September 2024 – Page 2 – Consumer Choice Center

Consumers dudded by secret class action suits

We are no strangers to settling our problems in court. Indeed, it is a core function of citizens in free societies.

Staffed by esteemed judges and sometimes juries, people who believe they’ve been wronged can take their claims before a neutral tribunal to plead their case in hopes of a positive outcome and settlement, whether on behalf of a class of litigants or just themselves.

In Australia, these principles are at the heart of a “fair go”.

Increasingly, however, in countries like Australia and the United States, the explosion of both class actions and litigation financing has culminated in a dodgy funding arrangement for actions against companies and individuals that may involve unscrupulous foreign actors.

Influenced by innovative American investors, this new practice of third- party litigation funding involves out- siders not directly involved in lawsuits providing funding in exchange for a cut of the “winnings”, whether they are hedge funds, venture capitalists, or bankers.

Plaintiffs looking to mount a case will turn to these litigation funders to pay for attorneys in lengthy and ex- pensive cases, giving up portions of settlements in exchange for funding.

While one can easily praise the novel aspect of this funding, we should also be aware that existing law does not require the disclosure of these arrangements to courts and judges.

When foreign powers are using lawsuits to try to break up patents and intellectual property, as we’ve increasingly seen abroad, what’s to say this won’t happen in Australia?

A Chinese firm, Purplevine IP, has financed multiple patent lawsuits against Samsung and its US subsidiaries, hoping to unravel some of the proprietary technology found in Bluetooth earbuds.

There’s also evidence of Russian oligarchs – with close ties to Vladimir Putin – parking millions in litigation funds to evade Ukraine-related sanctions.

It is true that Australia’s $200m litigation funding industry is dwarfed by the nearly $13.5bn industry in the United States. But at the same time, Australia is now the class action law- suit capital of the world on a per capita basis, and at least a dozen of the country’s top 20 companies are currently mired in class action lawsuits.

Last week, The Daily Telegraph analysed two recent class action settlements: a $47m settlement against ANZ, and a $29m settlement against Westpac.

While those numbers look good on the surface, if every eligible victim was compensated, they would receive just $317 and $321, respectively, while lawyers and investors walk away with millions.

What these cases point to are a system of legal cases that are systematically proving to be very beneficial for certain legal firms and select litigation funders, while not providing true transparency about who is funding cases and how much are they winning in settlements.

Before the Albanese government changed the rules in 2022, litigation funders were subject to strict regulatory oversight, including a requirement to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Critically, too, ASIC monitored their activities. By scrapping the rules, the problem has only got worse.

Rest and Hesta – two of Australia’s biggest superannuation funds, with a

combined three million members – hold tens of millions of dollars’ worth of stock in Omni Bridgeway, Australia’s biggest litigation funder. At the same time, Omni Bridgeway is funding class actions against at least six Australian companies Rest and Hesta are invested in.

In other words, Australian workers are funding an all-out assault on their own retirement savings.

There’s more pain on the way, with the arrival of foreign class action firms to Australia including British firm Pogust Goodhead, armed with a billion- dollar loan from an American hedge fund, with plans to launch 10 lawsuits against Australian companies over the next year.

In the US, politicians have rallied around the common-sense idea that litigation funders should be disclosed to courts in important cases. California Congressman Darrell Issa has joined forces with Democrats and Re- publicans to introduce the Litigation Transparency Act that would force disclosure of financing provided by third parties in civil lawsuits.

It’s high time Australian politicians do the same. At present, Australia has no laws requiring litigation funders to disclose the ultimate source of their funding.

This is not only about consumers in Australia, but it’s about the future legitimacy of the entire judicial system across the country, and attempts by foreign powers to exploit it.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center.

This article was published in the Daily Telegraph in Australia (pdf copy here).

Healthcare Denied: Should Insurance Companies Direct Doctors?

Step Therapy: Health Insurance Companies Control Patient Care

Step therapy, also known as “fail-first” therapy, is a shockingly common strategy used by health insurance companies to cut their costs. This method forces patients to experiment with cheaper drugs and treatments before the health insurance company finally approves more expensive options, even if their doctor determines early on that the pricier treatment is the best path forward.

