The 10 Best-Paying College Majors - And Why Business Isn't One Of Them

NACE ranks the college majors where students graduate to enjoy the highest starting salaries in the country. The 2012 list sheds new light on what employers are willing to cough up for the most in-demand employees: the tech-savvy engineers startups and blue-chips need to jump-start innovation.

When I recently looked into the skill-sets that startup employers were most looking for in candidates, one thing was clear: engineering chops are by and large the holy grail of small businesses from Silicon Valley to New York’s entrepreneurial Alleys.

But new evidence shows that it isn’t just startups that are clamoring for tech-talent. As more employers scramble to ramp up innovation, a STEM degree could be the fast-track to financial and professional success every new grad is dreaming of.

Not only are computer scientists and computer engineers the most sought after candidates on the market but–fittingly, understandably–they’re among the highest paid entry level hires that we know of—at least according to the latest research from the National Association of College Employers (NACE) which recently published its latest report of the highest-paying college majors and my colleague Susan Adams covered yesterday.

Given the race for innovation—both in the startup economy and in the big businesses looking to compete with them—it’s no wonder that nine out of the 10 listed degrees are in technology. At the top end of the spectrum, computer engineering majors earn an average of $70,400 upon graduation, trailed by chemical engineers at $66,400 and computer scientists at $64,400.

“This is not surprising since the supply of these graduates is low, but the demand for them is so high,” said NACE executive director Marilyn Mackes, pretty much echoing the sentiments of Elli Sharef, the tech recruiter who weighed in on marketable startup skills last week. They’re both spot-on. Employment, like anything is a supply-and-demand marketplace. A general rule is this: the higher the number of new grads with a given degree, the lower the starting salary. Liberal arts majors, take note.

The struggle to find the talent needed to innovate continues to be a pain point for entrepreneurs and business leaders. At a recent Wharton San Francisco event with the Churchill Club, a Silicon Valley tech and business forum, whether technology will power the next job boom dominated conversation, particularly focusing on the growing gap between the number of college graduates and the number of jobs available. In short, while the unfortunate truth for graduates is that the jobs shortage is going to make finding a well-paying job even harder in the coming years, for STEM graduates opportunity abounds. STEM-related jobs are growing 60% faster than other fields.

Even better news, because the number of graduates  can’t keep up with the clamoring demand in the country’s tech hubs, salaries are being driven ever-upwards. Computer science and engineering majors both saw a nearly 4% increase in starting salaries in the past year, underscoring the demand for their skill-sets.

And the news gets even better in the nation’s tech hubs. Case in point: while the average starting salary for a computer science major is $64,400 according to the NACE report, reports on sites like Glassdoor.com show entry-level software engineers on Google’s Mountain View campus earning more—much more: $113,000 at last glance.

To identify the most profitable majors, NACE uses actual starting salaries from over 400,000 U.S. employers and measures an average starting salary for members of the graduating class of 2012 at $44,455, a 3.4% increase from starting salaries in 2011. Among the broad categories of majors, education (5.4%), business (4.2%), and communications (4.1%) experienced the largest increases to their average starting salaries, but for the first time the report looks at specific degree types to better pinpoint the robust demand for tech candidates.

Source: Forbes.com

The High Price of Being Single in America

Over a lifetime, unmarried women can pay as much as a million dollars more than their married counterparts for healthcare, taxes, and more. 

In October 2009, New York Times reporters Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber compared a hypothetical married couple with an equivalent-earning unmarried gay couple, to see just how much difference those extra privileges made. Here's what they found:

In our worst case, the couple's lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

This is unfair. The solution? Bernard and Lieber argue that "the federal government [should legalize] same-sex marriage." But in fact, legalizing gay marriage only solves the problem for a few. Many more single people (gay and straight)—more than half of the population—continue to suffer from institutionalized singlism, the discrimination of individuals based on marital status.

U.S. Federal Code Title 5 Part III says: The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit... discrimination because of marital status. Yet more than 1,000 laws provide overt legal or financial benefits to married couples. Marital privileging marginalizes the 50 percent of Americans who are single. The U.S. government is the main perpetrator, but private companies follow its lead. Thus marital privilege pervades nearly every facet of our lives. Insurance policies—ranging from health, to life, to home, to car—cost more, on average, for unmarried people compared to those who are married. It is not a federal crime for landlords to discriminate against potential renters based on their marital status. And so on.

One reason these policies exist is to encourage people to get married, because being married was—and still is—considered a social good. Some have suggested that marriage makes people healthier and happier, but critics such as Dr. Bella DePaulo have pointed out that most studies show that, in the long term, there is little to no difference between married and single people in terms of health, happiness, or personal responsibility. Additionally, these studies are often poorly designed, consider data sets that are not representative of the general population, or fail to consider alternative hypotheses—for example, people who are already happy might be more likely to become married, or happiness might come from having close interpersonal relationships, which may or may not include a spouse. Whatever the truth might be about marriage's effects, we the authors would like to redraw the lines of discussion and argue that policy-makers need to reject policies that take into consideration an individual's marital status, because such policies are discriminatory.

We decided to determine a person's lifetime cost of being single by paralleling Bernard and Lieber's general approach. So, blissfully unaware of the morass of math awaiting us, we created four characters living in Virginia: two single women and two married women of equivalent means. The single women made $40,000 and $80,000, as did their married counterparts. The two salaries represent relatively middle and high-income levels in Virginia, where 2011 per capita income was $44,700 statewide. So far, so good. Then we broke out the calculator.

