Extreme heat is blanketing Georgia and the sweltering temperatures are putting many in danger, especially the elderly, sick and the very young.

Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Environmental Protection Agencies show that a heat index of 105 degrees can be life threatening. Indeed, more people across the country die each year from extreme heat than from tornadoes, floods, hurricanes and lightening combined.

Developed areas and urban centers, in particular, are at risk of “heat islands” whereby heat is trapped for days after a sudden spike in temperature. This effect can cause severe dehydration and wear down the body’s defenses.

In 2007, a two-week heat wave throughout the Southeast claimed the lives of more than 40 people.

“As previous heat waves have shown, high temperatures need to be taken seriously,” says Georgia Watch Executive Director Angela Speir Phelps. “That’s why it’s essential for Georgia Power customers to be aware that the company cannot disconnect them on the hottest days. They are protected from shutoffs during extreme conditions.”

According to the Public Service Commission, Georgia Power is not allowed to disconnect residential electric service for an unpaid bill if, prior to 8:00 A.M. on the date of the scheduled disconnection, a National Weather Service Heat Advisory or Excessive Heat Warning is in effect, or is forecasted to be in effect.

In other words, if the forecasted high temperature is above 97 degrees or the heat index is forecasted at 110 degrees or higher, Georgia Power cannot legally cut off a customer’s power due to late payment.

The rule has been in effect since January 2009 and is part of the PSC’s seasonal restrictions, which also includes a ban on disconnections during winter months when temperatures fall below 32 degrees.

Angela Speir Phelps, former Public Service Commissioner and author of the protective rule, says as the weathers gets hotter and more energy is needed, consumers should keep in mind some basic energy saving tips, such as keeping curtains and shades closed during the day, using the microwave to cook instead of the oven, and hanging up laundry instead of using the dryer.

Other steps to keep your home cooler and electric bills at a reasonable level during the summer months include using ceiling fans to supplement air conditioners and setting your thermostat to 78 degrees.

Have you ever used your debit card to make a purchase or withdrawal that is greater than your checking account balance? Perhaps you have a friend or family member that complained about the bank allowing them to overdraw their account and then charging a hefty fee. Banks earn tens of billions of dollars in overdraft fees each year, but a new regulation will empower consumers to protect themselves from debit card overdrafts.

On July 1, a new Federal Reserve rule will require banks to obtain permission from their customers before allowing them to overdraw their accounts when using a debit or check card. This means that you have to opt-in in order to overdraw your account. If you don’t opt-in, then you won’t be charged an extra $35 for buying a $5 sandwich that overdraws your balance. (The new regulation doesn’t apply to paper checks that are bounced.)

Banks don’t want to lose this revenue source, so many are framing overdraft opt-in as a way to ensure that you can get money when you need it. But remember, if you choose to allow overdraft on your debit card, you will be subjected to fees even when you overdraw your account by just a few pennies.

It’s your choice: Do you want your debit transactions and ATM withdrawals to go through, knowing that the bank will assess overdraft fees, or would you prefer to have your purchases and withdrawals for amounts greater than your balance declined so that you don’t get hit with fees? If you do nothing, you’ll be protected from debit overdraft fees and you won’t be able to spend more money than you have in your account. But if you choose to opt-in to allow overdrafts, remember, it will cost you.

The findings are the result of an 18-month study through the organization’s Metropolitan Atlanta Hospital Accountability Project, or HAP, which focuses on financial aid programs for low-income, uninsured and underinsured patients at general hospitals in the 21-county metro area. National nonprofit advocacy organization Community Catalyst, a national not-for-profit, provides funding for this project.

In its research, Georgia Watch representatives visited all hospitals studied to see if signage was posted advertising the availability of free or reduced cost care, and if financial assistance policies were made available to the public. In addition, the HAP team surveyed 900 low-income, uninsured, or underinsured individuals about their financial experiences at area hospitals. HAP collaborated with coalition partners WonderRoot, Concerned Black Clergy and area clinics to conduct the interviews, which were conducted in both English and Spanish.