This approach might make sense for the health insurance companies’ bottom line, but it’s a massive insult to patients. The experimentation on low-end treatments causes delays in receiving vital care, and in some cases even threatens their life.

‘Step Therapy’ vs Patient’s Dignity

Health insurance companies use step therapy protocols for a number of health conditions which significantly affect the quality of patient care.

Cancer patients, for example, often can’t afford to wait. Step therapy protocols require patients to try old or less effective chemotherapy treatments before they can receive newer more targeted immunotherapies like Keytruda or Opdivo.

These new immunotherapies are an innovative breakthrough in medicine that save lives for specific types of advanced or aggressive cancer. Additionally, the treatment works differently by firing up and training the immune system to actively destroy cancer cells in the body. A very different path from traditional chemotherapy, which kills cancer cells while also destroying the patient’s immune system.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a debilitating nerve disorder, also commonly must deal with step therapy protocols. Although there are cutting-edge treatments available on the market like Ocrevus or Lemtrada, which have shown to slow down the rate at which MS progresses while increasing the quality of life for MS patients, health insurance companies are known to have these patients try older and less potent options like Avonex or Copaxone.

If these patients “fail” or their condition worsens on the older options, then health insurance companies might consider covering the newer more expensive medications. These delays, if coverage is granted at all, can cause lasting harm and exacerbate preventable problems.

Step therapy protocols are even used for obesity treatment. Now that innovative GLP-1 weight loss medications have entered the market like Ozempic and Wegovy, it seems as though many patients are eager to get their hands on them to help control their weight and boost overall health.

Some health insurance companies require patients to try options like diet, exercise, or older medications like Phentermine or Orlistat before approving newer treatments. These older treatments may not work well for everyone. Forcing patients to stick with outdated, less effective options just to save insurance companies money is unfair and needs to change.

It is an affront to the dignity of human beings suffering through an illness to not be approved for the best possible treatment as quickly as possible.

A Better Way to Balance Healthcare Costs

The step therapy model we have within our healthcare system now puts money above patient care and choice, but there are better ways forward to balance healthcare costs while ensuring patients get the treatment they need when they need it.

A simple solution would be to allow doctors to override step therapy when they believe a newer or more effective treatment is needed. This would give physicians the power to choose the best care without unnecessary delays, leading to better patient outcomes. Quick access to the right treatments can help prevent further health complications and reduce long-term healthcare costs. Another option that should be explored is patient-centered plans that prioritize transparency. Consumers should have more options when choosing their health insurance, and more transparency from the health insurance companies regarding what their plans will and will not cover, how they determine step therapy protocols, transparent pricing, and all other pertinent information that will help consumers decide which health insurance company and plan is right for them.

Healthcare denied: Blatant Coverage Denials

Health Insurance Coverage Denials: A Threat to Consumer Choice

Health insurance companies are facing justified criticism for denying claims more often and becoming increasingly unlikely to cover vital, sometimes life-saving, treatments. These denials go beyond complex medical procedures or expensive experimental drugs – they are now affecting even basic preventative care, which consumers expect as baseline components of their health insurance plans. Unfortunately, this reveals another layer of a growing trend wherein insurance companies put profits above patients. To help patients stop health issues before they start, we need to make changes that hold health insurance companies accountable while still allowing patients the choices in healthcare they deserve.

Need for Data & Transparency on Coverage Denials

Throughout the country, health insurance companies are denying more and more claims for necessary medical care. In 2022, an estimated 15 percent of all claims submitted to private payers faced denial, including treatments and services that had received pre-authorization.

This number could be much higher, as current reporting requirements for health insurance companies don’t require full disclosure of their denials. The Affordable Care Act granted federal regulators the ability to collect information from health insurance companies on their coverage denials, however only a fraction of the information has been collected thus far. What little information and data was released has been deemed by experts as so crude and inconsistent that it is essentially meaningless.

This lack of transparency leaves patients blindly entering into health insurance plan contracts without knowing fully what they will and will not cover – and if they face a coverage denial, then the choice is often to let their health deteriorate or pay the exorbitant out-of-pocket costs.