Our married women's husbands worked too, earning $51,000 and $103,000 respectively. (The husbands' salaries to reflect the fact that a woman earns 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, although this is the median rate for all women and in fact black and Hispanic women are paid even less.) We assumed the married women filed jointly with their husbands (generally more advantageous than filing separately). We imagined that our characters worked in Virginia from ages 26 to 66 and then lived for another 20 years after retirement. We chose to examine one year in their lives and extrapolate the lifetime impact from their finances for that particular year.

We quickly realized that our experiment could not be comprehensive. Had we looked more closely at a longer time period, we might have seen some fluctuations. Because we didn't have the resources to run 900 income tax returns over 50 years, as Bernard and Lieber did, we left out many complicating factors of the single-versus-married filing-status dynamic. We did not factor in the differences between a married woman with a working husband and a married woman with a stay-at-home husband. Nor did we consider the high probability that our characters would change or lose jobs several times, and/or receive pay increases throughout their lifetimes. And we didn't consider the expenses of children (though for the record single women bear more of a financial burden of raising children, compared to married women). We did not address the high likelihood that our married women would get a divorce or outlive their husbands. A comparison of single versus married men would also likely return different results.

So, what did we examine? The primary areas where government and corporate policies have institutionalized discrimination against single people: income taxes, Social Security, and IRAs. We also looked at discrimination that is not officially institutionalized: housing and health spending. Singles have little choice but to expend more in these areas out of practical necessity.

Here's the breakdown:

Income Taxes

Normally, married couples can save thousands of dollars just by filing jointly instead of separately. Those thousands are largely the direct result of federal and state laws that privilege married people.

First, we wondered how much our characters would spend in one year in income taxes. We figured this out with the help of a tax professional, who focused on the taxes the women paid during their working careers.

In 2010, our single woman earning $40,000 paid $6,181. Her married peer paid more than a thousand dollars less: $5,162. The contrast became more dramatic as our subjects' incomes increased: our single woman earning $80,000 paid $16,125, whereas her married counterpart paid almost four thousand dollars less per year. (The numbers for 2011 were similar: our marrieds paid $963 and $3,875 less.)

Here are the numbers extrapolated from income hypothetically earned over 40 years, based on the 2011 rates:

Our single woman earning $40,000 per year paid $245,000 in income taxes. Our married woman earning $40,000 paid $206,000 in income taxes—a difference of $39,000.
Our single woman earning $80,000 per year paid $645,000 in income taxes. Our married woman earning $80,000 paid $490,000 in income taxes—a difference of $155,000.

At this point in our calculations, we each wanted to run out and get a husband, STAT. And the buttons on our calculator weren't even warm yet. 

Social Security

Perhaps the most pervasive myth about unmarried people is that no one will care for them as they age. This fear is both ridiculous, and not. We ourselves feel it sometimes, even though we know that having a spouse and/or kids is no guarantee you'll die in satin sheets with the ocean breeze blowing through your window as muscular half-clothed but fully oiled young men fan your greying cheeks with palm fronds and place peanut butter cups between your lips (we will not say which of us has this particular fantasy). But being married does in many ways make planning and saving for the future easier—simply because society provides more such options for married couples. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Social Security.

Social Security started in the 1930s and evolved partly as a way to support child-rearing women who couldn't work (which at the time was about 85 percent of women). They received benefits through their husbands. Today, women can of course hold jobs and put money into Social Security. Upon retirement, married women can claim their own Social Security or their husbands'. But they are subsidized in large part by single people. The original rationale for this policy was the belief that single men would marry eventually and then recoup the benefits of Social Security at that time. But the repercussions of this reasoning impact singles to this day.

If a single person dies without children, her money will—must—go into the system to be provided to whomever needs it most, which is good because that was the original intent of Social Security. However, if a married person dies, the money can be routed back to her family. This is good for the married person, but fails to account for the important people in singles' lives.

Social Security privileges marrieds in many ways. For example, our hypothetical married woman could receive up to 50 percent of her husband's benefits while her husband is alive. Spouses can also receive 100 percent of their dead spouse's benefits, if the deceased's benefits are higher than the recipient's would have been.

But wait, there's more! For married couples, the federal government throws in this handy dual-claim option: When our married woman reaches retirement age, she can claim Social Security as a spouse and then later as a worker. For example, she could sign up for spousal benefits at age 66 and then wait four years before claiming her own benefits, because by delaying she accrues credits which increase her benefits by a certain percentage (depending on her date of birth).

With these benefits in mind, and stiff drinks in our hands, we calculated and recalculated—in today's dollars—how much more Social Security our married woman received than our single woman. We used the Social Security Administration's online calculator to estimate benefits for our two women, assuming they were both born in 1974 and that they retired at age 66 or 70 and lived until 86. We assumed their spouses were the same age and also retired at ages 66 or 70. Below are just some of the many permutations that resulted in relatively large sums of money for marrieds, at the expense of unmarrieds:

If both women earning $40,000 retire at age 66, they will collect $333,600 if we assume our characters live for twenty years after retirement. If our characters both retire at 70, they would each collect $357,504 over the next 16 years.
If they retire four years later, both our women earning $40,000 can collect an additional $23,904. But suppose during those additional years, our married woman takes her option to collect on her (now retired) husband's Social Security (in addition to her own income). Because her husband has earned $51,000 per year for the last 40 years, his wife would receive $39,768 for those four years, which is half of his Social Security (and doesn't diminish the amount he receives). That's $39,768 that our single woman did not have the option of receiving from a loved one.
If our women earning $80,000 retire at 66, they will receive $496,080 over the next twenty years. If they can hold out on retiring for another four years, they will get $528,960 over the next 16 years.
But again, our married woman earning $80,000 can defer retirement between ages 66 and 70 and earn an extra $55,896 in addition to her own income, simply by also collecting her husband's Social Security.