Among the findings of the research:

· In 2008, metropolitan Atlanta hospitals marked-up their costs an average 235 percent increase, though price hikes at some facilities reach as high as 714 percent;

· That year, the two most expensive hospitals in the metropolitan area were North Fulton Medical Center and Cartersville Medical Center, and the two most affordable were Walton Regional Medical Center and Grady Memorial Hospital;

· Grady Memorial Hospital and Barrow Regional Medical Center provided the highest level of free care for poor people, while Piedmont Hospital and North Fulton Medical Center were among those who provided the least;

· Only a little more than one-third of the 34 hospitals examined had clear signage placed at some part of the hospital advertising the availability of free or reduced-cost care for uninsured and/or low-income persons;

· Eighty percent of the approximately 900 consumers surveyed for this project said they had no form of insurance, and two-thirds of those individuals said they had no regular source of care; and,

· 72 percent of the consumers surveyed who identified themselves as underinsured said they often delay preventive and other care due to the fear of the cost, as they are uncertain whether they can pay their part of a hospital bill.

“Hospitals owe to their communities access to care and fair billing practices, no matter your income level,” said Holly Lang, Hospital Accountability Project Manager. “Through programs that help lower barriers to health care access and by advertising the availability of available financial assistance, hospitals give consumers the chance to better their physical – and fiscal – health.”

While all hospitals should maintain the patient’s best interest, the report discusses the unique obligations of nonprofit hospitals, which are obligated through their tax-exempt status to provide services meant to boost its area’s health through community benefit programs.

“Nonprofit hospitals have an even heightened responsibility to its community, as they are exempt from many of the taxes most companies and individuals pay,” Lang said. “We want to see these hospitals using our forgone tax dollars in a way that helps all patients, especially those vulnerable because they are uninsured, underinsured or live on a limited income.”

Nonprofit hospitals Piedmont Hospital and Henry Medical Center stood out among area hospitals for providing the least amount of free care – less than a fourth of what a nearby for-profit hospital provided.

The report also notes the barriers that patients are facing once they step into a hospital.

“Too many facilities aren’t mentioning available financial aid programs, and many don’t have staff on hand to serve non-English speaking patients,” Lang said.

Also included in the report are policy recommendations, which include increased oversight of hospitals participating in state and federal programs, as well as requiring appropriate financial counseling and fair patient billing practices.

Data found in the report, such as statistics and hospital charity care offerings, comes from publicly available sources, such as the Department of Community Health and Internal Revenue Service filings, as well as Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and Kaiser Family Foundation.

Click here to read the report.

We hear a lot of talk about ethics in government – particularly the need for more. Candidates for public office often talk about the need for ethics reform and those elected talk about their staunch support for strengthening ethics in government. But talk is cheap. Where the rubber meets the road is how one acts, how they conduct the people’s business, and how they vote when presented with the opportunity to stand up for what’s right. A message from a podium is nothing more than an empty promise if forgotten once elected.

This year, on the heels of a highly publicized scandal involving the cozy relationship between the former Speaker of the House and a lobbyist for Atlanta Gas Light Company and more than one front-page news story about elected officials using the power and influence of their office for personal gain, the legislature passed ethics reform in SB17.

Georgia Watch actively engaged at the legislature regarding this bill to encourage stronger reform. We supported restrictions on lobbyists giving gifts to legislators and capping the amount of gifts. We also supported full disclosure of money spent by lobbyists on legislators for travel and entertainment. On April 19, 2010 we noted in an OpEd that the bill as written in its current form would allow lobbyists to pay for travel for public officials without disclosing it – including airfare, meals, and hotel accommodations – as long as the travel was related to bringing a public official to a meeting.

Under the proposal, a lobbyist could legally buy a legislator a first class trip to the tropics, including plane ticket, room at the Ritz Carlton, and room service and it would not have to be disclosed if the trip was for the purpose of a meeting. We pointed out this glaring flaw and insisted that the public has a right to know how much money lobbyists are spending on legislators. The following morning, April 20, the provision was removed. Lobbyists must now disclose this information.

