Monthly Archives: February 2021

The Trial of the Chicago 7 director Aaron Sorkin and the films cast will receive the Vanguard Award from the Palm Springs International Film Awards.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a thrilling court-room drama that chronicles the highlights of the historic trial that sought to punish activists for inciting riots outside of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Harold Matzner, the festival chairman, said. Writer and director Aaron Sorkin has created a thought-provoking film featuring outstanding performances from a powerhouse cast that includes Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Sacha Baron Cohen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Keaton, Frank Langella, Eddie Redmayne, Mark Rylance, Jeremy Strong and more.

Past recipients of the ensemble award include Academy Award winners for best picture, such as Peter Farrellys Green Book and Guillermo del Toros The Shape of Water. The Vanguard Award is a group honor distinguishing a films cast and director in recognition of their work on a superb film project.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 joins this years previously announced honorees Riz Ahmed (Desert Palm Achievement Award, Actor), Carey Mulligan (International Star Award), Gary Oldman (Chairmans Award) and Chlo Zhao (Director of the Year Award).

The drama follows the fallout and the infamous trial after what was intended to be a peaceful protest at the 1968 Democratic National Convention turned into a violent clash with police and the National Guard.

Though the Palm Springs Film Festival and gala ceremony will not return until 2022, the festival will honor excellence in film this year at a tribute airing on Entertainment Tonight Feb. 11 and Feb. 25. The festival also plans to move ahead with the Palm Springs ShortFest in June.

Follow this link:

The Trial of the Chicago 7 Honored by Palm Springs International Film Awards (EXCLUSIVE) - Variety

At the time of its passage, many in the retirement industry were concerned that the CARES Act would open the floodgates to a large percentage of workers cashing out years of retirement savings.

Fortunately, that did not happen, according to an analysis by Vanguard of its DC recordkeeping data.

Incorporated within the wide-ranging CARES Act relief package were several provisions that provided flexibility for retirement savers, including Coronavirus-related distributions (CRDs), allowing individuals affected by the Coronavirus to withdraw up to $100,000 from their retirement plan penalty-free until Dec. 30, 2020. Additional relief came in the form of allowing the income tax due on these distributions to be spread over a three-year period, as well as providing investors three years to return the funds to their account.

The Vanguard analysis shows that a modest portion of workers did access their retirement savings in 2020, but that the vast majority of participants remained steadfast on their retirement journey.

As for the option of permitting CRDs throughout 2020, 73% of Vanguards plan sponsor clients permitted their participants to access retirement funds if needed. Of the participants offered the option to withdraw assets, only 5.7% accessed a portion of their savings. And of those who initiated a withdrawal, 69% took one distribution, while 31% initiated multiple distributions over the nine months.

According to the firms data, the average distribution was $15,700 and the median was $6,500. However, since nearly one-third of participants who initiated a withdrawal took multiple distributions, the average participant distribution was approximately $24,600, with a median of $13,300.

And while those are not insignificant amounts, nearly one in four participant distributions were for less than $5,000 and 60% of all withdrawals were for less than $20,000. Vanguard also reports that withdrawals of more than $30,000 were less common, and only 4% of participants who initiated a CRD withdrew the maximum amount of $100,000.

Diving Deeper

On a less positive note, it appears that many of those who initiated withdrawals already had relatively low balances to begin with. When examining the distribution amounts based on the percentage of a participants balance, Vanguard found that the average distribution represented 55% of a participants total balance. About one in four distributions were for nearly all or 100% of the account balance, while one-half of withdrawals were for less than 50% of their balance.

Not surprisingly, participant adoption rates also varied by demographics. According to the data, participants between the ages of 35 and 54 were the most likely to initiate a CRD, while younger and older participants were less likely. Participants with an income between $30,000 and $75,000 were also more likely to request a CRD, while participants with a lower or higher income were less likely.

Visit our Coronavirus resource center!

Plan Design

Interestingly, when segmenting the participants by plan design, Vanguard found that 6.4% of participants in automatic enrollment plans initiated a CRD, compared with 4.5% in voluntary enrollment plans.