That's a lot of money the government (and single contributors to Social Security) gives to people for saying "I do." But perhaps nothing illustrates the power of marital privilege more than this: unmarried people can ride on another person's Social Security benefits if they were previously married to that person for at least ten years and are 62 and not entitled to Social Security based on their own work history.

If marriage benefits can be flexed based on the nature of the marital relationship, logic dictates that they might also be adapted to include relationships outside the marital sphere. Both of us can think of someone whom we might want to help support via our Social Security earnings. 

IRAs

Single people can designate anyone as an IRA beneficiary or an inheritor of property—or be the beneficiary him/herself. Sounds like great news, right? Not once you compare unmarried people with their married counterparts. Married couples enjoy privileges related to IRAs and property taxes that are unavailable to singles.

First, a married couple can put two people on an IRA while a single person can't; this puts the single in a disadvantaged position. For example, a married person (such as our married women) can put away $5,000 for her spouse (the husband) for every year when the husband is not working. In contrast, a single person can't put away that money in support of someone else, nor can someone else put away money for the single person if the single person is unemployed and not contributing to her own IRA.

Second, spouses can withdraw money from an IRA early, for medical or education expenses, without the usual 10-percent penalty (if those expenses are greater than the IRA-holder's adjusted gross income by 7.5 percent). While it's never ideal to withdraw money from an IRA early, single people overburdened by unplanned medical expenses will lose 10 percent of the withdrawal amount even if the expenses are high. In other words, single people are penalized when they make the same choices as their married counterparts.

Just as married people can inherit a spouse's IRA, single people can also inherit IRAs, even from someone who's not a relative. Once again, however, married people enjoy significant privileges when they inherit the IRA: If the spouse died before 70 1/2 years of age, and if the surviving spouse is under 59 1/2, he/she can defer the required minimum distribution (RMD) until the spouse would have reached 70 1/2—meaning he/she won't be taxed for RMDs during those years (if the IRA is a traditional one). Additionally, surviving spouses can withdraw cash from the IRA early for any reason without accruing the usual 10-percent penalty—no questions asked.

In contrast, if a single person inherits an IRA, s/he must take the RMD—and be taxed for it—within a year of inheritance. Moreover, if she wishes to withdraw money early, she'll incur the usual 10-percent penalty for doing so. If the IRA owner was older than 70 1/2, the IRA account must be withdrawn within five years. In either situation, the beneficiary must pay regular income taxes on her inheritance. Compare this to the benefits received from a surviving spouse, and the imbalance is clear.

Health Spending

 

In 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) compared spending habits among single men, single women, and married people. Although many of the categories represent "extraneous" expenses (such as shoes, clothing, entertainment, and dining), the categories of housing and health spending stood out to us as significant, in that these expenses are practical and necessary for all adults.

According to the BLS, couples spent 6.9 percent of their annual income on health on average; single men spent only 3.9 percent (the data doesn't explain why this number is so low); and single women spent 7.9 percent. It's not clear how the BLS broke down these numbers into component parts (ie., did they include insurance premiums?). But we used these numbers to calculate the 60-year lifetime spending on health for each of our women, with the following results:

Our single woman with an income of $40,000 spent $189,600 on health over 60 years; whereas our married woman with the same income spent $165,600—a difference of $24,000.
Our married woman with an income of $80,000 spent $331,200 on health over 60 years, and our unmarried woman with the same income spent $379,200—a difference of $48,000.

Our single women would fall even more behind if they became disabled. Here's why. Disability payments barely provide a livable wage. (We know this because one of us has a chronic illness, and while in the woe-is-me throes of a particularly bad flare-up she researched how much she would make if she went on disability. When she saw the numbers, she sucked it up and went back to work.) Such a system greatly favors married disabled people, because by adding their paltry disability payments to their spouse's wages they can more likely come up with a livable income (although of course spousal support is by no means guaranteed—one's husband may prefer to spend his money on food, shelter, or hobbies). Moreover, our unmarried women's retirement accounts will suffer. Without a job and on a tight disability budget, she would likely struggle to save in an IRA, and as we described above, no one could save for her. However, the husband of a non-working, disabled married woman might manage to afford the yearly $5,000 contributions to the IRA.

Here's the main takeaway for health spending: Singles pay thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, more in health spending. This is largely because of discriminatory policies by companies and the U.S. government

Housing

In comparison to health spending, the discrepancies that exist for singles' housing are significant. This happens in part because of the inherent logistical costs of living alone (our single woman would pay more to rent a mountaintop mansion in Hawaii than our married woman would pay, as part of a dual-income married couple), but other factors come into play too, including the biased policies mentioned above.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, couples spent 23.9 percent of their annual income on housing; single men spent 30.3 percent; and single women spent 39.8 percent. We can't say why the disparities exist between unmarried men and women, though we speculate that it may have something to do with the wage gap - but that's another article.

We used these numbers to calculate the 60-year lifetime spending on housing for each of our women:

Our single woman making $40,000 spent $955,200 on housing over 60 years, whereas our married woman making $40,000 spent only $573,600. The married woman saves $381,600 in comparison to her unmarried equivalent.

As one might expect, the difference is even more striking when we analyze the women with higher incomes:

Our single woman making $80,000 spent $1,910,400 on housing over 60 years, whereas our married woman making $80,000 spent only $1,147,200- that's a difference of $763,200.

We did consider that the discrepancy was in part due to the simple logistical fact that two people can split a rent or mortgage. However, other less obvious factors also come into play. As described by social scientist and singles advocate Bella DePaulo, author of Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After, realtors and landlords regularly discriminate against single home-seekers, thus narrowing the pool of housing options for singles. Worse, governments and housing development companies, influenced by the economics of a single-family-worship culture, do not consistently provide housing options for alternative family structures or collective lifestyles that might benefit singles. Just one example might be a house or condo complex with several private bed/bath areas but a shared kitchen and shared living/dining room (and, while we're brainstorming here, a shared beachside Jacuzzi and infinity pool.) 