Ethics is a cornerstone of our democracy. Our forefathers sacrificed so that we might have a better way of life. Those sacrifices came at a high cost, one which we are reminded of on Memorial Day. Georgia Watch will continue to advocate for more transparency and openness in government because we believe it is foundational, not optional. We also know that it is action, not apathy, that will mold our future. We are working hard on behalf of Georgians and we continue to ask you to stand beside us and support our efforts. We’re in this together. It is our state and our future.

The Public Service Commission today responded to scrutiny over Atlanta Gas Light’s proposed pipeline expansion to the Reynolds resort in Greene County, voting to delay the project until more financial data is provided by AGL.

The 40-mile pipeline would have to cross two counties in order to serve the Reynolds resort, which is home to a Ritz-Carlton hotel and several private golf courses.

Georgia Watch Deputy Director Danny Orrock spoke before the Public Service Commission at a committee meeting last week, arguing that the project – whose estimated cost is $25 million, but could balloon to as high as $75 million – is unnecessary and not in the public interest.

“It’s a bad deal for the consumer, plain and simple. It doesn’t make a bit of sense for ratepayers to subsidize a 40-mile AGL pipeline to a luxury resort when local suppliers can do it for much cheaper. Even a fifth grader could see the folly in that,” said Orrock.

Officials from the Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia agreed, saying several local gas distribution companies could serve that portion of Greene County at a significantly lower cost.

In today’s vote, the PSC did approve two smaller expansion projects into White and Bryan counties at an estimated cost of $21 million, a figure that includes finance charges of approximately $14 million.

The projects will be paid for by the controversial STRIDE surcharge, which was approved by the PSC last October and will cost AGL customers an additional $200-$400 million on their utility bills over the next 15 years.

As a condition of the Commission’s approval of the new surcharge, AGL must prove that each STRIDE-funded project is in the public interest.

AGL is seeking to use STRIDE funds for the Greene County pipeline, which company officials say will spur economic development and pay for itself in 10 to 30 years.

But Georgia Watch executive director Angela Speir Phelps says the project is a bad deal for AGL’s 1.5 million customers.

“It’s a financial boondoggle, a speculative project that will cost ratepayers millions. If AGL wants to lay down pipes, then the cost burden should be on AGL and their shareholders, not on ratepayers,” says Speir Phelps.

A vote on the Greene County project could come as early as next month.

For additonal coverage:

*Delay on Reynolds Plantation-Lake Oconee Pipeline, Atlanta Journal Constitution
*Two AGL Pipelines Cleared, One Postponed, Atlanta Business Chronicle
*Vote on Pipeline Delayed, Athens Banner-Herald

This past March, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases are unconstitutional.

“The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to trial by jury,” wrote Chief Justice Carol Hunstein. “[The cap] clearly nullifies the jury’s findings of fact regarding damages and thereby undermines the jury’s basic function.”

The ruling effectively strikes down the centerpiece of Georgia’s sweeping 2005 tort reform law, Senate Bill 3, which capped noneconomic awards – including those for pain and suffering – at $350,000.

At the time SB 3 passed, supporters said it would reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums and attract doctors from across the country. However, between 2005 and 2008, premiums fell only 7 percent and the number of physicians per capita remained essentially the same.

“In simplest terms, SB3 limited accountability for medical negligence and padded the profit margins of large insurers,” said Georgia Watch executive director Angela Speir Phelps. “This ruling stops the government from trampling on the rights of malpractice victims and our citizen juries.”

The court’s decision upholds a $1.265 million jury award to Betty Nestlehutt, a Marietta real estate agent. Nestlehutt, now 75, was left permanently disfigured after a plastic surgeon with Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery botched what should have been a routine face-lift procedure. Nestlehutt was so severely injured that her lawyer, Adam Malone, said she had trouble leaving her house.

Nestlehutt was awarded $900,000 for pain and suffering by a Fulton County jury. Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery appealed that amount on grounds that it violated SB 3. The trial judge sided with the jury award and declared the $350,000 cap unconstitutional, setting the stage for the high court ruling.