Real Life Consequences of Coverage Denials

When you acquire health insurance, the hope is that you won’t need to use it, but it’s there to help in case you do. Unfortunately, even while paying all of your premiums and deductibles, a claim for coverage can still be denied.

One egregious example of coverage denial is what was experienced by Sayeh Peterson, who never smoked cigarettes and still learned that she had stage 4 lung cancer at age 57. Her doctors suggested genetic testing to help investigate the cause. The genetic tests showed that a rare genetic mutation had caused her illness, which then helped her medical team to create an effective treatment plan to aggressively attack the cancer. While preventative tools like genetic testing are required by law to be covered by health insurance companies in her state, her health insurance company had denied the coverage, leaving Sayeh with over $12,000 in medical bills to pay on her own.

Another example is that of U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agents in Arizona being denied coverage by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona (BCBS) for necessary preventative hearing protection. These agents are plagued with loud noises that can cause significant hearing damage from things like trucks, helicopters, and other gear needed to do their job. To prevent hearing damage and additional healthcare costs from dogging the agents, CBP wants FDA-approved Phantom hearing protection as it guards the user’s hearing while letting you stay alert and in communication with others. Despite BCBS plans covering preventative care, they have refused coverage of Phantom hearing protection to CBP agents, stating it is not a “medical necessity”.

What health insurance companies are failing to understand is that by prioritizing preventative and effective care early on, they save vast sums of money in the long run as morbidities are addressed earlier. This prevents conditions from spiraling out of control to the detriment of both the patient’s and insurance company’s bottom line.

Time For Reform

The health insurance industry must prioritize patient care over cost-saving measures.

One easy solution is to require health insurance companies to be more transparent in their coverage decisions. Providers must be open with consumers about denial rates and the standards they use to determine what is and what is not a medical necessity.

Making this information public will spark competition, push insurers to improve approval processes, and aid consumers in evaluating their coverage options. It’s important we have accountability mechanisms built in where there is easy recourse for patients to rectify a wrongful coverage denial.

Another common sense solution is to encourage preventative care – whether that be genetic testing, hearing protection, or whatever else – so as to alleviate consumer costs in the long term. The faster we can address a medical issue, the less patients’ health and wallets will suffer.

Healthcare Denied: Pre-Authorizations Denials

Insurance Holdups & Hassles

The US healthcare system has a lot of problems, but here’s a big one: health insurance companies demand pre-authorization for many vital treatments and services. They say it is to keep costs down, but in reality, it makes it even more challenging for patients to get the healthcare they need…when they need it.

Mandatory pre-authorization rules delay treatment, create more paperwork for doctors’ offices, and interfere with doctors and patients making medical decisions together.

The solution? More transparency and accountability regarding plan coverage and fewer healthcare services requiring a pre-authorization. This way, patients and doctors can make timely individualized healthcare choices without jumping through unnecessary hoops. Having medical issues, whether life threatening or routine, is stressful enough as it is without waiting for insurance providers to green light your treatment.

Effects on Patient Care

Anyone who has ever used the healthcare system before knows that we’re talking about a space where life literally hangs in the balance. Time is not on everyone’s side. Pre-authorization refusals can cause risky holdups in receiving necessary treatment, dragging on for days or even weeks before consumers get a response from their health insurance provider. In 2023, 22 percent of adults insured under Medicaid experienced pre-authorization problems, along with 11 percent of those insured through Medicare and 15 percent using employer-sponsored coverage.

You’ve probably heard someone in your life say, “Thankfully, we caught it in time,” when sharing news of an illness. In too many cases, delays result in a patient’s condition getting worse, so much that they need additional pre-authorizations for health care services as a result of the first pre-authorization. Research shows that of the adults who had more than 10 doctor visits in 2023, 31 percent experienced pre-authorization challenges.

Comparatively, adults who visited the doctor 3 to 10 times had pre-authorization problems at a rate of 20 percent.

Those who visited just 2 times or less had pre-authorization problems at a rate of 10 percent.

This demonstrates that those who need more healthcare services are the ones most likely to be denied pre-authorizations, increasing delays and overall harm to their health.

Patients with serious illnesses are at a major disadvantage with health insurance companies.