So, what were the final totals?

With calloused and bleeding fingertips we reached for the calculator one last time.

Because some of the categories described above were either too variable or overlapped with each other, we calculated the single woman's "best" and "worst" lifetime-cost scenarios using only the following financial categories: Income tax, Social Security, Housing, and Health Spending. We added up the amounts paid (or not received) for each single woman under each category. For Social Security, where the results were more multifaceted, we chose to use the numbers for when our married women delayed their retirement and received half of their living husbands' Social Security for four years (this was largely because we were unwilling to inflict spousal death on even our made-up characters).

In each category, the singles paid or lost more than the marrieds. The single woman earning $40,000 paid less than her counterpart earning $80,000, simply because she had less money to start with.

When we calculated how much money our characters gained or lost altogether, our single women did indeed fare worse—much worse—than the married women. Their lifetime cost of being single?

Our lower-earning woman paid $484,368 for being single. Our higher-earning woman paid $1,022,096: more than a million dollars just for being single.

We anticipate that critics will point out that the numbers could be manipulated in any number of ways. At every stage in the process we, too, thought "these sums are just too crazy; surely we must have miscalculated or reasoned wrong." We have, however, made only the most conservative of estimates and still reached the conclusion that, no matter which way you read the numbers, the final assessment remains the same: Singles get screwed.

Source: The Atlantic
 

Selective schools forced to take special ed kids

Instrumental music is one of the programs offered at Talent Unlimited. This year,

parentssay that the DOE assigned students to the program even though they didn't audition.

Bard advertised that they are giving accommodations on their exams."

Beacon, one of the most sought after schools in the city, also fell short in accepting special needs students. It has had an ICT class for several years, but when it didn’t meet its target, the DOE assigned them a few students whom Beacon had not ranked although they were “appropriate” for the school, said Parent Coordinator Judy Moore.

The Professional Performing Arts School in Manhattan was assigned a few students who didn’t audition, but Principal Keith Ryan said schools have known for more than a year about the DOE mandates.

“There are absolutely no surprises about this situation,” Ryan said. He explained that the DOE “relaxed the screen” to fill his school’s quota of special needs students. He says PPAS tried to meet Manhattan’s target number but, like Bard and Beacon, the school fell short.

Kids practice for months and compete against thousands of other kids to get into the city’s performing arts schools. Parents say it’s unfair that students who auditioned should be passed by. And they fear students who did not meet audition requirements may struggle in school. “If they’re not confident in their studio, they’re miserable in this school. This is a pre-conservatory program,” Finn said of Frank Sinatra.

Dmytro Fedkowskyj, the Queens representative to the Panel on Education Policy, said the DOE policy “diminishes the achievement of the students who auditioned and earned a seat” at the performing arts schools.

 “It isn't fair to the student or the school community when the DOE creates this type of audition environment, establishes entrance rules and then circumvents these same rules at their leisure,” he said.

Sternberg said Frank Sinatra did not fill it seats with enough students whom the school had ranked, so the DOE assigned more students to increase enrollment.

A number of academically demanding schools, such as NYC Lab School for Collaborative Studies, Millennium High School and NYC iSchool in Manhattan, have long admitted students with special needs and successfully integrated them in regular classes. NYCiSchool Principal Isora Bailey actively recruits students with special needs, who make up 15 percent of her students.

“If we only looked at test scores, we would automatically not list a lot of students with IEPs,” Bailey said, referring to the list of students the school sends the DOE’s office of enrollment to match with high school applications. But the school looks at a variety of factors including grades, attendance and an online admissions activity when selecting incoming students, she said.

Still, schools without experience integrating special needs children say they are ill-prepared to help children with disabilities thrive.  “We do not have an ICT, self-contained or D75 program” said Finn at Frank Sinatra Donna. “This is wrong for all these kids.”

The DOE plans to “have conversations one school at a time to make sure we develop a plan that works,” said Sternberg. “I have a lot of confidence in the principal and faculty to work their magic.”

Tonight, April 23, at 6:30 pm, the PTA at Talent Unlimited is hosting a meeting to talk about the issue. A PTA member said that parents from other performing arts schools are welcome to attend.

Source: InsideSchools.org

Avoiding Medicaid and Medicare Fraud and Abuse

Medicaid Fraud – another doctor arrested for FRAUD

A New York City cardiologist with offices on Fifth Avenue and in New Jersey admits he intentionally misdiagnosed up to 80 percent of his patients with heart problems so he could collect millions in extra Medicare money. 

 

Dr. Jose Katz, 68, pleaded guilty to falsifying charts diagnosing patients with angina and other heart ailments so he could prescribe extra tests and treatments when hundreds of patients did not need them.

 

Prosecutors said it was the largest fraud ever executed by a single doctor in New York or New Jersey. 

 

"After years of prominence in his field, Jose Katz will now be remembered for his record-setting fraud," said U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman.

 

In court Wednesday he agreed his actions could have caused "serious bodily harm" to his patients. He and his lawyer disagreed when prosecutors said some patients were at risk of death due to his actions.

 

In all, Katz admitted his scheme took in over $19 million. 

 

Katz's crimes went on from at least 2004 through 2012. His resume said he is affiliated with NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, but a spokeswoman said he has not been linked there since 2003.

 

Fishman said many patients who were exploited went to Katz's clinics, called Cardio-Med Services in Union City, Paterson and West New York.  He also ran clinics called Comprehensive Healthcare in Manhattan and Queens. 