Georgia Watch deputy director Danny Orrock says the Supreme Court decision protects patients and their constitutional rights.

“It restores the promise of justice for all and the rights of all Georgians – young and old, rich and poor – to access the courts,” says Orrock.

The Nestlehutt decision likely means legislators will renew efforts to impose restrictions on malpractice victims. Lawmakers are already discussing the possibility of a constitutional amendment addressing caps on damages, similar to one Texas passed in 2003.

In any case, much of SB 3 remains intact. The Supreme Court has recently upheld two key provisions of the law. The first makes it nearly impossible for patients to recover damages in cases involving emergency room care by requiring that no physician or health care provider shall be held liable unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the physician or health care provider’s actions showed gross negligence. The second forces the losing side in a lawsuit to pay the other side’s legal fees, a practice that can discourage victims from bringing legitimate claims to court.

Georgia Watch remains strongly opposed to any legislation that impedes access to the courts, including measures that limit the amount an attorney can collect from a settlement.

We remain firmly committed to protecting malpractice victims and fighting for greater access to the courts.

IRP update – On May 19th, Georgia Watch witness Jay Hakes testified before the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding Georgia Power Company’s 2010 Integrated Resource Plan filing.

Hakes said that Georgia Power’s residential and commercial energy efficiency programs were inadaquate. He characterized the company’s new homes program as suffering from “piddling incentives.”

His testimony also included a recommendation that the Commission adopt a standard included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which provides that, with respect to long-term planning, each electric utility must “adopt policies establishing cost-effective energy efficiency as a priority resource.”

From 1993-2000, Hakes was the presidentially-appointed Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical branch of the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2008, Hakes’ book, “A Declaration of Energy Independence,” which identifies strategies for improving national security, the economy, and the environment, was published by John Wiley & Sons.

The PSC will render a decision in the IRP proceeding at its regularly scheduled Administrative Session on July 6, 2010.

AGL rate case – On May 3rd, Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL) filed a request for a $54 million dollar rate increase with the PSC. Georgia Watch plans to intervene in this case, so that it may fully participate in the hearings, which will be held in August, September and October of this year.

AGL is a “pipes only” natural gas distribution company which serves more than 1.5 million customers throughout Georgia. Natural gas marketers approved to operate in the state include AGL’s “base charges” on the bills the marketers issue to their customers. AGL’s request, if approved, would increase the typical residential customer’s natural gas bill by approximately three percent annually (approximately $3 dollars per month).

Georgia Power rate case – Georgia Power Company will file a rate case on July 1st. PSC Staff estimates that the company’s requested increase will be at least $800 million dollars, although the actual amount will not be known until the company files its requested increase and supporting testimony on July 1. Georgia Watch will intervene in the Georgia Power rate case, which will be heard before the PSC in three phases in October, November and December of this year.

Hired earlier this year, Clare is Georgia Watch’s senior counsel on rate cases before the Public Service Commission. She is a former PSC staff attorney and has spent nearly two decades working on consumer issues. Clare’s presence
at rate case hearings will undoubtedly mean more transparency and accountability at the commission.

Georgia Watch Executive Director Angela Speir Phelps appeared today on PBA legal affairs program, Leyes Cotidianas, or “Everyday Law.”

The 2010 Georgia General Assembly, which wrapped up in late April, was the longest session that anyone can remember. During the session Georgia Watch monitored and spoke out on a number of different bills affecting consumers, including legislation on civil justice, ethics, flood plain notifications, lending, nonprofit hospitals, and utilities, to name a few.

Below we highlight several key bills that Georgia Watch worked on in 2010.

PSC Expert Compensation (HB 1233)

To save money in a shrinking state budget, this year the legislature cut funding for expert testimony at the Public Service Commission (PSC). Experts are hired by PSC staff to testify on proposed rate increases to power and gas bills.