With automatic enrollment being a proven plan design feature that improves employee saving and investment behaviors, it may have also provided participants with an additional last-resort emergency resource. Vanguard notes that, while a small fraction have accessed their retirement savings, those participants, who may have faced a financial shock, are better off than those who did not have any retirement savings cushion during this period.

The Impact

As one might expect, participants who accessed their retirement assets early may experience a shortfall upon reaching retirement. The report offers a hypothetical illustration based on the median participant distribution amount of $13,300, the median age of 42, and the median income of about $61,400. Assuming a real investment return of 4%, the median participant distribution would grow to approximately $35,000 over the next 25 years. For the typical participant, this return would represent the future financial impact at retirement, Vanguard notes.

As affected participants consider how to close this shortfall, the amount by which they may need to increase their savings depends on various factors, such as distribution amount, time until retirement, and earnings, the report explains. Based on the median amounts, Vanguard notes that many of them could cover this potential shortfall simply by increasing their deferral rate by one percentage point when their financial situation improves.

In addition, highlighting the power of smart plan design, the firm suggests that plan sponsors should consider leveraging various types of automatic solutionssuch as automatic annual increases and undersaver sweepsto help participants.

Original post:

How Much Did the CARES Act Impact Retirement Savings? - National Association of Plan Advisors

A Facebook post suggesting that pharmaceutical companies, global investment groups and billionaire philanthropists conspired to bring about the COVID-19 pandemic has been shared online.

Reuters Fact Check. REUTERS

The post claims there are links between the organisations and invites readers to consider that they are proof of a conspiracy. It ends with the sentence: Now you understand how a dead bat sold in a wet market in China infected the ENTIRE PLANET (here, here, here, here).

Many of the claims have appeared in similar posts debunked by Reuters (here) and other fact checkers (here and here) in December 2020.

The claims can be roughly split into two themes, the first focussing on the pandemics origins in Wuhan and the second highlighting spurious links between global organisations.

The Wuhan laboratory

The virus started in the biological laboratory in Wuhan

No evidence. Unverified theories have suggested the virus that causes COVID-19 was synthesised by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (here). However, at the time of publication, the majority of virologists and infectious disease experts say the new virus most likely evolved naturally. A more extensive Reuters report examining origins of COVID-19 can be read here .

Winterthur built the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan

False. Winterthur is a Swiss insurance company bought by AXA, a French insurance company, in 2006 (here). It is not a construction company and there is nothing to link it to the building of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was originally founded in 1956 as a Chinese national institution (here).

The Chinese biological laboratory in Wuhan is funded by Glaxosmithkline

False. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not funded by the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The institute is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) (here), which is governed by the State Council of the Peoples Republic of China (here). In 2019, a CAS member wrote an open letter (here) maintaining that the academys funding was split equally between the Chinese government and competitive funding or technology transfer. The Institutes partners are listed on its website (here).

The biological laboratory in Wuhan was funded by Dr. Fauci

Misleading. Anthony Fauci has been Director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 (here). The NIAID is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the US health department (here).

The NIH confirmed to Reuters by email that it granted $3.4million to the non-profit organisation EcoHealth Alliance Inc over 6 years to fund research into understanding bat coronavirus emergence. The non-profit then awarded that money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, alongside East China Normal University (Shanghai), the Institute of Pathogen Biology (Beijing), and Duke-NUS Medical School (Singapore).

US government websites show that the Wuhan institute received $814,608 between 2015 and 2019 (here, switch from Prime Awards to Sub-Awards in the upper right corner). A spokesperson added that the grant to EcoHealth Alliance was terminated on April 24, 2020 and reinstated on July 8, 2020.

A decision by the Trump administration to cut EcoHealth Alliance funding was reported by Politico in April after obtaining emails between EcoHealth Alliance and the NIH (here).

The NIH website shows that the reinstated budget will run until June 2021 (here), but EcoHealth Alliance wrote in August that the NIH had imposed impossible and irrelevant conditions that will effectively block us from continuing this critical work.

It is not just the US government that funds the Wuhan institute: the European Union stated on Jan. 26, 2021 that it had awarded grants to the laboratory since 2015. It added that the institute: delivered the first SARS-Cov2 genome sequence, which enabled partners of the European Virus Archive to design the widely used polymerase chain reaction ( PCR) diagnostic test for COVID-19 (here).