 

Katz said he performed many so-called EECP procedures based on false diagnoses to overbill Medicare and private insurers like Blue Cross and Aetna.   

 

In court, Katz told the judge as a doctor he had "done everything he could to help patients."  The judge told him he would have time to speak at sentencing set for July 23. After the court hearing, Katz and his attorney, Blair Zwillman, left the courthouse admitting mistakes were made but insisting Katz always cared for his patients.    

 

Katz faces up to 10 years in prison on the conspiracy to commit health care fraud charges. He also admitted creating a no-show job in his office in order to rip off more than $250,000 in Social Security benefits. 

 

Katz was born in Cuba but is a U.S. citizen. Prosecutors said he spent $6 million advertising on Spanish-language television and radio to try to lure in patients. 

 

Fishman said investigators are attempting to contact all the patients affected by the fraud, who can also reach out to the New Jersey FBI or U.S. attorney's offices for additional information.

Federal and Brooklyn prosecutors team up to tackle healthcare fraud

The Brooklyn district attorney's office announced on Monday the creation of a Healthcare Fraud Division to crack down on doctors and pharmacists who commit Medicaid and Medicare fraud.

The new division will handle cases stemming from a new collaboration between the district attorney's office, the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and New York City's Human Resources Administration, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said at a press conference.

Assistant District Attorney Lauren Mack will serve as chief of the division, Hynes said.

He credited Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, for inspiring the collaboration and securing resources to fund it. He estimated that between 25 and 30 prosecutors from his office would help handle cases arising from the initiative.

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch said at the press conference that her office and Hynes's office will both refer cases, share information and resources in an effort to tackle the "persistent problem" of healthcare fraud, which she estimated to result in losses of $60 billion each year.

Recouping those losses is a growing area for the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. In February, the two agencies announced that they had recovered a record $4.2 billion in fiscal year 2012, up from $4.1 billion in 2011, according to an HHS press release.

The division announced its first case Monday against a Brooklyn doctor, Naveed Ahmad, who is charged with bilking roughly $500,000 from Medicare and Medicaid over three years. Prosecutors say that Ahmad submitted bills for bogus procedures and wrote prescriptions for pricey HIV drugs that were resold on the black market to HIV patients, or on the "gray" market to wholesalers who sold the drugs to pharmacies for a profit.

The division's investigation into Ahmad is ongoing, Hynes said.

Ahmad faces an array of felony charges, including healthcare fraud and grand larceny, and up to 15 years in prison if convicted, Hynes said.

Ahmad has pleaded not guilty and denies the allegations, according to his lawyer, Wayne Bodden.

Source: Thomson Reuters

MEDICAID AND HEALTHCARE FRAUD AND ABUSE

How does an investigation begin and what should a Physician or Provider do once an investigation is commenced against them?

 

    Typically an investigation will begin with a letter served on the suspected party which will request them to produce documents or engage in an interview with an Investigator assigned to their case.

    It is vital that upon receipt of a notice of investigation or audit that the suspected party contact an experienced attorney immediately. Going into an investigation or interview alone can prove to be quite detrimental to your case and your rights under the applicable statutes. It is important that the suspected individual does not make any contact with the investigator or department of human service until they retain a qualified attorney and is advised on how to proceed.

    It is crucial that an attorney be present at any and all interviews and meetings between the investigator, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the suspected party. 

What are some actions that a Medicaid provider can do that will constitute defrauding the Medicaid Program?

    As a Physician or a Medicaid provider it is vital that you take every precaution not to commit any acts that could constitute an act of fraud or an attempt to defraud the Medicaid Program.

There are six common acts that typically result in fraud:

(1)    Billing for services not rendered – This is a clearly fraud and will likely result in criminal prosecution. Billing for services such as x-rays, medical procedures, or examinations that were never preformed is illegal and immoral.

Example: A Plainview dentist with a practice in Brooklyn has been sentenced to 1-3 years in jail after a joint state audit revealed he had engaged in a fraudulent Medicaid practices and will also have to pay some $700,000 in restitution. Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman revealed that Bruckner's worked with five affiliated dentists who took in nearly $7 million in Medicaid payments from 2007 to 2011, at least $2.3 million of which was likely fraudulent. The practice was based largely on the illegal recruiting of Medicaid recipients and billings for services never rendered. All six dentists, including Bruckner, shared improper claim payments from high-volume billings for services that would be impossible to properly perform. On a single day in 2010, for example, auditors found dentist Robert Thaler was paid for 119 procedures that would have taken at least 38 hours to perform properly.

(2)    Double Billing – This occurs when a provider bills both a private insurance company and Medicaid, or two separate providers for the same procedure performed on the same patient.

(3)    Substitution of generic drugs – A pharmacy bills Medicaid for the name brand drug, but a generic substitute was provided to the recipient.

Example: David Correa, 43, faces up more than a decade in prison after being charged with fraud and various violations by federal authorities Thursday. His was the latest arrest in what has become a $500 million Medicaid fraud scheme.

 “The alleged scheme enabled David Correa to defraud Medicaid and other insurance providers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while potentially compromising the health of very sick people in need of life-saving drugs.”

Federal authorities say that from 2010 through July 2012, the pharmacy owner bought prescription pills at heavily discounted prices from a pair of individuals in order to resell the pills at his pharmacy. The drugs treat a variety of illness, including HIV, schizophrenia and asthma.

Originally dispensed to Medicaid recipients, the pills were passed through the black market, ending up on the shelves of various pharmacies, including Correa’s Bronx shop, where they were sold as “new” drugs.

(4)    Unnecessary services – Performing numerous tests and procedures that are medically unnecessary and result in great expense to the insurer.

