring that a notification be sent to enrollees 30-60 days prior to the deadline for canceling a multi-month automatically renewing a contract

The unplanned expense that these clauses inflict on their victims is of particular concern for the socio-economically disadvantaged members of our community who are less able to weather surprise bills. Action on this issue is long overdue. In the absence of legislative action, District residents will continue to receive surprise bills for products or services they no longer need or desire.

Through Title II of the Consumer Disclosure Act, the D.C. Council has a real opportunity to improve the lives of Washingtonians by granting District residents the tools they need to avoid becoming ensnared by unwanted automatically renewing contracts. We urge you to quickly take action and to provide District residents with this long overdue protection which is already enjoyed in several states across the country.

Sincerely,

Allied Progress
American Family Voices
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of California
DC Fiscal Policy Institute
National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders
National Consumers League
Tzedek DC
Workplace Fairness

Cc: Members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety

——————————-

[i] Porche, Bradley. “Poll: Recurring charges are easy to start, hard to get out of,” Creditcards.com. August 21, 2017. Online: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/autopay-poll.php

[ii] Deloitte. “Technology, Media and Telecommunications Predictions,” Pg. 41. 2017. Online: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/gx-tmt-predictions-press-release.html

Being Financially Fragile in America – National Consumers League

/in , , , , /by

By NCL Public Policy intern Melissa Cuddington

Nearly 36 percent of working Americans could not cover an unexpected $2,000 expense within 30 days. According to a survey done by the 2015 National Financial Capability Study (NFCS), working adults (ages 25 – 60) who answered “probably not” or “certainly could not” to the question of whether they could come up with $2,000 in 30 days. Such consumers are considered “financially fragile.”

The 2015 Survey for Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) also revealed that 41 percent of respondents are considered financially fragile when faced with an emergency expense of $400. 41 percent said they would have to charge this unexpected expense to a credit card or use money from a savings account.

These statistics are not surprising considering that during the recession of 2008, nearly 50 percent of working adults were considered financially fragile.

Who is financially fragile?

  • Women (42 percent) are significantly more likely to be economically stressed than men (29 percent)
  • Financial fragility decreases steadily with increasing income, thus, paying workers more decreases their precarious finances
  • Financial fragility is about equally distributed across age groups, although fragility is slightly higher among 40- to 49-year-olds

According to a NEFE Digest article, a number of factors can cause financial fragility. A lack of assets include things such as low borrowing capacity on credit cards, inadequate health insurance, renting a house instead of owning and lack of access to traditional bank accounts. The second is debt, including medical, education and credit card debt. Some of these issues can be addressed with improved financial literacy.

The NCL is especially interested financial fragility in the U.S. for reasons that sync up perfectly with our mission: protecting workers and paying them a fair wage and ensuring consumer protections from predatory practices like payday loans and bank fees and excessively high interest on student or auto loans. We also agree with NEFE Digest that financial literacy reduces financial risk because consumers make better, more informed decisions when they have more knowledge and information. NEFE Digest notes that better financial literacy lowers one’s likelihood of being financially fragile–regardless of age or income.

Financially literate consumers bolster the overall health of the economy. This is why programs such as NCL’s LifeSmarts program, which educates youth the environment, health and safety, personal finance, technology and their rights as consumers, are so important. Financial literacy education should start young and continue throughout adulthood. Doing so reduces the risk to all consumers that they will become financially fragile.

BlackRock: Promoting shareholder activism – National Consumers League

/in , , , , , /by

By NCL Public Policy intern Melissa Cuddington

Many consumers think of money management companies, such as BlackRock Inc., Vanguard Group, and State Street Corp., to be solely interested in the finance market and ways to strengthen their investment portfolios. Turns out this isn’t entirely the case. 

The recent action of Laurence Fink, CEO of BlackRock Inc., calling on shareholders to better articulate long-term plans and spell out how their organizations can contribute to society in a positive manner, is a stellar example of a company promoting shareholder activism.