In order to ensure that experts would still be available, Rep John Lunsford (R-McDonough) introduced HB 1233, which would require utilities to pay for the experts that the PSC staff selects. The utilities could then bill their customers for the same amount, which would add up to a few pennies a year.

However, one type of expert was specifically left out of the bill. Rate design experts, who offer opinions on how to allocate rates across different classes of customers, were left out of the new compensation scheme at the request of a manufacturing association, which often tries to cut deals with utilities to shift the burden of cost increases onto families and small businesses.

Georgia Watch objected, and had the bill amended in committee to ensure that all experts would have a sustainable source of funding.

The bill passed and has been signed by the governor.

Mortgage Reform (SB 57)

Since fall 2008, Georgia has had more bank failures than any other state in the nation. Our state ranks consistently in the top ten for foreclosures, and between one-third and one-half of all mortgages in Georgia are underwater, meaning the borrower owes more on their loan than the home is worth.

Although legislators were well aware of these symptoms in Georgia’s home lending market, they did nothing to address the problems. For the second year in a row, legislators let SB 57 die in the House Rules Committee. This bill, sponsored by Sen. Bill Hamrick (R-Carrollton), would have put safeguards in place to protect borrowers, investors, and communities from foreclosure and the riskiest of loans.

Most of the protections in the bill would have applied to subprime loans only, which have gone into default in large numbers, leading to a foreclosure crisis and an overall economic slide across the country. Measures such as banning mortgage broker kickbacks, prohibiting prepayment penalties, and requiring that a lender verify that a borrower has the ability to repay a subprime loan would be a narrow approach to solving a big problem.

These ideas were massaged for weeks in the House Judiciary Committee, and eventually weakened before moving on to the Rules Committee. However, the bill never moved out of Rules and onto the floor. The sponsor, Sen. Hamrick, never even asked for a floor vote.

Comprehensive Telecom Reform (HB 168)

HB 168 makes comprehensive changes to fee structures between telephone companies and the Universal Access Fund. This year, when the bill got over to the Senate, a provision was added to take away the authority of the PSC to handle consumer complaints related to phone service. This authority led to the PSC refunding $145,000 to aggrieved customers in 2009.

Georgia Watch went public with opposition to the provision, and Governor Perdue threatened to veto any bill that took away the PSC’s authority over phone service complaints. The authority was restored in the final version of HB 168, which passed and was signed by the governor.

Shapiro most recently worked as Morning Edition producer for WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station. He reported on a range of topics, including transportation, homelessness, immigration, and the state Supreme Court. He will be responsible for all media contact, as well as internal and external communications in print and on the web.

“Jonathan’s genuine concern about consumer issues makes him a perfect fit for our organization,” Georgia Watch executive director Angela Speir Phelps said. “We have important issues ahead of us on energy, healthcare, and mortgage reform that will impact all Georgians. He will no doubt play a critical role in helping us.”

Shapiro began his journalism career in Portland, Oregon, helping produce a public affairs program for Oregon Public Broadcasting and writing pieces for The Portland Mercury. Later he worked for a daily newspaper in north New Jersey, covering city politics, education, and crime.

“Georgia Watch had always been on my radar as a reporter,” Shapiro said. “It’s an organization that cares deeply about protecting the interests of Georgians. They focus on every day issues that impact people in a serious way. I’m excited to be part of the team.”

Before becoming a journalist, Jonathan taught social studies in New York City and worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. A native Floridian, Shapiro graduated from Emory University with a B.A. in political science.

Shapiro most recently worked as Morning Edition producer for WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station. He reported on a range of topics, including transportation, homelessness, immigration, and the state Supreme Court. He will be responsible for all media contact, as well as internal and external communications in print and on the web.

“Jonathan’s genuine concern about consumer issues makes him a perfect fit for our organization,” Georgia Watch executive director Angela Speir Phelps said. “We have important issues ahead of us on energy, healthcare, and mortgage reform that will impact all Georgians. He will no doubt play a critical role in helping us.”

