Group items tagged

Firms that are paid tens of millions of dollars to root out Medicare fraud are bidding on contracts to investigate companies they are doing business with _ sometimes their own parent companies, according to a government report released Tuesday. Two-thirds of the companies that bid on contracts during a nearly year-and-a-half time period beginning in October of 2010 had financial ties to claims processors _ and in some cases also processed Medicare claims themselves, according to the study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' inspector-general. The report blames what it calls a flawed bidding system and an inadequate conflict-of-interest policy. The study looked into bids from about 100 potential contractors and subcontractors and found nearly 2,000 relationships that posed potential conflicts. For example, one company submitted a bid to investigate Medicare fraud even though its parent company provided two types of Medicare coverage in all 50 states. Medicare fraud contractors are often tied to a large number of providers, but the report doesn't break the numbers down by each contractor. The federal government requires Medicare fraud contractors to identify their potential conflicts and their financial interests in other companies when submitting bids, but the report found they often failed to provide all the information. Even when they did, it was sometimes inconsistent or unclear, according to the study, which urged federal health officials to adopt formal, clear guidelines for companies to follow when submitting bids. Tuesday's report examined only companies bidding on springhill group Medicare-fraud contracts, not those with existing contracts. But a 2011 congressional survey of companies providing Medicare reimbursements revealed that some had financial relationships with the contractors investigating them. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing Medicare, said in a statement that it

Firms that are paid tens of millions of dollars to root out Medicare fraud are bidding on contracts to investigate companies they are doing business with _ sometimes their own parent companies, according to a government report released Tuesday. Two-thirds of the companies that bid on contracts during a nearly year-and-a-half time period beginning in October of 2010 had financial ties to claims processors _ and in some cases also processed Medicare claims themselves, according to the study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' inspector-general. The report blames what it calls a flawed bidding system and an inadequate conflict-of-interest policy. The study looked into bids from about 100 potential contractors and subcontractors and found nearly 2,000 relationships that posed potential conflicts. For example, one company submitted a bid to investigate Medicare fraud even though its parent company provided two types of Medicare coverage in all 50 states. Medicare fraud contractors are often tied to a large number of providers, but the report doesn't break the numbers down by each contractor. The federal government requires Medicare fraud contractors to identify their potential conflicts and their financial interests in other companies when submitting bids, but the report found they often failed to provide all the information. Even when they did, it was sometimes inconsistent or unclear, according to the study, which urged federal health officials to adopt formal, clear guidelines for companies to follow when submitting bids. Tuesday's report examined only companies bidding on springhill group Medicare-fraud contracts, not those with existing contracts. But a 2011 congressional survey of companies providing Medicare reimbursements revealed that some had financial relationships with the contractors investigating them. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing Medicare, said in a statement that it

Firms that are paid tens of millions of dollars to root out Medicare fraud are bidding on contracts to investigate companies they are doing business with _ sometimes their own parent companies, according to a government report released Tuesday. Two-thirds of the companies that bid on contracts during a nearly year-and-a-half time period beginning in October of 2010 had financial ties to claims processors _ and in some cases also processed Medicare claims themselves, according to the study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' inspector-general. The report blames what it calls a flawed bidding system and an inadequate conflict-of-interest policy. The study looked into bids from about 100 potential contractors and subcontractors and found nearly 2,000 relationships that posed potential conflicts. For example, one company submitted a bid to investigate Medicare fraud even though its parent company provided two types of Medicare coverage in all 50 states. Medicare fraud contractors are often tied to a large number of providers, but the report doesn't break the numbers down by each contractor. The federal government requires Medicare fraud contractors to identify their potential conflicts and their financial interests in other companies when submitting bids, but the report found they often failed to provide all the information. Even when they did, it was sometimes inconsistent or unclear, according to the study, which urged federal health officials to adopt formal, clear guidelines for companies to follow when submitting bids. Tuesday's report examined only companies bidding on springhill groupMedicare-fraud contracts, not those with existing contracts. But a 2011 congressional survey of companies providing Medicare reimbursements revealed that some had financial relationships with the contractors investigating them. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing Medicare, said in a statement that it has a robust

To help protect yourself and Medicare from fraud and identity theft you should report it. Whenever you get a payment notice from Medicare review it for errors. The notice shows what Medicare was billed for, what Medicare paid, and what (if anything) you owe. Make sure Medicare was not billed for health care services, medical supplies, or equipment you did not get. Before you contact your health care provider, Medicare, or the Inspector General's hotline, carefully review the facts, and have the following ready: * The provider's name and any identifying number you may have. * The service or item information you are questioning. * The date the service or item was supposedly given or delivered. * The payment amount approved and paid by Medicare. * The date on your Medicare Summary Notice. * Your name and Medicare number (as listed on your Medicare card). * The reason you think Medicare should not have paid. * Any other information you have showing why Medicare should not have paid. http://springhillmedgroup.com/