Example: Jose Katz a New York and New Jersey Cardiologist was found guilty of billing Medicaid, and numerous private insurers for “unnecessary tests and unnecessary procedures based on false diagnoses for medical services rendered by unlicensed practitioners.”  According to the government Katz billed Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers more than $19 million dollars in fraudulent claims.

(5)    Kickbacks – In some industries, it is acceptable to reward those who refer business to you. However, in the Federal health care programs, paying for referrals is a crime.

(6)     Upcoding - using incorrect billing codes for more severe illness than actually existed or a more expensive treatment than was provided. Another common problem with billing – billing for services that were “not medically necessary”.

How can one make sure that they comply with all the Medicaid procedures in order to ensure that they don’t end up committing fraud unintentionally? 

    Resources are available online at www.emedny.org/providermanuals which will detail all applicable code sections and how to ensure your business and practices comply with all New York Medicaid Regulations. However, it is very important to meet with an experienced attorney to make sure that all of your contracts with third-party providers, your internal procedures, and billing practices are in compliance with New York’s Medicaid Regulations.

    It is vital to seek the advice of an experience attorney when starting a business will be a part of the Medicaid provider network. Without this guidance, it is inevitable that you and your business will run into problems down the road.

    It is much easier to spend the time and money up front to make sure that your business stays in compliance with the Medicaid standards then having to deal with an investigation, audit, or indictment down the road. 

What can happen if a Physician or Medicaid Provider is investigated, audited, or convicted of being a party in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system?

    In the past couple years the prosecution of Medicaid fraud has grown exponentially. With the substantial growth in funding and support of the Medicaid Fraud Strike Force, the belt has been tightened and auditing and monitoring of physicians and Medicaid providers has been put under a microscope. If an investigation is initiated against you or your business this will usually result in a huge economic burden. The government will immediately stop payments from Medicaid which will make it impossible to pay your bills as they come due. It is important to seek representation immediately upon notice of an audit, investigation, or indictment. An experienced attorney can navigate the complicated and often emotional time for a person or business being investigated.

    Conviction of Medicaid fraud can result in a fine, loss of your license, or prison time.  Under the Civil Monetaries Penalty Law the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to impose civil monetary penalties, assessments, and programs exclusions upon a person who is determined to have submitted or caused to be submitted a false or fraudulent claim.

    The Mediacare and Medicaid Patient Program Act significantly strengthens the authority of the Department of Health and Humans Services to exclude unfit, unscrupulous, or abusive health care practioners from participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

What are some emerging Trends in Medicaid Fraud enforcement? 

Home Health Care:

Medicare fraud investigations have uncovered millions of dollars in fraud in this area of service. Typically these offenders are charged with inflating the number of hours their employees work. 

Home Infusion Treatments:

Home infusion treatments include more than actual medication. In addition to drugs and nutrient formulas, supplies such as tubing, syringes, alcohol swabs, bottles, gloves, needles, and expensive equipment such as pumps, nebulizers glucose monitors, and blood pressure kits are regularly utilized by the victims of these serious illnesses.

The potential for fraud in this rapidly expanding and highly expensive industry is clear. Kick backs to doctors to authorize medically unnecessary treatment, services, or supplies, whether provided or not, is cause for concern. 

Ambulette Services:

Recently a large number of Ambulette Service companies have come under investigation for falsely submitting trips that were never preformed. The potential for fraud in this area is high as the industry is not closely governed and is more like a taxi service than a medical provider. Regardless, submitting claims for payment on trips that were never preformed will constitute fraud and will trigger an investigation. It is important that all Ambulette service companies be sure to accurate records of all services performed, trips provided, and payments made to drivers.

Amublette companies also need to be aware of the long-term v. short-term contracting provision within the New York Medicaid Provider Handbook. A violation of the long-term contracting provision can result in an unintentional act of fraud. 

What is happening in Brooklyn no, the #1 zip code (11235) for number of Medicaid Fraud cases filed

Federal and Brooklyn prosecutors team up to tackle healthcare fraud.  Brooklyn DA announced the creation of a new Healthcare Fraud Division to crack down on doctors and pharmacists who commit Medicaid and Medicare fraud.   This division will handle cases stemming form a new collaboration between the DA’s office and US Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of  NY, US Department of Health and Human Services and  New York City’s Human Resources Administration.  They will refer cases to each other, share information and collaborate.  The first case was already filed against a Brooklyn doctor, Naveed Ahmad, who is charged with $500,000 Medicare and Medicaid fraud over 3 years period.  He is charged with submitting bills for bogus procedures and writing prescriptions for pricey HIV drugs that were resold on the black market to HIV patients.
 

Gifted: Twice as many top-scorers as seats

For the first time in four years, fewer than 1,000 incoming kindergartners scored in the 99th percentile on the city's gifted and talented exams, but there are still more than twice as many top-scoring tykes than there are seats in the five most selective citywide programs. Of the 13,559 rising kindergartners who sat for G&T assessments in January and February, just under seven percent -- 921 -- scored in the 99th percentile on the nationally-normed tests.

There are not enough seats at the citywide Anderson School for the number of children who qualify.

Despite the introduction of a non-verbal exam meant to increase the number of low-income children who qualify for G&T programs, the gap in performance persists between rich and poor districts.

Scoring between the 97th-99th percentile on the G&T assessments means a child is eligible for a citywide program. But there are fewer than 400 seats for incoming kindergartners. Further decreasing the odds of entry, qualifying siblings of current students get first dibs at those seats.

April tours for prospective parents at Anderson, one of the five citywide programs, are only open to families of students who scored in the 99th percentile. According to the Anderson School website, "Your child must have a combined G&T score in the 99th percentile for a parent to attend an Open House, although students who scored at or above the 97th percentile may still apply here." Tours of the citywide program at PS 85 in Queens are open to those scoring in the 98th or 99th-percentile. NEST + M,  Brooklyn School of Inquiry and the TAG Young Scholars in East Harlem offer open houses to parents of children scoring in the 97th percentile and up.