Let’s say you have a rare chronic lung disease that requires special medication and treatment. Your doctor finds a groundbreaking treatment, but the insurance company wants to approve it first. If the insurer labels the treatment ‘experimental’, then you will likely be denied pre-authorization and will find yourself stuck in red-tape limbo while your health continues to deteriorate — even if the doctor recommends action.

Patients deserve a choice in their healthcare treatments, without health insurance companies getting in the way of decisions made between patients and their doctors.

Cut Down on Pre-Authorization Rules & Increase Transparency

An easy reform to increase patient choice and enhance care is to reduce the number of medical services that require pre-authorization. Rather than depending on insurance companies to approve treatments beforehand, we would empower doctors to make the best choices with their patients, and reduce outside meddling.

Additionally, if insurance policies were more transparent, patients could easily compare plans based on which treatments need pre-authorization. This would spark competition among insurers and push them to simplify, or perhaps even get rid of pre-authorization approvals altogether in a bid to attract consumers.

Pre-authorization denials reveal a broken approach to healthcare that prioritizes cost-cutting over patient health. By reducing services that require pre-authorization and increasing transparency for coverage upfront, we can rip through the needless red tape holding back patients with better healthcare delivery.

These changes wouldn’t solve all of the pitfalls of the American healthcare insurance system, but it would certainly get us closer to a system that prioritizes patient care above all else.

Consumer Choice Center submits FCC comments to protect radio frequency for open-source projects and amateur radio

This week, the Consumer Choice Center submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission on its proposal to reconfigure parts of the 900 MHz band, opposing the effort that would end up granting exclusive use for one specific company.

The lower end of the 900 MHz band is popular with open-source radio projects, amateur radio operations, and next-level drone and spectrum technologies, and has remained free and open to use. We believe that reconfiguring use of the band would harm these projects, as well as future innovation that depends on this end of the band.

Personally, as an amateur radio operator (KM4DDV) and enthusiast for LoRa radio devices, I believe consumers would benefit from an open and free band in this specific part of the spectrum, and innovators would be able to continue to create without concern for specific licensing. As an organization, we also believe this would help to protect innovation and choice for users and consumers who rely on this frequency for free play, experimentation, and creative products for the future.

Here is our letter to the FCC on this issue (also available on the FCC website):

As a consumer advocacy group that champions smart policies that are fit for growth, promotes lifestyle choice, and embraces tech innovation, the Consumer Choice Center files its comments today in opposition to the proposed rulemaking to reorganize and reconfigure the 902-928 MHz band in order to assign licensing conditions to NextNav for exclusive use.

While we do believe that our national spectrum policies should promote innovation, as well as deliver fair rules and licensing for entrepreneurs to offer great services to consumers, we take issue with the exclusive capacity this rulemaking would create that would hinder active participants and citizens who currently use this band, disrupting our open access to technology we enjoy.

The existing open spectrum on 900 MHz has thus far enabled hobbyists and amateur radio operators such as myself (callsign KM4DDV), as well as decentralized LoRa (Long Range) technology devices used in off-grid communication, and other commercial users, to experiment with open-source technologies and applications.

The band as it exists today has also enabled the growth of IOT broadcast signals, garage openers, security monitoring, drone flight paths, as well as experimental commercial applications as much as LoRa devices or amateur radio broadcasts.

A growing community of hobbyists and enthusiasts have benefited from an open band of spectrum in order to communicate with each other, test various devices, and ensure a free and open “net” for our own amateur radio communications.

As such, we would ask the FCC to reconsider its rulemaking to create a more balanced approach that would not discriminate against open-source projects, nor endanger the vital emergency services offered by amateur radio operators. Granting exclusive use would cause severe interference and create an inequitable spectrum policy that would advantage one particular company over potentially thousands of amateur users, as well as up-and-coming startups and companies.

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski (KM4DDV)

Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

Read our FCC submission here

DYNAMIC PRICING IS FAIR FOR CONSUMERS

The CMA is launching an investigation into Ticketmaster, regarding the sale of Oasis tickets and the use of dynamic pricing in determining ticket prices.

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), argued that the CMA is not right in pursuing this line of investigation, saying “Dynamic pricing is a primary feature of markets, and is the best way to determine the true value of goods, such as Oasis tickets.”