LOS ANGELES, Iowa - The fearsome guns of the USS Iowa protected FDR from torpedo attacks and helped destroy the Japanese military in World War II. They shelled North Korea in the 1950s and patrolled the Central American coast during the Cold War. On Saturday, with the grand opening of the country's newest battleship museum in the Los Angeles community of San Pedro, the artillery that struck so much fear in America's enemies got a new role: photo op. More than 3,000 people walked up the Iowa's gangplank on its inaugural day and nearly every one seemed to want a photo with its 16-inch guns. "I want them to be part of history," said retired Marine Brian Tisdale of his two children, whom he captured posing at the gun barrels. Whether a snapshot on the Iowa deck will become as mandatory to a southern California vacation as a picture in front of the Hollywood sign remains to be seen. Officials said they were pleased with the museum's first day, especially given the breakneck pace of the project. The opening came just a month after the Iowa, one of the largest battleships ever, arrived in Los Angeles' harbor and just 10 months after the Navy selected San Pedro as the site of the museum. "It's unheard of. It usually takes about three years," said battleship enthusiast Robert Kent, who led the campaign to bring the Iowa to L.A. and now serves as director of the non-profit that runs the museum, Pacific Battleship Center. Built in 1940, the Iowa was an important part of the Navy fleet for five decades. It ferried President Franklin Roosevelt to Casablanca during World War II and later fought in the Pacific, sailing victoriously into Tokyo Harbor. The Iowa served in the Korean conflict and plied the Persian Gulf in the 1980s. Only about 15 percent of the ship is open to the public so far. Visitors are funneled down a single route that passes through a wardroom where officers ate and relaxed, around the vessel's upper decks and through the captain

LOS ANGELES, Iowa - The fearsome guns of the USS Iowa protected FDR from torpedo attacks and helped destroy the Japanese military in World War II. They shelled North Korea in the 1950s and patrolled the Central American coast during the Cold War. On Saturday, with the grand opening of the country's newest battleship museum in the Los Angeles community of San Pedro, the artillery that struck so much fear in America's enemies got a new role: photo op. More than 3,000 people walked up the Iowa's gangplank on its inaugural day and nearly every one seemed to want a photo with its 16-inch guns. "I want them to be part of history," said retired Marine Brian Tisdale of his two children, whom he captured posing at the gun barrels. Whether a snapshot on the Iowa deck will become as mandatory to a southern California vacation as a picture in front of the Hollywood sign remains to be seen. Officials said they were pleased with the museum's first day, especially given the breakneck pace of the project. The opening came just a month after the Iowa, one of the largest battleships ever, arrived in Los Angeles' harbor and just 10 months after the Navy selected San Pedro as the site of the museum. "It's unheard of. It usually takes about three years," said battleship enthusiast Robert Kent, who led the campaign to bring the Iowa to L.A. and now serves as director of the non-profit that runs the museum, Pacific Battleship Center. Built in 1940, the Iowa was an important part of the Navy fleet for five decades. It ferried President Franklin Roosevelt to Casablanca during World War II and later fought in the Pacific, sailing victoriously into Tokyo Harbor. The Iowa served in the Korean conflict and plied the Persian Gulf in the 1980s. Only about 15 percent of the ship is open to the public so far. Visitors are funneled down a single route that passes through a wardroom where officers ate and relaxed, around the vessel's upper decks and through the captain

This piece originally appeared at TomDispatch. It's a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians-and possibly in the long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences. The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program. Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today. Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law. Based on the latest U.S. intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has affirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist

This piece originally appeared atTomDispatch. It's a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians-and possibly in the long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences. The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program. Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today. Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law. Based on the latest U.S. intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hasaffirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist t

This piece originally appeared at TomDispatch. It's a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians-and possibly in the long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences. The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program. Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today. Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law. Based on the latest U.S. intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has affirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist

By Juan Cole, TomDispatch This piece originally appeared atTomDispatch. It's a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians-and possibly in the long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences. The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program. Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today. Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law. Based on the latest U.S. intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hasaffirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and

Stock fraud takes advantage of the trust a consumer places in a broker or brokerage firm. Stock fraud occurs when a broker manipulates customers into trading stocks without regard for the customer's interests. Stock fraud can be orchestrated at the company level, or can be committed by a single employee; stock fraud can also range in size financially from multi-million dollar deals to penny stocks, but stock fraud consistently involves intentional disregard for the financial situation of customers and obsession with personal gain. An attorney experienced in defending the rights of stock fraud victims and recovering funds stolen from them may be able to help guide you through your legal rights and advise you on the most appropriate course of legal action. The Following Activities are Considered Stock Fraud When Done Intentionally: Giving biased investment advice Giving unfounded advice Offering separate clients contradicting advice Advising clients to continue an imprudent risk Advising out of a conflict of interest Protecting Yourself Against Stock Investment Fraud There are many ways in which you can protect yourself from fraud before it occurs. One way is to make sure you are closely monitoring transactions and commissions in your account. Another way to help safeguard your account is to keep it from becoming too concentrated in any one stock position. As a general rule, no one stock position should represent more than 2% of your total portfolio. You don't want another Enron on your hands! Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (partial) Federal securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is defined as "(1) material misstatements or omissions, (2) indicating an intent to deceive or defraud, (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security." Brown v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. , 991 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1993). An unsuitability claim is a subset of 10(b) securities fraud with the following elements to be proved: "(1) that the sec