June 23, 2009 8:24AM
By Elizabeth MacDonald
The Obama administration is now attempting the biggest overhaul of healthcare since Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
But the health care reform debate is riddled with misleading myths taken as fact, myths that are torquing the debate beyond recognition, from the U.S.’s supposedly poor infant mortality rates, who really gets medical care, the level of uninsureds, who really pays for insurance, who actually can afford insurance and wait times for surgeries.
Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage.
But fixing the health system should be based on the facts, not on a statistical faith-based initiative mounted to ram through reform, where the data is either more nuanced on closer look or the statements made are simply not true.
Worth keeping in mind, as the U.S. is already on track to compile total 10-year deficits that would surpass the annual GDP of Great Britain, Russia and Germany for one year-combined, and as the government is getting increasingly entangled in key industries, with higher taxes coming on incomes, on capital and on energy.
Meanwhile, the deficit spending figures do not include Medicare and Social Security costs, reforms which are so far on the backburner, they are off the stove. The following includes research from Fox News analyst James Farrell.
Myth: “The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.”
Talk about stretching a point until it snaps. This ranking is based on data mining.
The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.
Other statistical quirks push the U.S. unjustifiably higher in this ranking compared to other countries.
The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, (according to the CDC), behind most other developed nations.
The U.S. is supposedly worse than Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary. And the U.S. is supposedly on a par with Slovakia and Poland. CNN, the New York Times, numerous outlets across the country report the U.S. as abysmal in terms of infant mortality, without delving into what is behind this ranking.
The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group, routinely flunks the U.S. health system using the infant mortality rate.
“Infant mortality and our comparison with the rest of the world continue to be an embarrassment to the United States,” Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization, has said.
Start with the definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country’s infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.
WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don’t and so don’t count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.
The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).
And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don’t report.
And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.
In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.
Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway’s underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Moreover, the ranking doesn’t take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.
Likewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.’s 300 mn-plus citizens.
Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.
And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.
Again, the U.S. counts all of these infants as births. Moreover, we’re not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.
Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, cautions against using comparisons country-by-country.
“Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not),” the OECD says.
“In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births.” (Note: Emphasis EMac’s).
The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks’ gestation and 7 days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino.
Myth: “About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance.”
There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.
Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.
About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.
A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.
Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.
And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.
Myth: “The uninsured can’t afford to buy coverage.”
Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year, says Sally Pipes, author of the book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide, a book that attempts to dig behind the numbers. According to author Pipes, 38% of the U.S. uninsured population earns more than $50,000 per year.
That means 38% of the uninsured likely make enough to afford health insurance, but for undetermined reasons choose not to buy it.
Myth: “Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don’t have access to health benefits through an employer.”
Not so fast–the data is more nuanced and revealing upon closer look.
According to the CBO, about half of the uninsured in 2009 fall into one of the following three categories. Some people will be in more than one of those categories at the same time:
*Nearly one out of three, 30%, will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer.
*Nearly one out of five, 18%, will be eligible for, but not enrolled in Medicaid; and
*More than one out of seven, 17%, will have family income above 300% of the poverty level (about $65,000 for a family of four);
What is potentially the real number for the poor uninsured? According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.
[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]
Myth: “The estimated 45 mn people without health insurance lacked health insurance for every day of the year.”
The CBO’s 45 mn estimate reflects individuals “without health insurance at any given time during 2009.”
But that does not mean that all 45 mn people spend every day of 2009 without insurance. It is a point estimate - on any particular day, there will be 45 mn individuals without health insurance.
[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]
Myth: “Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.”
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.
“Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’ insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,” the CBO says. “Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.”
[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]
Myth: “The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs.”
Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.
And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is “unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates,” the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is “likely to be relatively small.”
[source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]
Myth: “Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.”
Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.
In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.
Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%).
[Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20International%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Performance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final%20pdf.pdf]
Myth: “Insurers cover less today than they did in the past.”
No they’re covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers’ personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006.
[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]
[
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Why the Credit Bureaus Can't Get It Right
SmartMoney Magazine by Anne Kadet
A mistake on your credit report can cost you literally thousands of dollars, especially in this economy. So what can you expect from a big credit bureau if you ask them to investigate and correct the error? The answer, for many consumers: About 50 cents worth of effort, conducted by offshore workers at third-party firms. That’s just one of the findings from SmartMoney’s investigation into why credit-report errors continue to pop up so frequently—and why consumers often have so much trouble getting them fixed.To follow what one consumer advocate calls an “electronic hot potato,” SmartMoney pieced together a depiction of the dispute process through information from trial depositions, internal company memos and the bureaus’ own employee manuals—much of which the bureaus and their trade group subsequently confirmed. The process may be efficient, but it remains a mystery to most consumers, and a source of bitterness for some.