The highest number of top-scorers came from Manhattan's District 2 with 223 children and District 3 with 92.  Brooklyn's District 20 had 80. Brooklyn's District 22 had 76 top-scorers and District 21 had 75. Children entering kindergarten to 3rd grade may test for a gifted program, although there are very few open seats in the upper grades. The number of 1st graders scoring in the 99th percentile declined from 354 in 2012 to 252 in 2013. In all 1,363 test-takers scored in the 99th percentile, down from 2,144 in 2012.

There is a huge gap between poor and middle class neighborhoods. No kindergarten test-takers scored in the 99th percentile in districts 7 and 12 in the Bronx or in District 23 in Brooklyn. In several other low-income districts, including 8 and 9 in the Bronx, 19 in East New York and 32 in Bushwick, only one kindergartner scored in the 99th percentile.

Click here for the Breakdown of kids scoring in 99th percentile [PDF]

Scores by district remain similar to last year

Children who scored at or above the 90th percentile are eligible for a district G&T program, although they are not guaranteed a seat. According to data released by the Education Department, only one district -- District 7 in the South Bronx - had fewer than ten students qualifying for kindergarten and therefore will likely not offer a program.

Once again, the highest number of qualifiers for either district or citywide G&T programs come from Manhattan's District 2: 834 kindergartners  of  the 1785 test-takers -- nearly 47 percent -- are eligible. In District 3, on the Upper West Side, a similar percentage of children qualified: 454 out of 968 children, also about 47 percent.

In several other districts, fewer than 20 children scored high enough for G&T. Lowest performing were District 7, with seven children; District 9 with 14; District 12 with 15; District 23, 12 and District 32 with 14 children. These numbers are very similar to the 2012 results.

Parents were notified of their child's score over the weekend, along with an application listing their progam options. Families have until April 19 to apply and will find out the week of May 20 if they have snagged a spot. Meanwhile, kindergarten registration for zoned schools and other non-G&T programs began today, April 8, and continues until April 26.

 
Breakdown of G&T scores by district [PDF]
Breakdown of kids scoring in 99th percentile [PDF]

Source: InsideSchools
 

Attorney Inna Fershteyn answers questions on Russian hit TV program Contact wtih Alexander Grant.

Gala sponsored by Law Office of Inna Fershteyn for parents of children with Special Needs

 

Trustees should do more for disabled beneficiary: judge

  NEW YORK, Jan 8 (Reuters) - On her final day as Manhattan Surrogate, Kristen Booth Glen issued a "clarion call" for trustees who oversee funds for beneficiaries with mental and physical disabilities, saying they must use trust money to improve the beneficiaries' lives.
In ordering two trustees to account for a multimillion-dollar trust for a severely disabled man referred to in the ruling as Mark, Glen criticized them for failing to take affirmative steps to assess Mark's needs and failing to spend money to improve his life.
  "This history, and the legal consequences that flow from it ... should provide a clarion call for all fiduciaries of trusts whose beneficiaries are known to have disabilities," she said in a Dec. 31 decision. "It is not sufficient for the trustees to simply safeguard the Mark Trust's assets; instead, the trustees have a duty to Mark to inquire into his condition and to apply trust income to improving it."
  Mark, who has spent most of his adult life in institutional care, was isolated and wholly dependent until a few years ago, when Glen ordered the trustees to hire a care manager to evaluate him, she wrote. Since then, he has gone from a non-communicative, aggressive patient to someone who can manage daily tasks like rinsing dishes and walking for exercise, progress both "extraordinary" and "heartwarming," she wrote.
  An experienced estate lawyer, who is identified only by his initials, H.J.P., in the ruling, served as one trustee; Chase Manhattan Bank served as the other.
  Even though the trustees had "absolute discretion" to decide how to spend the money, Glen said they abused that discretion by failing to act. As a result, she said, their commissions should be denied or reduced for the period of time during which they took no action.
  Bernard Krooks, who was not involved in the case and whose firm Littman Krooks specializes in estate planning, said it was the first case he could recall in which a judge took it upon herself to investigate whether a fiduciary was taking sufficient action. Trustees are now "on notice," he said.
  "What's interesting about this case is it imposes an affirmative obligation. If you're appointed a trustee, you can't just sit back and pay the bills -- you have an affirmative obligation to find out where the beneficiary is living, what his or her needs are, and make payments to improve their life," Krooks said.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

  Mark's mother died of cancer in 2005, leaving behind approximately $10 million to be divided into two trusts, one for Mark and one for his brother, Charles. Before her death, she placed Mark in a residential care facility.
  In 2006, H.J.P. applied to become Mark's guardian under Article 17-A of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act.
  H.J.P. submitted assessments from healthcare providers that Mark suffered from autism and severe retardation, engaged in frequent aggressive behaviors and required assistance in daily tasks, according to the decision.
  An attorney for Mental Hygiene Legal Services, which represented Mark for the purposes of the application, reported that effective communication with Mark was impossible and that he was non-verbal.
  At a hearing on the application in 2007, Glen chastised H.J.P. and Chase for not visiting Mark to ascertain his needs for themselves or spending any money from his trust in the years since his mother's death, according to the ruling.
  She told them to hire a certified care manager, who eventually suggested that various items such as electronics and a playground that would help Mark's behavior be purchased with trust money.
  In the years since, Glen wrote, Mark has made significant progress. The case, she said, demonstrates that trustees who have discretion to decide whether to spend funds must also take steps to exercise their discretion.
  "Courts will intervene not only when the trustee behaves recklessly, but also when the trustee fails to exercise judgment altogether," she wrote. "The trustees abused their discretion by failing to exercise it."
  Glen said there was little case law on inactive fiduciaries but cited a 1931 Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decision, In re Van Zandt's Will, in which the court ruled that executors had to approve payments to a needy beneficiary despite having discretion over spending.
  "As in Van Zandt, it was not sufficient for the trustees merely to prudently invest the trust corpus and to safeguard its assets," Glen wrote. "Both case law and basic principles of trust administration and fiduciary obligation require the trustees to take appropriate steps to keep abreast of Mark's condition, needs, and quality of life, and to utilize trust assets for his actual benefit."
  Roy Carlin, a lawyer for H.J.P., declined to comment. A lawyer representing Chase could not be reached. A Chase spokesman did not have an immediate comment.
The decision ordered the trustees to provide an updated accounting of Mark's trust fund, as well as the other trust fund.