Dynamic pricing is a mechanism whereby the price of a good or service changes depending on demand, commonly used in airline tickets, hotel bookings and happy hour offers. In the music industry, its usage has been on the rise, most notably with Bruce Springsteen, Harry Styles and Coldplay.

Salem added, “The CMA is within its rights to launch an investigation, but concert tickets are in fact luxury goods, not essential items. Dynamic pricing is a perfectly fair mechanism to move concert tickets in sky-high demand.”

Salem also explained that “Ticketmaster is a mere intermediary between event organisers and fans.” The decision to use dynamic pricing goes down to the organisers.

On the point that consumers were put under pressure to buy tickets within a short period of time, Salem said, “Demand was very high for Oasis tickets and it is the industry norm to have tickets in the basket for a limited time before releasing them back on the market. Buying a ticket is a choice, and consumers make choices like these on a daily basis.”

The CCC calls on the CMA to explain which aspects of the ticket sale process by Ticketmaster were considered as “unfair commercial practices.” The Consumer Choice Center will continually defend the right of consumers to make well-informed decisions in the 21st century, including the choice to engage in dynamic markets for live entertainment.

Third-Party Litigation Finance: Chinese Interference with the US Judicial System?

The commodification of lawsuit funding is a somewhat ingenious concept that may indeed help smaller companies win their day in court, but it also opens the door to even more bad faith participation in the justice system.

That’s why this industry needs a second look, and needs some guardrails to ensure consumers don’t end up facing higher prices because every company on the market is tied up in frivolous lawsuits. Americans deserve a legal system that is not only accountable and fair, but transparent.

Those gambling on the outcomes of our judicial system should be able to take the risk, but we deserve to know who they are.

Banning algorithms won’t reduce rents or create more homes

Artificial intelligence may be all the rage in the business world, but to the feds, AI-enabled algorithms are being cast as the main villain behind skyrocketing housing costs in this country.

Last month, the Department of Justice joined the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington to sue RealPage, blaming the software company’s property data services for rising rents nationwide.

According to the complaint, the analytic products offered by RealPage have enabled property owners to unlawfully coordinate and collude to artificially raise rents, undermining competition in the rental market to the detriment of consumers seeking apartments. The government argues that these practices are in violation of the century-old Sherman Antitrust Act.

“As Americans struggle to afford housing, RealPage is making it easier for landlords to coordinate to increase rents,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, a principal player in Washington’s attempted crackdown on tech companies using antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission.

The case hinges on marketing materials from the company, as well as interviews with customers who use the platform to screen potential renters, generate pricing recommendations and facilitate the collection of payments. DOJ asserts that by using nonpublic data, property owners that would normally compete are acting like cartels to raise prices on renters, aided by RealPage’s software.

For the first time in weeks, one could recall that Kamala Harris is vice president of the United States, as she seemed well aware of the coming DOJ lawsuit while on the campaign trail. Running against what looks like a shady corporation is good election-year politics.

Ms. Harris unveiled portions of her housing policy proposals, which aim directly at property management software. That is no coincidence. She intended to back a Democratic Senate bill to “prohibit the use of algorithmic systems to artificially inflate the price or reduce the supply” of rental units.

San Francisco will soon also ban “price-suggesting” algorithmic software for property owners, arguing that these platforms have made living too costly for renters seeking a home. For California to pin its high cost of living on landlord software and not its mountain of rules limiting housing development feels like a “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” moment.

Are algorithms to blame for higher rents? The evidence is scant.

According to the most recent data from the National Association of Realtors, U.S. median rent in July declined year over year for the last 12 months, trailing downward since the 9.1% inflation peak in June 2022. This is likely because of inflation cooling and the resumption of housing construction as the pandemic recedes.

Since then, rents have declined in most Southern and Western metro areas, such as Phoenix, Austin, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee, and buoyed by the growing supply and faster construction of rental properties. Overall, the number of privately owned housing units under construction is hovering at levels not seen since the 1970s, which has helped to reduce rental costs in most parts of the country.

While it is fitting to argue that rental costs are higher for American households, it’s a world of difference to believe that algorithms are the main culprit and that breaking them up would have an impact.