The Wrong Kind of Thrills
For Brandon and Amanda Mendelson, it had all the elements of a paperback thriller: the innocent newlyweds, the mysterious account held by an obscure bank in Boca Raton, the faceless corporation controlling everything behind the scenes. But when the Mendelsons discovered the strange overdue loan mistakenly listed on Amanda’s credit report, they weren’t exactly thrilled. The Glens Falls, N.Y., couple had never done business with that bank, and the error spoiled Amanda’s credit history. Making matters worse, their call to a national credit bureau yielded nothing more than a form letter stating that the accuracy of the entry had been “investigated” and “verified.” Now they can’t help but wonder: investigated how? Verified by whom? Brandon studied organizational leadership in school, but even he can’t imagine how the bureau failed to fix such an obvious mistake. “Maybe it fell through the cracks,” he says.Or maybe the process worked pretty much as it was designed to. Although they generally decline to discuss specific cases, the three major credit bureaus—Experian, Equifax and TransUnion—each attest to their commitment to accuracy and accountability in their record keeping. But while consumers might assume that each bureau employs an army of dedicated sleuths who carefully investigate and correct errors, all the bureaus actually process most disputes using a system that’s almost entirely automated—and where human beings are involved, they’re often working at a harried pace. The bureaus say the system, dubbed with the Muppety acronym e-OSCAR, is the most efficient way to handle the more than 20,000 disputes a day they receive. In practice, most complaints are electronically zapped straight to the lender, and according to consumer advocates, many lenders respond by simply rereporting the erroneous data.
Credit-report accuracy is profoundly important now, because an error can wreak more havoc than ever on your financial life. Before the nation heard the words credit crisis, just about anyone with a pulse could get a loan. Now many banks are refusing credit to anyone who looks remotely risky. And as legions of anxious job hunters know, a growing number of employers routinely check credit reports before they make a hire. It’s no wonder, then, that the National Foundation for Credit Counseling says call volume is up 31 percent in the past 12 months. “Credit is on consumers’ minds more than ever before,” says Curtis Arnold, CEO of CardRatings.com.But according to a 2007 survey by pollster Zogby, 37 percent of consumers who obtain their credit reports find errors, and half of those said they could not easily correct the mistakes. An earlier study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, found that one in four reports contained “serious errors.”
For its part, the Consumer Data Industry Association, the industry’s trade group, says only 11 percent of consumers who get their credit report file a dispute and just 5 percent of those challenge the results. “That’s an excellent satisfaction rate,” says the group’s president, Stuart Pratt. Still, even some industry insiders say there’s a problem. Testifying before Congress, one CEO of an independent Arizona credit bureau likened the dispute process to “having an IRS audit, brain surgery, getting a tooth pulled or going to your own funeral.” And when the dispute process fails, consumers say they are left feeling powerless. Martha Soto, a 63-year-old Antioch, Calif., shipping manager, says she couldn’t get the mortgage she needed last fall because Experian listed her as the defendant in an unpaid court judgment. She says she’s faxed records proving that she’s actually the plaintiff; Experian says they’re the wrong records, and the dispute is still unresolved, leaving Soto increasingly frustrated. “They’re defaming you, and you can’t do anything about it,” says Soto. “It’s scary to think an agency like that can control your life.”
Big Business, Little Service
Until the late 1980s, consumer credit records were scattered among thousands of low-profile local bureaus. But the industry gradually underwent a consolidation frenzy that left three companies controlling the data of 210 million Americans. The smallest, Chicago-based TransUnion, is owned by the Pritzker family of the Hyatt hotel fortune and boasts credit-reporting operations in 25 countries, including Nicaragua and Botswana. Publicly traded Equifax, founded in 1898 by a Tennessee grocer who sold his customers’ payment records to fellow shopkeepers, calls itself a “global leader in information solutions” with businesses as diverse as risk detection and database management. (According to its income statements, its consumer data unit remains its most profitable, boasting a 40 percent pretax profit margin.) Experian, the largest of the three and based in Ireland, is a $4 billion company that uses consumer data to help businesses send more than 20 billion pieces of junk mail every year. Together, the three credit bureaus have amassed a spotty record on consumer care. In 2000 they jointly paid a $2.5 million Federal Trade Commission fine for blocking millions of phone calls from consumers. Three years later Equifax paid a second fine because it still hadn’t hired enough people to answer the phone. In 2005, after new federal laws forced the bureaus to give away credit reports, Experian was hit with a $950,000 FTC fine for marketing those reports through a Web site that automatically charged consumers for an $80 credit-monitoring service. Last year TransUnion agreed to pay $75 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over sales of consumer data for marketing purposes.The bureaus, which never admitted wrongdoing in these cases, say they realize the importance of providing reliable information to lenders and consumers alike. “If we don’t, we cannot survive, either as a company or as an economy,” says Equifax spokesperson Tim Klein. But they also admit that credit-report errors can stem from glitches in their own systems. Some mistakes occur thanks to the algorithms used to match loans to individual credit reports. If the name or Social Security number on another person’s account partially matches the data on your file, the computer might attach it to your record. The credit bureaus also employ contractors who gather tax lien and bankruptcy data from courthouses and government offices. If these workers transpose a digit or misread a document, their error winds up on your report. But even if they never made mistakes of their own, the bureaus say they can’t possibly patrol the accuracy of the 3.5 billion pieces of account information they receive every month from lenders. “We’re the library,” says Maxine Sweet, Experian’s director of public education. “We don’t write the book.”