Glen stepped down on Dec. 31 after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.

The case is Matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (Marie H.), Surrogate Court, New York County, No. 2006-1307.

For H.J.P.: Roy Carlin.
For Chase: Jennifer McCarthy of Davidson, Dawson & Clark.

Source: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/01_-_January/Trustees_should_do_more_for_disabled_beneficiary__judge/

YOUR PRACTICE: Consoling clients who have 'gifting remorse'

  An unexpected tax break for the wealthiest Americans has some of them wondering if they were too generous during the final weeks of 2012.
  Last year Americans were able to gift up to $5.12 million tax free to family and friends over a lifetime as part of their estate, an amount separate from the tax-free amount anyone could annually give per person, $13,000 last year.
  Most tax advisers and their wealthy clients expected the $5.12 million to drop to $3.5 million or even lower on Jan. 1 - leading to a scramble among the wealthy to make big gifts before the end of 2012.
  But, in a surprise to estate planners and lawyers, who scrambled to help clients give money, property and business interests before the clock struck midnight on Dec. 31, the "fiscal cliff" deal, hammered out by the U.S. Congress at year end, retained the $5.12 million exemption level, even tossing in an extra bump to account for inflation.
  That made the new year a bit bittersweet, leaving some people with what financial and tax advisers call a case of "gifting remorse." Some wealthy clients have told their advisers they felt they had rushed into giving too much or too soon, decisions made under the then very real threat of leaving heirs with a heavy tax burden down the road.
  Clients who want to undo their gifts are probably out of luck, several tax experts said, because in order for them to get the tax benefit in the first place, the gift had to be irrevocable. But for them, advisers say, there's still a solid silver lining - getting estate planning out of the way.
  "After they get over the shock ... it was something they should have done regardless," said Leigh Griffith, head of the tax practice group at the Nashville, Tennessee-based law firm Waller.
  Among the perks for having made a gift last year: the money is better positioned for heirs, and if it is in a trust, it is protected from creditors and could still potentially be indirectly accessed by the benefactor. And the grantor may have even found a good way to test their heirs' ability to handle a windfall - allowing time to adjust future decisions about whether to give more.

THE BRIGHT SIDE

  Mary Schmidt, a Boston-based trust and estates lawyer, was mingling at a New Year's Eve party when she found herself comforting a friend who was second-guessing a decision to give away $5 million.
  The friend regretted his rush to gift the sum to his children, questioning whether it was necessary. She talked the man down - something more than a few advisers may be doing these days - explaining how the gift would benefit his estate.
  The biggest benefit: the wealthy and the gift recipients get more bang for their buck by giving early. Say the client gave 50,000 shares of stock worth $5 million. If the client had waited a few years, and the stock appreciated, he or she wouldn't have been able to gift as many shares, leading to a bigger tax bill later.

A few other benefits:

- Most people made their gifts via trusts, where the assets are better protected from creditors. So if, say, the giver gets into legal trouble, the gift can't get tied up in a lawsuit.
- Clauses in some trusts give the benefactor some control over the money. For instance, many people took advantage of spousal access trusts, meaning their spouse is a beneficiary of the gift along with other heirs. As long as they remain married and the spouse is alive, the benefactor can indirectly access the money via the funds that flow to their spouse.
- Many trusts also come standard with a "right of substitution clause," so that if a person regrets giving a particular asset, they can replace it with something else of equal value.
 
  That clause may come in handy for Rob Romanoff, managing partner at the Chicago-based law firm Levenfeld Pearlstein, who has a client who wants to undo the $5 million gift he made to his wife and children after the exemption level stayed the same.
  Romanoff quickly discovered that the client didn't regret the bulk of the gift, given through a spousal access trust, but instead wanted to regain control of a $75,000 stake in a tech start-up he expects to take off. If the man continues to feel this way, Romanoff will help him take out that stake and replace it with $75,000 in cash or another equivalent asset.

FRINGE BENEFITS

  The gifts may also provide benefactors with a glimpse of how well their heirs may one day handle a windfall.
  Griffith, the lawyer, worked with a couple last year who were initially reluctant to give several million dollars to their grandchildren, who had never handled such a large sum.
  The couple eventually did so, with a twist that could teach the grandchildren some investing lessons. They set up a trust that encourages the grandkids, who are in their late 20s and early 30s, to provide investing recommendations to the trustees. The couple has been getting calls from their grandchildren, asking them for investing advice ever since.
  If nothing else, giving in 2012 helped clients focus on the fact that they got this planning out of the way.
  "It's nice to have the luxury of the bulk of the planning in place, and now, going forward, to improve upon it," said Jennifer Immel, senior wealth planner at Philadelphia-based PNC Wealth Management.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/gifting-remorse-idUSL1E9CAC1320130114