Shapiro began his journalism career in Portland, Oregon, helping produce a public affairs program for Oregon Public Broadcasting and writing pieces for The Portland Mercury. Later he worked for a daily newspaper in north New Jersey, covering city politics, education, and crime.

“Georgia Watch had always been on my radar as a reporter,” Shapiro said. “It’s an organization that cares deeply about protecting the interests of Georgians. They focus on every day issues that impact people in a serious way. I’m excited to be part of the team.”

Before becoming a journalist, Jonathan taught social studies in New York City and worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. A native Floridian, Shapiro graduated from Emory University with a B.A. in political science.

The report, Best Kept Secrets, presents the findings of a survey that looked at whether non-profit hospitals are meeting the voluntary guidelines established by the American Hospital Association (AHA) regarding billing and collection practices for uninsured and underinsured patients.

Non-profit hospitals are expected to offer community benefits, including charity care, in exchange for the tax exemptions they receive as charitable institutions. Charity care programs provide free or discounted care to patients who meet hospitals’ financial assistance criteria. The AHA guidelines call on hospitals to have clear, written policies to help patients determine if they qualify for charity care and to make these policies available to patients and the public.

According to the report, while most hospitals mentioned the existence of charity care programs on either their websites or over the telephone, only about a quarter provided information regarding eligibility for charity care.  Fewer than half provided a charity care application form. A small percentage provided information on their websites that listed the discounts available to people at different income levels.

“This report illustrates that voluntary guidelines are ineffective,” said The Access Project director Mark Rukavina. “Given the state of our economy and the insecurity Americans feel regarding health care costs, hospital charity care is and will continue to be an important part of our health care safety net. Both federal and state governments must ensure that hospitals receiving tax breaks are also fulfilling their charitable obligations.”

Georgia Watch will soon release a separate report detailing notification of the availability of financial assistance at metropolitan Atlanta hospitals through its own Hospital Accountability Project. Through this endeavor, Georgia Watch examined the challenges low-income, uninsured and underinsured patients face in the metropolitan Atlanta area by surveying consumers, analyzing the financial aid policies at area hospitals and evaluating current public policies that requite hospitals to give free or low-cost care. The organization also sent representatives to 34 hospitals within the metropolitan Atlanta area to see if signage was posted in the appropriate area.

“Unfortunately, Best Kept Secrets report findings mirror those of our own, and most hospitals did not have adequate signage advertising financial assistance or even an available written policy,” said Georgia Watch Hospital Accountability Project Manager Holly Lang. “We’re disappointed that so many of our local hospitals do not provide information on financial assistance that is so crucial to uninsured and underinsured consumers.”

According to Georgia Watch’s upcoming report, Of the hospitals examined, only about one-quarter had clear signage placed at some part of the hospital advertising the availability of free or reduced-cost care. About one-half of all hospitals studied did provide some information about financial assistance on their Web site, though often this information was difficult to locate and often only included a number to call for more information.

“Many consumers, especially those who are low-income and either do not have a computer or are not web savvy, simply will not see that information,” Lang said. “It’s critical that hospitals let patients know at the hospital that assistance exists.”

Provisions in the recently-passed national health care reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) impose new requirements on tax-exempt hospitals. Under the law, hospitals must establish written financial assistance policies that clearly specify eligibility criteria and widely publicize these policies. They are also prohibited from taking extraordinary collection actions before making a reasonable effort to determine if patients qualify for financial assistance. These provisions represent the most significant revisions to the community benefit standards for hospitals receiving federal tax exemptions since 1969, following passage of the laws that established the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

“These findings are disappointing given that hospital billing and collection issues have been closely scrutinized over the last decade by Congress and many state governments,” said Jessica Curtis, director of the Hospital Accountability Project at Community Catalyst. “It will be important for the federal government to develop regulations establishing very clear standards for tax-exempt hospitals and monitor hospital behavior for compliance.”