How Problems Go Global
So suppose there’s a whopper of an error on your credit report. Suppose it says you’re dead. That’s what Ken Clark, a financial planner in Little Rock, Ark., was told when he tried to buy his wife a minivan. The auto dealer called Clark a con man because his report was marked “deceased.” When Clark called the credit bureaus to report that he was still breathing, he learned that the real authority on the matter was a Utah bank that issued him a credit card and later reported him dead. To fix the error, Clark had to send a notarized letter and a copy of his utility bill to the bank, which in turn assured the bureaus that he was alive.
Clark’s story sheds light on how the dispute process works. Credit bureaus say they usually need to check with the lender because 30 percent of disputes are filed by shady credit-repair companies that challenge all the negative information on a consumer’s report, regardless of its validity. Bureaus also have to deal with consumers who pull stunts like concocting official-looking statements on phony letterhead; one bureau says it recently got a letter from “Banke [ed.-this “typo” is intentional, replicating the original] of America.” To sort the good from the bad, the industry sends almost everything through the automated system e-OSCAR (Electronic Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting), which forwards consumer disputes to lenders for verification.Here’s where the trouble begins. Rather than call the lender or send it the consumer’s letter and supporting evidence, the bureaus zap the documents to a data processing center run by a third-party contractor. This system yields considerable savings. Equifax reduced its per-dispute cost from $4.50 to 50 cents by outsourcing the work to Costa Rica and the Philippines, for example. But consumer advocates say these workers are under enormous pressure to process disputes and forward them to lenders as quickly as possible. While the bureaus say quality is the overriding factor, employees deposed in civil suits describe a harried pace. One TransUnion manager testified that workers were expected to complete up to 22 cases an hour. An Equifax worker estimated she was allotted four minutes per dispute. To process the letters so rapidly, the workers summarize every complaint with a two-digit code selected from a menu of 26 options. The code “A3,” for example, stands for “belongs to another individual with a similar name.” The worker can also add a single line of commentary. The two-digit code and short comment is the only information the lender receives about the dispute. Consumer advocates say these summaries omit the background banks need to understand a complaint, and banks agree. “We’ve met with [the credit bureaus] and said, ‘Look, we need more information,’” says Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel for the American Bankers Association. But the bureaus say their codes provide accountability and accuracy. “People talking to people? That’s the last thing consumers want,” says Experian’s Maxine Sweet. She suggests that consumers with complex cases resolve their disputes directly with their lenders. But that can put consumers in a catch-22. Currently, banks have no obligation to investigate a dispute unless it’s forwarded by a credit bureau. What’s more, consumer attorneys say some lenders do little more than check the disputed information against their own records—even if those records were the source of the error. “It’s a closed loop,” says Michigan lawyer Ian Lyngklip. And some lenders rely on software rather than people to do some of the checking.Not every dispute sent to a credit bureau gets the e-OSCAR treatment. Some complaints get extra attention. Experian says it sends disputes to its “special assistance service” department when consumers have “unusual problems” or an elected official requests consideration for a constituent; Equifax says it handles disputes relating to public figures and court cases with “additional processing procedures.” TransUnion declined to provide details on its VIP service, but its employee manual instructs workers to use “priority processing” if a letter comes from a “judge, senator, congressman, government official, attorney, paralegal, professional athlete, actor, director, member of the media or a celebrity.” If your case is assigned this status, it may be given to a dedicated rep who will make phone calls on your behalf. But there’s no guarantee of a successful resolution. “I have a lot of cases that go to special services, and they still mess it up,” says Robert Sola, a Portland, Ore., attorney.
Better Times Ahead?