Pharmaceutical companies, investment groups and philanthropists

Pfizer

Glaxosmithkline own Pfizer!

False. While GSK has embarked on joint ventures with Pfizer, the two are separate companies (here and here). In fact, Pfizer does not have one owner, but is owned by members of the public and a range of institutions, with the top shareholder being the Vanguard Group (here)

Bill Gates is a shareholder of Pfizer

True, at the time of publication. As outlined above, Pfizer has many shareholders. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has owned Pfizer stocks since 2002 (here here) and a 2019 tax return from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust lists Pfizer among its corporate investments (here , see see Foundation Trust annual tax return 2019). The foundation has also provided research grants to the company (here).

BlackRock

GlaxoSmithKline is managed by Black Rock finances

Misleading. BlackRock, the worlds largest asset management firm, owns 7.5% of GSK (fintel.io/so/us/gsk/blackrock) at the time of publication and is their largest shareholder (here). This does not mean GSK is managed by BlackRock, as GSK has 1553 institutional owners and shareholders (fintel.io/so/us/gsk).

Black Rock is also a major share-holder of MICROSOFT, the property of Bill Gates

Misleading. BlackRock is the second largest shareholder of Microsoft at the time of publication (here) but Microsoft is not property of Bill Gates. In 2014, media outlets reported that Gates was eclipsed as Microsofts largest individual shareholder by the companys other former CEO, Steve Ballmer (here).

When Gates stepped down from Microsofts board in 2020, news reports said he owned 1.3% of the companys shares (here and here).

Vanguard is a shareholder of Black Rock

True. Vanguard, another global investment company, is the top shareholder of BlackRock at the time of publication (here).

Black Rock controls the central banks

False. The US central bank hired BlackRock in March 2020 to manage commercial mortgage-backed securities in an effort to shore up the economy (here). This means BlackRock assists the Federal Reserve, it does not control it.

George Soros and Winterthur

Black Rock manage the finances of the Open Foundation Company (SorosFoundation)

False. Open Society Foundations is the worlds largest private funder of charities and non-governmental organisation (here) owned and funded by billionaire George Soros (here). The foundation has no connection to BlackRock.

Soros Fund Management, however, is an investment fund run by Soros that had shares in BlackRock (here), but sold them in 2020 (here).

The SorosFoundation serves the French AXA

False. There is no evidence of a connection between Open Society Foundations and the French insurance company AXA (here). However, financial research website Fintel recorded last year that Soros Fund Management disclosed ownership of more than 450,000 shares of AXA Equitable Holdings (here), a US-based company (here) partially owned by French AXA (here).

Soros owns the German company Winterthur

False. Winterthur is a Swiss insurer (here) bought by AXA in 2006 (here).

Winterthur was built by the German Allianz

False. Winterthur and Allianz are both insurance companies, but the only connection between them is the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance (ICHEIC), a non-profit association founded in 1998 by US insurance regulators and representatives of Israel to settle outstanding life insurance policies from the Nazi era.

The ICHEICs website states that negotiations led to settlements with AXA of France and Winterthur of Switzerland (here) and Allianzs website says that the German industry accepted responsibility for the involvement of German companies during the Nazi regime (here). This connection may explain why Allianz, AXA and Winterthur are mentioned in this social media post.

Vanguard is a shareholder of German Allianz

True. Vanguard is the second largest shareholder of Allianz (here).

False. This post claims to reveal links between the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, pharmaceutical companies involved in COVID-19 vaccine research, global investment groups and billionaire philanthropists George Soros and Bill Gates. It implies these connections, many of which are fabricated or misleading, are evidence that the pandemic was deliberately orchestrated. There is no evidence to support this, nor that the virus was created in a laboratory.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .

Excerpt from:

Fact check: The COVID-19 pandemic was not orchestrated by pharmaceutical companies, investment groups and philanthropists - Reuters

Dr Leonard P, a Delaware-based facial plastic surgeon, was shocked to discover a scathing 1-star Google review from a patient he had operated on 6 months earlier.