According to a Wall Street Journal article from earlier this year, Fink stated that BlackRock Inc. plans to—over the next three years—double the size of the team that engages with other companies regarding their societal impact. Fink also states that this team will be investigating corporate strategies that can be used when collaborating with investors and shareholders.

Fink states in his annual letter that investors must “understand the societal impact of your business, as well as the ways that broad structural trends—from slow wage growth to rising automation to climate change—affect your potential for growth.”

This statement by Fink caught NCL’s eye as a positive and productive move on the part of the finance industry. It is crucial that money management companies understand their societal impact and ways in which their investments affect structural trends—such as climate change and unemployment. We hope to see other money management companies follow suit.

Leading consumer organizations decry ‘mutual fund industry giveaway’ by SEC – National Consumers League

/in , , , , /by

June 6, 2018

Contact: Consumer Action’s Linda Sherry (202) 544-3088, NCL’s Sally Greenberg (202) 207-2830

Washington, DC–Despite overwhelming opposition to abandoning the default paper format delivery method for mutual fund disclosures, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) yesterday voted behind closed doors to ignore investor sentiment and allow funds, as of Jan. 1, 2021, to deliver shareholder reports online, with a paper notice of online availability sent by mail. The adoption of Rule 30e3 flips the current process on its head—investors who already have chosen to receive paper mutual fund reports will now have to take the trouble to reach out to funds to request that paper versions (continue to) be mailed to them.

The National Consumers League (NCL) and Consumer Action have worked for more than two years to ensure that the delivery of paper fund disclosures wasn’t flipped. The organizations have filed comments opposing Rule 30e3, spoken at SEC Investment Advisory Committee meetings, and urged investors to press for the paper default. They were expecting to hear a public discussion of the rule at the SEC’s public meeting on June 5, before it was pulled from the agenda the evening before and circulated for written consent from the commissioners in lieu of a meeting.

Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, said: “We are very disappointed in the 4-1 vote—taken behind closed doors—from the SEC to make it more difficult for mutual fund investors who want paper documents to get fund disclosures delivered in paper; an SEC survey in 2011 found that one-third of consumers say they prefer paper copies of their mutual fund reports. The mutual fund industry trade association estimated in 2016 that this will save investors $2 billion in printing and mail costs over 10 years. The winners are clearly the companies, the losers are those consumers who need or want access to paper versions of fund disclosures and will have to know to sign up for paper delivery. We are disappointed the SEC didn’t take into account the extensive evidence that the change is likely to reduce investor readership of key disclosures.”

Linda Sherry, director of Consumer Action’s DC office, said: “More than 90 percent of the comments submitted to the SEC in 2016 opposed the idea to make electronic delivery the default delivery method for shareholder reports. Despite the concerns raised, which included lack of access to the internet by vulnerable populations, exposure to online fraud and difficulty of reading reports on mobile devices, the SEC chose to vote on its proposal before the public was able to read it.”

Currently (and for close to 20 years) investors have the option of requesting e-delivery. Some estimates say as many as half of all mutual fund investors have chosen e-delivery already. Those who have chosen to keep paper delivery will, under the new rule, be bothered to act to ensure paper reports keep coming. The new measure is an example of “negative consent—or “passive consent”—which means failure to take action is interpreted as agreement. This method of notification is know to decrease consumer participation and likely will reduce investor readership of important disclosures about fund performance, costs and makeup.

While the rule offers the switch to e-delivery as an “optional” method for delivering shareholder reports, it is highly unlikely that the mutual fund industry will choose to leave the status quo of paper statement delivery.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

About Consumer Action

Consumer Action has been a champion of underrepresented consumers nationwide since 1971. A non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, Consumer Action focuses on consumer education that empowers low- and moderate-income and limited-English-speaking consumers to financially prosper. It also advocates for consumers in the media and before lawmakers to advance consumer rights and promote industry-wide change.