The Consumer Data Industry Association, the trade group, reports that 72 percent of disputes result in an update or correction, suggesting that the e-OSCAR system fixes plenty of errors. However, when the system fails, the consumer has few options. If he files a second dispute without providing new information, the bureau can dismiss it as “frivolous.” The FTC is supposed to enforce laws requiring the credit bureaus to conduct a “reasonable investigation” into consumer disputes, but it hasn’t taken any action on that front since the start of the decade. (The agency says its recent reviews of consumer complaints yielded no reliable conclusions about report accuracy or the dispute process.)That leaves the courts. But consumers can’t sue a bureau over an error until they can prove the error is already creating problems. “It’s a system designed to make sure the horse is out of the barn,” says Santa Fe, N.M., attorney Richard Rubin. And even a successful lawsuit won’t necessarily fix a mistake. Just ask Chino, Calif., marriage counselor Jeff Christensen. In 2003 the cable company Charter apologized to him for reporting a collections account in error and directed the credit bureaus to delete the information. Experian refused, so Christensen took the bureau to court. In 2005 a judge ruled that Experian was violating the law and fined the company $2,500. Experian paid the fine, but it didn’t correct the error until December 2008—when SmartMoney called—saying it never got the right paperwork. Turns out, the courts can issue fines, but they can’t demand corrections. “You have no right to an accurate credit report,” says Lyngklip, the attorney. Consumer advocates estimate that bureaus pay just $25 million a year in court fines—a minor expense for the $7 billion industry.The credit bureaus say they have no immediate plans to change the dispute process. They note that turnaround time is at an all-time low, and consumers have embraced a new online dispute-filing feature. “The possibility of errors is at its lowest point ever and continues to decline,” says Equifax’s Klein. Consumer advocates have their own ideas. They want Congress to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act so that judges can demand corrections. They’d like the bureaus to establish an appeals process and require proof from lenders who rereport disputed information. And everyone seems to have their hopes pinned on regulations expected this year that will require lenders to address complaints received directly from consumers. Says Pratt, the trade group president, “That may allow consumers a better route to resolve a stickier dispute.”
A mistake on your credit report can cost you literally thousands of dollars, especially in this economy. So what can you expect from a big credit bureau if you ask them to investigate and correct the error? The answer, for many consumers: About 50 cents worth of effort, conducted by offshore workers at third-party firms. That’s just one of the findings from SmartMoney’s investigation into why credit-report errors continue to pop up so frequently—and why consumers often have so much trouble getting them fixed.To follow what one consumer advocate calls an “electronic hot potato,” SmartMoney pieced together a depiction of the dispute process through information from trial depositions, internal company memos and the bureaus’ own employee manuals—much of which the bureaus and their trade group subsequently confirmed. The process may be efficient, but it remains a mystery to most consumers, and a source of bitterness for some.
The Wrong Kind of Thrills
For Brandon and Amanda Mendelson, it had all the elements of a paperback thriller: the innocent newlyweds, the mysterious account held by an obscure bank in Boca Raton, the faceless corporation controlling everything behind the scenes. But when the Mendelsons discovered the strange overdue loan mistakenly listed on Amanda’s credit report, they weren’t exactly thrilled. The Glens Falls, N.Y., couple had never done business with that bank, and the error spoiled Amanda’s credit history. Making matters worse, their call to a national credit bureau yielded nothing more than a form letter stating that the accuracy of the entry had been “investigated” and “verified.” Now they can’t help but wonder: investigated how? Verified by whom? Brandon studied organizational leadership in school, but even he can’t imagine how the bureau failed to fix such an obvious mistake. “Maybe it fell through the cracks,” he says.Or maybe the process worked pretty much as it was designed to. Although they generally decline to discuss specific cases, the three major credit bureaus—Experian, Equifax and TransUnion—each attest to their commitment to accuracy and accountability in their record keeping. But while consumers might assume that each bureau employs an army of dedicated sleuths who carefully investigate and correct errors, all the bureaus actually process most disputes using a system that’s almost entirely automated—and where human beings are involved, they’re often working at a harried pace. The bureaus say the system, dubbed with the Muppety acronym e-OSCAR, is the most efficient way to handle the more than 20,000 disputes a day they receive. In practice, most complaints are electronically zapped straight to the lender, and according to consumer advocates, many lenders respond by simply rereporting the erroneous data.
Credit-report accuracy is profoundly important now, because an error can wreak more havoc than ever on your financial life. Before the nation heard the words credit crisis, just about anyone with a pulse could get a loan. Now many banks are refusing credit to anyone who looks remotely risky. And as legions of anxious job hunters know, a growing number of employers routinely check credit reports before they make a hire. It’s no wonder, then, that the National Foundation for Credit Counseling says call volume is up 31 percent in the past 12 months. “Credit is on consumers’ minds more than ever before,” says Curtis Arnold, CEO of CardRatings.com.But according to a 2007 survey by pollster Zogby, 37 percent of consumers who obtain their credit reports find errors, and half of those said they could not easily correct the mistakes. An earlier study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, found that one in four reports contained “serious errors.”
For its part, the Consumer Data Industry Association, the industry’s trade group, says only 11 percent of consumers who get their credit report file a dispute and just 5 percent of those challenge the results. “That’s an excellent satisfaction rate,” says the group’s president, Stuart Pratt. Still, even some industry insiders say there’s a problem. Testifying before Congress, one CEO of an independent Arizona credit bureau likened the dispute process to “having an IRS audit, brain surgery, getting a tooth pulled or going to your own funeral.” And when the dispute process fails, consumers say they are left feeling powerless. Martha Soto, a 63-year-old Antioch, Calif., shipping manager, says she couldn’t get the mortgage she needed last fall because Experian listed her as the defendant in an unpaid court judgment. She says she’s faxed records proving that she’s actually the plaintiff; Experian says they’re the wrong records, and the dispute is still unresolved, leaving Soto increasingly frustrated. “They’re defaming you, and you can’t do anything about it,” says Soto. “It’s scary to think an agency like that can control your life.”