" Terrible Doctor!

Choosing Dr P for my nose job a few months ago was the biggest mistake I ever made in my entire life. My nose is RUINED and my sister says it looks like someone punched me in the face. I went to the doctor's office. I was literally crying. I told him I hated how I looked but the doctor said he couldn't do anything for me. Run, don't walk, in the other direction!"

"Negative reviews go with the territory, and I usually take them in stride, but I was stunned by this one," said Dr P. "I recognized who the patient was, and I knew she had been happy with the results of the rhinoplasty."

Then Dr P realized what went wrong. "She had begun to inundate me with messages through the patient portal, long after she had healed. Some seemed far-fetched and even flirtatious. I eventually stopped responding. This quickly turned to deep and inconsolable dissatisfaction, despite an excellent outcome, and she wrote this review."

Jeff Segal MD, JD, founder and CEO of Medical Justice, a Greensboro, North Carolinabased company that helps physicians manage their online reputations, worked with Dr P to turn the situation around. Segal suggested a way to mitigate the ill effects of the online attack and to actually use them to his benefit. Dr P described Segal's approach as "turning lemons into lemonade."

According to Segal, the new approach to dealing with bad online reviews is to "see them as an inexpensive form of 'marketing,' if handled correctly." Segal said. "A carefully crafted online response can enhance your image."

Online reviews of physicians have been around for close to 15 years, and their use and centrality have been dramatically increasing. A 2020 survey of over 16,000 US adults showed that in choosing a physician, patients are using search engines and patient reviews twice as much as traditional referrals and that the use of referrals declined by 44% in the previous year. Another survey of over 1000 patients found that almost three quarters used online reviews as their first step in finding a physician, and 43% said they would even go out of their insurance network for a provider who had favorable reviews.

"If we go back a decade, relatively few doctors had any online reviews, but today's patients are more comfortable writing reviews, so the number of reviews of a single doctor have proliferated," Segal said.

Although most physicians resent the review process, many have become resigned to it and regard negative reviews as an "unpleasant fact of life in this day and age," Segal said.

But physicians don't need to dread negative reviews as much as they used to, says Segal. "Doctors are beginning to understand that if you take care of 2000 patients each year, you won't make everyone happy, so no doctor needs to freak out about an occasional negative review. It's not the 'death knell' it used to be."

Some doctors are even beginning to wonder whether there may be a silver lining behind the cloud of negative reviews. Segal thinks there is and that even negative reviews can be leveraged to improve online image and shore up one's practice.

For starters, "negative reviews aren't all bad," Segal said. On the contrary, if the negative reviews are rare, "they make physicians look more trustworthy and believable. If there are hundreds of glowing 5-star reviews, patients begin to get suspicious and wonder if the reviews are fake."

No response should contain information that might violate HIPAA regulations. "Never make any statement acknowledging that the reviewer is your patient, and always use generic terminology to refer to the concerns raised in the review, so the patient's identity will not be apparent," Segal advised. Nor should specific billing information be posted online, although general billing policies can be posted.

Brad Bowman, MD, chief medical officer of Healthgrades, agreed that a negative review is an "opportunity to put out a positive message," but this can happen only if the patient does not feel dismissed or contradicted.

To that end, he warned against "canned cut-and-paste responses, because that will be offensive and feel dismissive to patients."

Additionally, "the worst thing you can do is to debate facts and make your response a truth-finding mission to prove the reviewer wrong," Bowman said.

Don't adopt an adversarial tone. Instead, "respond in a caring and empathetic way that acknowledges the reviewer's feelings and frustration and conveys the message that their experience is important to you," said Bowman.

Because crafting responses can be onerous, it might be helpful for physicians to have a staff member, such as an office manager, take on the task and serve as the "point person" for patients to contact with their feedback.

As upsetting as it is to receive a negative review, the feedback can also highlight areas that need improvement.

Lawrence F, a California-based internist, is an example of a physician who used negative reviews as constructive criticism. "I was called on the carpet by my hospital administration for getting too many 3-star ratings, most focusing on poor communication and bedside manner," he said.