Supply and demand remains as simple and effective a concept as ever. We need to build more housing units and meet demand.

A report this year by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard found that exclusionary zoning policies and slow construction have contributed significantly to the estimated 1 million new dwellings we need to reverse the housing shortage. It’s an outcome we could have easily predicted.

When the price of building and housing materials soared during the pandemic and the subsequent inflation, building became slower and more costly. When restrictive city zoning laws didn’t allow developers to build dense housing units or mixed-use properties, developers put their money elsewhere. When environmental reviews and red tape doomed residential projects, builders stopped building.

Many state and local governments have now adopted innovative policies to speed up the construction of more homes and alleviate high rental prices, slashing regulations and fast-tracking building permits. These concrete actions address the problem, and it almost always happens at the state or local level.

On the other hand, federal prosecutors and presidential candidates would like to use the courts and the law to chase after software tools and blame landlords when they know full well it won’t lower your rent or make more homes appear.

Instead of using our justice system to go after yet another tech firm, our officials would do well to reduce consumer costs by allowing what we know works to lower housing costs: Build, baby, build.

Originally published here

Das sind die besten Bahnhöfe in Europa

Das Consumer Choice Center (CCC) hat seinen fünften Europäischen Bahnhofsindex veröffentlicht. In den Top Ten ist mit Leipzig der einzige Bahnhof in Deutschland gelandet.

Der beste Bahnhof in Europa ist Zürich – wie bereits im vergangenen Jahr, gefolgt von Bern und Utrecht Centraal. Paris Gare du Nord hat einen Sprung auf den vierten Platz gemacht, weitere Pariser Bahnhöfe haben sich ebenfalls verbessert. Dagegen verzeichnen ehemals hochrangige Bahnhöfe wie Wien Meidling und Berlin Hauptbahnhof aufgrund erhöhter Verspätungen und Wartezeiten deutliche Rückgänge. Auch die Auswirkungen von Ereignissen wie Sabotageversuchen während der Olympischen Sommerspiele in Paris und die Überfüllung während der UEFA-Europameisterschaft 2024 haben die Belastung der Bahnsysteme in ganz Europa weiter verdeutlicht. In den britischen Bahnhöfen wurden die meisten Verspätungen verzeichnet, was auf die seit langem bestehenden Probleme mit der Infrastruktur und das daraus resultierende Ungleichgewicht zwischen Angebot und Nachfrage zurückzuführen ist.

Bester deutscher Bahnhof sind der Hauptbahnhof Leipzig auf Platz zehn. Die großen deutschen Hauptbahnhöfe in Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt und München erreichen die Plätze 14, 23, 26 und 27.

Read the full text here

Plummeting Smoking Rates Mean a Paradigm Shift for Nicotine

In every gas station and convenience store, a new category of addictive products is flying off shelves. This new thorn in the side of public health advocates is tobacco nicotine pouches. These pouches are made of wood pulp and salt, filled with nicotine, and flavors placed under the upper lip to give the user a buzzing sensation.

What do we make of this new nicotine rush and what it means for society? As our smoking rate declines to an all-time low of just 11 percent, it means we’re in for a paradigm shift in how we view nicotine. And we should welcome it.

On social media and Wall Street, pouches have become a craze. Politicians like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have deemed them “quiet and dangerous,” asking the FDA to crack down. Health Minister Mark Holland has banned flavored varieties in Canada and restricted their sales to only pharmacies. And nicotine products have become a cultural fixation heralded by GOP members of Congress, broadcaster Tucker Carlson, and the political campaign of Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance.

With people more aware of the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes, adult smokers have begun shifting their addictions to products deemed less risky. Entrepreneurs and tobacco firms have delivered on this trend, but public institutions have been less tactful in response.

Alternative nicotine products like vaping devices, gums and pouches have markedly lower risk than cigarettes. They could help save some of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost to smoking illnesses each year. Despite the scientific evidence in favor of alternative nicotine products, the FDA continues to be outdated and obstinate. The FDA regulates vaping devices and pouches as “tobacco products” — even though they do not contain tobacco.