Big Business, Little Service
Until the late 1980s, consumer credit records were scattered among thousands of low-profile local bureaus. But the industry gradually underwent a consolidation frenzy that left three companies controlling the data of 210 million Americans. The smallest, Chicago-based TransUnion, is owned by the Pritzker family of the Hyatt hotel fortune and boasts credit-reporting operations in 25 countries, including Nicaragua and Botswana. Publicly traded Equifax, founded in 1898 by a Tennessee grocer who sold his customers’ payment records to fellow shopkeepers, calls itself a “global leader in information solutions” with businesses as diverse as risk detection and database management. (According to its income statements, its consumer data unit remains its most profitable, boasting a 40 percent pretax profit margin.) Experian, the largest of the three and based in Ireland, is a $4 billion company that uses consumer data to help businesses send more than 20 billion pieces of junk mail every year. Together, the three credit bureaus have amassed a spotty record on consumer care. In 2000 they jointly paid a $2.5 million Federal Trade Commission fine for blocking millions of phone calls from consumers. Three years later Equifax paid a second fine because it still hadn’t hired enough people to answer the phone. In 2005, after new federal laws forced the bureaus to give away credit reports, Experian was hit with a $950,000 FTC fine for marketing those reports through a Web site that automatically charged consumers for an $80 credit-monitoring service. Last year TransUnion agreed to pay $75 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over sales of consumer data for marketing purposes.The bureaus, which never admitted wrongdoing in these cases, say they realize the importance of providing reliable information to lenders and consumers alike. “If we don’t, we cannot survive, either as a company or as an economy,” says Equifax spokesperson Tim Klein. But they also admit that credit-report errors can stem from glitches in their own systems. Some mistakes occur thanks to the algorithms used to match loans to individual credit reports. If the name or Social Security number on another person’s account partially matches the data on your file, the computer might attach it to your record. The credit bureaus also employ contractors who gather tax lien and bankruptcy data from courthouses and government offices. If these workers transpose a digit or misread a document, their error winds up on your report. But even if they never made mistakes of their own, the bureaus say they can’t possibly patrol the accuracy of the 3.5 billion pieces of account information they receive every month from lenders. “We’re the library,” says Maxine Sweet, Experian’s director of public education. “We don’t write the book.”
How Problems Go Global
So suppose there’s a whopper of an error on your credit report. Suppose it says you’re dead. That’s what Ken Clark, a financial planner in Little Rock, Ark., was told when he tried to buy his wife a minivan. The auto dealer called Clark a con man because his report was marked “deceased.” When Clark called the credit bureaus to report that he was still breathing, he learned that the real authority on the matter was a Utah bank that issued him a credit card and later reported him dead. To fix the error, Clark had to send a notarized letter and a copy of his utility bill to the bank, which in turn assured the bureaus that he was alive.
Clark’s story sheds light on how the dispute process works. Credit bureaus say they usually need to check with the lender because 30 percent of disputes are filed by shady credit-repair companies that challenge all the negative information on a consumer’s report, regardless of its validity. Bureaus also have to deal with consumers who pull stunts like concocting official-looking statements on phony letterhead; one bureau says it recently got a letter from “Banke [ed.-this “typo” is intentional, replicating the original] of America.” To sort the good from the bad, the industry sends almost everything through the automated system e-OSCAR (Electronic Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting), which forwards consumer disputes to lenders for verification.Here’s where the trouble begins. Rather than call the lender or send it the consumer’s letter and supporting evidence, the bureaus zap the documents to a data processing center run by a third-party contractor. This system yields considerable savings. Equifax reduced its per-dispute cost from $4.50 to 50 cents by outsourcing the work to Costa Rica and the Philippines, for example. But consumer advocates say these workers are under enormous pressure to process disputes and forward them to lenders as quickly as possible. While the bureaus say quality is the overriding factor, employees deposed in civil suits describe a harried pace. One TransUnion manager testified that workers were expected to complete up to 22 cases an hour. An Equifax worker estimated she was allotted four minutes per dispute. To process the letters so rapidly, the workers summarize every complaint with a two-digit code selected from a menu of 26 options. The code “A3,” for example, stands for “belongs to another individual with a similar name.” The worker can also add a single line of commentary. The two-digit code and short comment is the only information the lender receives about the dispute. Consumer advocates say these summaries omit the background banks need to understand a complaint, and banks agree. “We’ve met with [the credit bureaus] and said, ‘Look, we need more information,’” says Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel for the American Bankers Association. But the bureaus say their codes provide accountability and accuracy. “People talking to people? That’s the last thing consumers want,” says Experian’s Maxine Sweet. She suggests that consumers with complex cases resolve their disputes directly with their lenders. But that can put consumers in a catch-22. Currently, banks have no obligation to investigate a dispute unless it’s forwarded by a credit bureau. What’s more, consumer attorneys say some lenders do little more than check the disputed information against their own records—even if those records were the source of the error. “It’s a closed loop,” says Michigan lawyer Ian Lyngklip. And some lenders rely on software rather than people to do some of the checking.Not every dispute sent to a credit bureau gets the e-OSCAR treatment. Some complaints get extra attention. Experian says it sends disputes to its “special assistance service” department when consumers have “unusual problems” or an elected official requests consideration for a constituent; Equifax says it handles disputes relating to public figures and court cases with “additional processing procedures.” TransUnion declined to provide details on its VIP service, but its employee manual instructs workers to use “priority processing” if a letter comes from a “judge, senator, congressman, government official, attorney, paralegal, professional athlete, actor, director, member of the media or a celebrity.” If your case is assigned this status, it may be given to a dedicated rep who will make phone calls on your behalf. But there’s no guarantee of a successful resolution. “I have a lot of cases that go to special services, and they still mess it up,” says Robert Sola, a Portland, Ore., attorney.