Although the experience was jarring, Dr F realized the feedback was also valuable. "I took it to heart, and once I had learned to communicate more clearly and compassionately, my reviews improved," he said.

The pressure to please patients and generate positive reviews is a double-edged sword that can potentially compromise good medical care if a patient insists on a particular treatment or procedure, Dr F pointed out. Such problems can also be mitigated by better communication.

"I address the review issue head-on," Dr F said. "For example, I'll explain why antibiotics are contraindicated for the common cold, and if the patient remains adamant in demanding an antibiotic, I'll say, 'I'm sorry you're upset with my decision. I want my patients to be happy with the care I provide. But I'm even willing to risk getting a bad review because my first commitment is to your health.' Patients have been very responsive, and my ratings remain high."

"If you know who the reviewer is, the first step is to speak to him or her offline to see how the problem might be resolved," Segal said.

Bowman encouraged physicians not to respond in the heat of the moment but to "just wait, think, step back, and acknowledge your anger, emotions, and hurt feelings. Then organize your thoughts and appreciate some of the 'up sides' that your response might convey."

But don't wait too long, Bowman cautioned. He noted that a delayed response allows more prospective patients to read the review. Ideally, it is best to respond within 24 hours.

Taking responsibility for any errors is the first step to resolving the issue, according to Michael Sacopulos, JD, CEO of Medical Risk Institute and partner with Sacopulos, Johnson & Sacopulos, in Terre Haute, Indiana. Patients tend to view apologies positively and are willing to go back to a provider who honestly acknowledges an error and seeks to rectify it.

Experts disagree, however, on whether to ask patients to take down the review once the matter has been resolved.

"If the patient feels the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction, you can request not demand, but request that they take down the review. If you couch it that way, and people have felt heard, they will likely reciprocate and remove the review," Segal said.

By contrast, Ron Harman King, MS, CEO of Vanguard Communications, a reputation management company designed to grow medical practices and increase online ratings, discourages physicians from asking patients to remove the review. Rather, "be an open listener, and by being receptive to the patient's input and attempting to address complaints as much as possible offline, in many cases if not most the patient will remove the review themselves and may even say the practice was great and called me to resolve my complaint."

According to Segal, responses should consist of three components.

Acknowledge and validate the patient's concerns and express empathy.

We are distressed if any of our patients experience prolonged pain following surgery. Our patients' health and comfort are our no. 1 concern.

We respect our patients' time and life commitments and know that a long wait is a major inconvenience.

Explain why the problem might have taken place, which is an opportunity to highlight the positive features of your practice.

We take pride in the clinical expertise of our board-certified orthopedic surgeons. Studies show that a quarter of patients might continue to feel pain for extended times following knee replacement, and the percentage of prolonged pain our patients report is considerably lower.

We try to maintain a high level of punctuality, but sometimes a physician is unexpectedly delayed, owing to an emergency involving another patient. In urgent situations, all of our patients receive the same level of attentive care and prioritization.

Describe how the problem is being addressed.

We encourage patients to follow up with us if they experience pain. Some patients may be candidates for further interventions, such as newer minimally invasive procedures.

We are instituting a system where we will text patients if we anticipate a wait time of longer than 15 minutes.

Dr P contacted the disgruntled reviewer offline. He explained why he had not responded to her messages and offered to perform a revision surgery without a fee or to provide a refund of the first surgery, in hopes that she would agree to take down the review. She declined.

He then posted a response.

We are unable offer detailed comments because of patient confidentiality issues, but I can speak generally about the concerns raised in this review.

We are dedicated to the well-being and satisfaction of our patients. While the vast majority are pleased with their appearance following our procedures, on rare occasions, a patient might not be happy with the result. In these unusual circumstances, our policy is to waive our fee and offer a revision procedure to demonstrate our commitment to our patients' happiness. We counsel all recipients of rhinoplasty to be patient following the procedure. The final result will not be apparent during the first months because the healing process takes up to a year, and sometimes longer in certain patients.

Dr P said highlighting the positives of his practice was beneficial. Additionally, "since the majority of our patients are thrilled with their rhinoplasties, subsequent positive reviews from others served to dilute her vitriol, which eventually became old news."