The FDA’s Premarket Tobacco Product Application restricts sales of these new products, forcing firms to endure a byzantine application and review process that is insurmountable for any small business. Of the nearly 27 million applications, just 34 vaping devices or nicotine alternatives have been authorized, all of which are primarily products of tobacco firms that can afford the compliance costs.

And while perceptions across health and political establishments sour on the utility of these products, and make them less available to adults, they’ve also become captive to outright misinformation.

A 2020 study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine revealed that more than 80 percent of U.S. physicians surveyed wrongly believe that “nicotine causes cancer” rather than smoking itself. According to a recent Gallup survey, 79 percent of Americans believe cigarettes are very harmful, and 57 percent say the same about vaping devices. That number dips to 34 percent for nicotine pouches.

Public health institutions have contributed to these false perceptions, buoyed by a vibrant industry of philanthropists who would prefer to outlaw nicotine altogether. While youth access to nicotine products should continue to be of paramount concern to regulators, we should also recognize that technological innovation has delivered a less harmful way for adults to use nicotine once they’re addicted.

It’s time our institutions reflect this reality.

First, the FDA must communicate to adults the truth about nicotine alternatives to traditional tobacco products. Whether it’s pouches or flavored nicotine vaping devices, the risk of using these products would be significantly lower.

Second, governments should tax lower-risk nicotine products less. Pouches and vaping products should not be taxed the same as cigarettes. If sin taxes are here to stay, they should at least be proportionate and nudge consumers toward less risky products.

This has been the approach of countries such as Sweden, which now boasts some of the lowest smoking-related illness rates in the world.

Third, in the private sector, the health and insurance industries must accept the risk profile of the new generation of nicotine products and recalibrate their plans. Many health and life insurance policies still equate smoking cigarettes with using non-tobacco nicotine products. That practice should change to reflect scientific reality and facts.

Misguided public policy forces adult smokers to choose between an arbitrarily limited number of legal options, many of which are decades-old legacy products, the rampant illicit market for illegal disposable vapes and nicotine pouches, or continuing to smoke cigarettes.

When they do switch, our institutions are set up to continue to punish them with higher taxes and insurance policies. This cannot stand. As our culture updates its perception of nicotine, we should make sure our policies do the same. That is the best way to save lives and lower healthcare costs for most people.

Originally published here

Outdoor pub smoking ban would cause ‘serious economic harm’ to UK hospitality

A possible smoking ban in outdoor spaces of pubs, bars and restaurants in the UK is likely to do more harm than good, leading trade figures have warned.

The ban would make it illegal to smoke in pubs, outdoor restaurants and open-air spaces in nightclubs, according to leaked documents seen by The Sun, in a further effort to create a ‘smoke-free generation.’

However, leisure groups have warned a ban may just lead to relocating smoking elsewhere, such as in the home, rather than reducing smoking, UKHospitality have said.

It could harm Britain’s slowly-recovering hospitality sector, which has suffered in the last few years under lockdown, inflation and soaring energy prices due to the cost of living crisis and Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The leaked report comes after Labour has said it will reinstate Rishi Sunak’s smoking bill, which will see those born after 2008 unable to buy cigarettes.

Mike Salem, the UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) added: “Smoking areas provide an opportunity for smokers to distance themselves from children and other non-smokers, thus controlling their externalities.

“Abolishing these areas will not deter smoking, but encourage people back to smoking in front of non-smokers indoors and break the law, which renders it ineffective and goes against creating a smoke-free generation.”

Salem further called on the government to urgently deny these proposed measures or to provide evidence for the rationale behind them. “It is important that public health measures, particularly on smoking and vaping, be driven by facts and evidence, and not polls and anecdotes.”

“We call on the government to exercise restraint and scrap these unscientific measures,” he said.

Read the full text here

Swiss train stations best in Europe

Switzerland’s rail network is lauded all over the world – but now are its train stations.

The latest survey from the Consumer Choice Center has voted Zurich Main Station as the best in Europe and Bern into second place.

Researchers say they looked at the chances of the station becoming over crowded, convenient opening hours. The number of ticket booths and machines as well as accessibility.

The survey looked at the 50 busiest stations in Europe.

Coming in at number 50 was Berlin Ostkreuz.

Read the full text here

Month: September 2024