Better Times Ahead?
The Consumer Data Industry Association, the trade group, reports that 72 percent of disputes result in an update or correction, suggesting that the e-OSCAR system fixes plenty of errors. However, when the system fails, the consumer has few options. If he files a second dispute without providing new information, the bureau can dismiss it as “frivolous.” The FTC is supposed to enforce laws requiring the credit bureaus to conduct a “reasonable investigation” into consumer disputes, but it hasn’t taken any action on that front since the start of the decade. (The agency says its recent reviews of consumer complaints yielded no reliable conclusions about report accuracy or the dispute process.)That leaves the courts. But consumers can’t sue a bureau over an error until they can prove the error is already creating problems. “It’s a system designed to make sure the horse is out of the barn,” says Santa Fe, N.M., attorney Richard Rubin. And even a successful lawsuit won’t necessarily fix a mistake. Just ask Chino, Calif., marriage counselor Jeff Christensen. In 2003 the cable company Charter apologized to him for reporting a collections account in error and directed the credit bureaus to delete the information. Experian refused, so Christensen took the bureau to court. In 2005 a judge ruled that Experian was violating the law and fined the company $2,500. Experian paid the fine, but it didn’t correct the error until December 2008—when SmartMoney called—saying it never got the right paperwork. Turns out, the courts can issue fines, but they can’t demand corrections. “You have no right to an accurate credit report,” says Lyngklip, the attorney. Consumer advocates estimate that bureaus pay just $25 million a year in court fines—a minor expense for the $7 billion industry.The credit bureaus say they have no immediate plans to change the dispute process. They note that turnaround time is at an all-time low, and consumers have embraced a new online dispute-filing feature. “The possibility of errors is at its lowest point ever and continues to decline,” says Equifax’s Klein. Consumer advocates have their own ideas. They want Congress to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act so that judges can demand corrections. They’d like the bureaus to establish an appeals process and require proof from lenders who rereport disputed information. And everyone seems to have their hopes pinned on regulations expected this year that will require lenders to address complaints received directly from consumers. Says Pratt, the trade group president, “That may allow consumers a better route to resolve a stickier dispute.”
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is this the death of the dollar?
After two smugglers were stopped last week with what at first appeared to be $134bn in US state bonds, the tension and paranoia surrounding the fate of the dollar hit a new high.
By Edmund ConwayPublished: 7:32PM BST 20 Jun 2009
By Edmund ConwayPublished: 7:32PM BST 20 Jun 2009
Border guards in Chiasso see plenty of smugglers and plenty of false-bottomed suitcases, but no one in the town, which straddles the Italian-Swiss frontier, had ever seen anything like this. Trussed up in front of the police in the train station were two Japanese men, and beside them a suitcase with a booty unlike any other. Concealed at the bottom of the bag were some rather incredible sheets of paper. The documents were apparently dollar-denominated US government bonds with a face value of a staggering $134bn (£81bn).
How on earth did these two men, who at first refused to identify themselves, come to be there, trying to ride the train into Switzerland carrying bonds worth more than the gross domestic product of Singapore? If the bonds were genuine, the pair would have been America's fourth-biggest creditor, ahead of the UK and just behind Russia. No sooner had the story leaked out from the Italian lakes region last week than it sparked a panoply of conspiracy tales. But one resounded more than any other: that the men were agents of the Japanese finance ministry, in the country for the G8 meeting, making a surreptitious journey into Switzerland to sell off one small chunk of the massive mountain of US bonds stacked up in the Japanese Treasury vaults.
In the event, late last week American officials confirmed that the notes were forgeries. The men, it appeared, were nothing more than ambitious scamsters. But many remain unconvinced. And whether fake or otherwise, the story underlines one important point about the world economy at the moment: that the tension and paranoia surrounding the fate of the US dollar has hit a new high. It went to the heart of the big question: will the central bankers in Japan, China and elsewhere continue to support the greenback even in the wake of the worst financial crisis in modern history, or will they abandon it as America's economic hegemony dissipates?