The online review climate, like everything else, has been affected by COVID-19.

"From about mid-March through May/early June 2020, we noticed that the number of online reviews dropped dramatically," King said. "We can speculate why, but my best guess is that a lot of practices were closed, so people were not seeing the doctor as often or reviewing medical practices as much."

Practices began reopening in June, and reviews picked up and have been "growing ever since" in fact, there has been a higher number in the last quarter of 2020, King said.

"Not only were there more reviews, but they were more critical," he said. He offered several "speculative theories" as to why this might be the case.

"Practices might have been hindered by the COVID-19 restrictions and procedures," he suggested, and "people may also be grumpy from social isolation and unemployment and everything else that goes along with the pandemic and they're spending more time at home or working remotely at their computers, giving them more time to write online reviews."

Interestingly, there have been fewer complaints about telemedicine than about in-office encounters with providers and staff, King noted.

Segal suggested featuring COVID-19 procedures and protections on the practice's website and on online rating sites. "Proactively address issues such as longer wait times caused by limiting the number of patients due to optimal virus-related safety measures," he said. Also, indicate what other measures are being taken to keep patients safe, such as providing face masks and hand sanitizers and texting patients when it is their turn so as to minimize in-office wait times.

Additionally, Segal recommended empathizing with patients about how challenging the pandemic can be and how the practice is trying to meet the new needs with flexibility and a blend of telemedicine and in-person visits.

"Most negative online reviews are typically a result of mismanaged expectations," Segal said. These include misunderstandings about finances or billing, whether the patient understood potential risks or complications of a procedure or treatment, or misunderstandings about the process, such as recovery time.

King concurred. He cited a national internet survey of close to 35,000 reviews conducted by Vanguard that encompassed all specialties and hospitals. It found that customer service was the most common cause of negative online reviews.

"Too many doctors think of themselves as 'scientists for hire,' but I would encourage them to think of themselves as caregivers. Yes, patients want medical science, but they want it enveloped in an atmosphere of receptive, open, two-way communication," King said.

Every aspect of the patient's experience should reflect a welcoming environment, from parking to punctuality to cleanliness of the facilities to the behavior of the administrators, billing personnel, receptionists, and medical assistants.

According to the Vanguard survey, the no. 1 driver of negative reviews was poor communication, with over 53% of 1- and 2-star reviews related to calls that were not returned, portal questions not addressed, or logistical problems (such as problems involving scheduling and parking).

The better the communication and the more respected a patient feels, the better the chances of a positive review. Of the laudatory reviews analyzed in the Vanguard study, 40% were related to bedside manner, and 24% were related to communication.

King called communication a "team sport" that begins with the patient's very first phone call. "Getting an automated 'phone tree' when you call or having a receptionist answer the phone saying, 'Dr Smith's office, please hold,' is off-putting to patients."

Bowman reported that an analysis of close to 85 million medical provider reviews conducted in 2020 by Healthgrades and the Medical Group Management Association found that 59% of negative reviews mentioned communication and that 43% mentioned negative experiences with practice staff.

"Physicians, especially those in private practice, should realize they are the head of an organization with a certain culture. How their representatives behave is ultimately their responsibility, and their ratings will reflect that," King said.

One thing is clear: online reviews are here to stay, and their use continues to expand, according to Sacopulos, who is the coauthor of Tweets, Likes, and Liabilities: Online and Electronic Risks to the Healthcare Professional (Greenbranch Publishing, 2018).

"Online reputation encompasses far more than attracting and keeping patients, also impacting credentialing and employment. Online reviews are becoming increasingly of interest to malpractice carriers," said Sacopulos, who is also general counsel at medical justice. "Physicians need to keep pace with the rapidly changing review landscape and take charge of their online presence."

King agreed. "You'll always have dissatisfied customers, so you need to live with the reality that someone will complain about you publicly. You can't control or eliminate that. The name of the game is getting, for every complaint, 10 or more reviews singing your praises."

Bowman added that he hopes medical schools will begin to include education about online reviews and similar topics related to digital technology in their curriculum.

For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Excerpt from:

Trashed on the Internet? The Newer Way to Deal With It - Medscape