Dollar obituaries are nothing new. The currency has been presumed dead more times than Shane Macgowan. But like the lead singer of The Pogues, the greenback has somehow withstood repeated knocks and scrapes over the years and lived on, battered, bruised and a couple of teeth the lighter, to fight another day. In the 1970s and 1980s there were plenty predicting its demise, although at that point the main challenger was the Japanese yen. And in the years preceding this crisis, economists and investors including Peter Schiff and George Soros were lining up to declare the dollar's demise as the world's reserve currency. In the late 1990s, the creation of the euro gave dollar sceptics another stick to beat the currency with, and no doubt the European currency has claimed some of the prominence in its first decade.
Now, following the collapse of the global financial system, those warnings have become louder still, and ever more difficult to dismiss – because this time around there are threatening noises coming from those who actually have the power to do something about it. First came a paper from Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People's Bank of China (PBoC), a couple of months ago, positing the idea of introducing the special drawing right (SDR) – a kind of internal currency at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – as an international reserve currency. These calls were then repeated, with more force, by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, who last week declared that the world needed new reserve currencies in addition to the dollar.
And this time around, the dollar is most certainly suffering. Since 2002 its trade-weighted strength – calculated against a basket of other currencies – has fallen by more than a quarter, from 112 to 81 points. In the same period, the proportion of dollars held by reserve managers in leading central banks has also taken a dive. According to figures from the IMF, confirmed holdings of dollars in government vaults, from Beijing and Tokyo to London and Paris, fell from 71pc of reserves to 64.5pc between 2002 and 2008.
However, detecting what is really happening in the world of foreign exchange reserves is notoriously closer to an art than a science. For instance, figures from April seemed to suggest a fall in China's holdings of US Treasuries – something 'dollapocalypticists' pounced on at the time. But according to Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations, the country was merely rejigging its Treasury portfolio rather than liquidating parts of it. In such an opaque world it is little wonder the conspiracy theories over those two Japanese smugglers show little sign of dissipating.
Nonetheless, for US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who has inherited his predecessors' role as dollar wallah-in-chief, the currency's travails have made it all the more difficult for him to repeat the mantra that he "believes in a strong dollar" while keeping a straight face. Indeed, when he tried to insist at a university lecture in Beijing earlier this month that "Chinese financial assets are very safe," it drew floods of laughter from the audience.
He wasn't playing for laughs, but the irony of the situation is plain to see. If there were a textbook list of actions one could take to weaken a currency, the US (alongside most other developed nations) would be following it to the letter. It has cut interest rates to a whisker above zero; it has engaged in quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the economy; it has committed to spending trillions of dollars on a fiscal stimulus package designed to pull the country out of recession; it has pledged tacitly to support its stricken banks so that no major institution is allowed to collapse. In any normal circumstances, actions like these would hammer a currency.
According to Stephen Jen of BlueGold Capital Management: "People are having second thoughts not simply because they don't like the dollar, but they are having second thoughts about whether US assets are obviously the strongest assets to own."
Like everything else, the currency's fate depends on how well the US authorities manage the crisis. The US is balanced on a knife-edge between possible Japan-style deflation as the weight of all its debts bear down on it and potential inflation as the force of all its powerful stimulus measures take root. No one knows for sure which way it will fall, but neither would be particularly good for the currency, and by extension for those who hold much in the way of dollar assets.
China and all other major central banks which have trillions of dollars in their vaults, face something of a dilemma. Any fall in the greenback will cause the value of their investments to slide. Even if they wanted to exit, there seems no easy way of doing so without provoking some serious self-harm. Indeed, according to Olivier Accominotti, a PhD economist at Paris's Sciences Po university, the situation is not unlike that faced by France in the 1920s, as it sought to reduce its massive sterling reserves. The Bank of France found itself in a "sterling trap" in which it "could not continue selling pounds without precipitating a sterling collapse and a huge exchange loss for itself".
Neil Mellor, of Bank of New York Mellon, said: "We've got a situation where Geithner is smiling and has no choice but to stress the credibility and stability of the US financial and economic system, while the creditors [such as the Chinese] smile back and say they believe him, while at the same time giving hand signals to their reserve managers to get rid of these things."
Rather like the brinksmanship on display throughout the Cold War, it is a dilemma which applies itself to game theory. Both sides know that the dollar is set to weaken, but both could be set to suffer if they both allowed it to collapse at the same time. "If you are the Chinese it is in your interest to play the game – you've got a lot of dollars at stake – but in the long run you surely want to reduce your holdings and diversify them at the margins," says Mellor.
Still, with every passing week, the conjunction of different warning signals for the US currency seems to evolve and intensify. Recently, the alarm bell ringing most loudly has been the increase in yields on US Treasuries – a sign, some fear, of acute nervousness among institutional investors about the sheer scale of the cash the Obama administration is planning to borrow in coming years. The Federal Reserve's meeting next week is likely to be watched attentively by everyone with a stake in the game, as the central bank indicates whether it is planning to plough more dollars of newly-created cash into the economy.
But while the debate fixates on the greenback, the issues at heart here go far deeper. The dollar's fate is intertwined with that of the global economy. America is on the brink of losing its economic superpower status, which it will have to share with China at least, if not others, in the coming years. Holding such a position confers important responsibilities, none of which is more symbolic than providing the world's reserve currency – the currency against which all major commodities are denominated, and the de facto international unit of exchange in trade and finance.
It was a position enjoyed by UK sterling during the first waves of globalisation in the Victorian era and the final decades of the British Empire. Eventually, around the time of the Second World War, the dollar inherited the mantle. At first this was something enshrined in the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, which fixed world currencies to the dollar, but although that system broke down in the 1960s and 1970s, it has remained the de facto currency of choice.
In a globalised world, with trade being carried out between hundreds of different nations by thousands of different companies, having an international standard makes sense: it enables traders to exchange goods more quickly and efficiently than they would have done otherwise. It may be invisible to us, but the vast majority of foreign exchange transactions – particularly those between smaller nations – involve the dollar. Exchange your sterling for Thai baht and you're actually swapping pounds for dollars for baht, whatever the exchange booth says. Even the much-vaunted exchange arrangements by the Brazilian and Chinese are designed not to disrupt these foundations, but merely to smooth things over for importers and exporters.
But a by-product of the dollar's dominance has been the skewing of the world's monetary system. By dint of having this blessed position, the US has been able to finance ever-larger current account and fiscal deficits, with both the government and the public borrowing from overseas, at cheap rates of interest. It has been able to sell US Treasuries at interest rates that other countries can only dream of because of this position as reserve currency. It has had a captive consumer – both because its government bonds are something of a safe haven and because those wishing to peg their currencies against the dollar and enhance their trade flows have little choice but to buy US Treasuries.
And this mutated international monetary system that has evolved since the 1960s is largely responsible for the crisis into which the world has tipped. Because it was able to borrow off other countries at such low rates without enduring the market punishment – in other words higher interest rates – America was able to build up massive current account deficits which poured a record amount of debt throughout its economy, which manifested itself in the financial crisis.
Indeed, as Mervyn King said in a speech earlier this year: "At the heart of the crisis was the problem identified but not solved at Bretton Woods – the need to impose symmetric obligations on countries that run persistent current account surpluses and not just on countries that run deficits. From that failure stemmed a chain of events, no one of which alone appeared to threaten stability, but which taken together led to the worst financial crisis any of us can recall."
When the PBoC's Zhou referred to the SDRs he was not merely questioning the dollar's pre-eminence. He was indicating something far more radical – that China supports plans for a new Bretton Woods-style agreement to manage the flows of cash around the world. At that seminal conference in 1944, John Maynard Keynes's original idea, which was watered down by Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury, was for an international reserve currency, Bancor, fixed against a basket of 30 currencies, and that countries would be penalised if their current accounts swung too far into surplus or deficit. It is an idea which is now being dusted off from history books by officials in finance ministries around the world, including in China.
Such a radical shake-up would cause earthquakes in the currency markets, a prospect which perhaps makes it unlikely. So in the absence of such a deal, how is the dollar's role likely to evolve in the coming years? The short answer is that no one should expect it to lose its reserve currency status any time soon. It took around half a century for Britain to cede this position to the US, even after being overtaken in true economic might.
One possibility is that the SDR may be used increasingly as a means of denominating assets in accounts, but this is something which would take place gradually, over a course of some years. But even if that is a bridge towards a multi-polar world, in which other currencies vie with the dollar for influence, it will take some time – perhaps 30 years or more, according to Stephen Jen. "People should look at history," he said, referring to sterling's pre-eminence in the first part of the 20th century. "There's a real incumbency advantage."
Jim O'Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, sees the next few years as something of a "vacuum period".
"The BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India and China] are becoming so much more important, while the G7, including the US declines, which raises issues about the degree of dominance of the dollar. The problem is that the currencies of the BRICS are the ones that matter, but they won't let you export or use their currencies.
"Until we see another five years' of evidence over whether China is a more consumer-driven economy, becoming bigger and bigger, and whether the euro can have a successful second decade, the dollar looks set to remain dominant."
China has made some hints about loosening its hold over the yuan in recent months, but these are only early manoeuvres. A second step would be to allow the yuan to become a part of the SDR – whose own value is determined by those of a basket of currencies including the dollar, pound and euro. As Jen adds, there are certain prerequisites any contender to the crown of world reserve currency needs in its pocket.
"We have to ask this question: is Russia going to provide asset market that will be as liquid, reliable property rights, the rule of law, currency convertibility and so on? Will we see the same from the likes of China? Their task is very daunting."
Referring to the forged Treasury bonds picked up on the Japanese smugglers on the Swiss border, he adds: "There is a message here: we haven't heard much about anyone counterfeiting roubles. That is probably telling you something.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)