The report is based on a survey of a representative sample of non-profit hospitals nationally that was conducted by The Access Project in the summer of 2009. The random sample of 99 non-profit hospitals in the current survey was selected from the 2009 AHA handbook of hospitals. The research assessed whether hospitals were complying with the AHA billing and collection guidelines by searching hospital websites for information and by calling hospitals to inquire about the availability of charity care and the criteria for eligibility.

About Georgia Watch
Founded in 2002, Georgia Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501-(c)(3) watchdog group focusing on consumer education and research in the areas of health care, insurance, identity theft, consumer energy issues and personal finance.

About The Access Project
The Access Project is a research and advocacy organization that has worked to improve health and health care access since 1998. Its mission is to strengthen community action, promote social change, and improve health, especially for those most vulnerable. Visit The Access Project’s Web site for more information.

About Community Catalyst
Community Catalyst is a national non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to quality affordable health care for all.  Since 1997, Community Catalyst has been working to build the consumer and community leadership required to transform the American health system.  With the belief that this transformation will happen when consumers are fully engaged and have an organized voice, Community Catalyst works in partnership with national, state and local consumer organizations, policymakers, and foundations, providing leadership and support to change the health care system so it serves everyone – especially vulnerable members of society.  For more information, visit www.communitycatalyst.org.

Until recently, The Consumer’s Utility Council (CUC), a division of the Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs, represented average Georgians in cases before the Public Service Commission.  However, that voice for residential and small business customers was eliminated last year by the Governor’s office due to funding cuts. As a result, residential customers and small businesses have no representation in the billion dollar cases, such as the upcoming Georgia Power and Atlanta Gas Light Company rate cases which will be decided by the Public Service Commission in 2010. Large corporations and utilities remain protected, but without the CUC, the average person no longer has a voice in matters pending before the PSC.

When the Georgia legislature cut funding and closed the doors of the Consumer Utility Council, Georgia Watch felt the best way to preserve the interests of Georgia consumers would be to create a new program focusing solely on speaking up for Georgia consumers on energy policy.

A Fulton County judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Atlanta Gas Light alleging it increased customer rates by up to $400 million without facing the regulatory scrutiny required by law.

The seniors’ advocacy group AARP sued on grounds that it was denied discovery rights during AGL’s request proceeding before the Public Service Commission. AGL argued – and the PSC ultimately agreed – that it had no legal obligation to provide discovery, since AGL was seeking approval of a surcharge, rather than a formal rate increase.

Georgia Watch and Common Cause, in support of AARP’s appeal, jointly filed an amicus brief arguing the request for the new surcharge was tantamount to a rate increase.

“Denial of discovery puts consumers at risk for unjust rate increases,” said Georgia Watch executive director Angela Speir Phelps. “If you can’t get behind the numbers to question the legitimacy of the utility’s request through discovery – then ratepayers are greatly disadvantaged.”

Fulton Judge T. Jackson Bedford admitted the PSC approval process might be flawed, but threw out AARP’s lawsuit on technical grounds.
The PSC-approved surcharge means 1.5 million AGL customers will pay an additional $200-$400 million on their utility bills over the next 15 years.

The rate increase stems from a 2009 decision by the Public Service Commission that allowed AGL to extend and repurpose its pipeline replacement program (PRP) surcharge.

Originally implemented to repair corroded pipeline in 1998, the PRP surcharge was scheduled to expire in 2013. The PSC, however, allowed AGL to push back that date to 2025, repurpose the funds to brand new capital projects, and impose an entirely new surcharge.
Because the process involved a surcharge, as opposed to a formal rate increase, AGL was able to sidestep much of the oversight required by law. During the PSC hearings, AARP repeatedly requested consumer- minded cost breakdowns, but AGL simply denied access to the necessary documents.

Making matters worse, the Consumers’ Utility Counsel, the state agency charged with advocating for residential ratepayers in cases before the PSC, was defunded in September 2008 due to budget cuts.

Speir Phelps said the entire approval process lacked fairness and transparency.

“The elimination of the Consumers’ Utility Counsel and the denial of discovery rights at the PSC undoubtedly created an unlevel playing field for the average citizen,” said Speir Phelps. “The most frustrating part is that AGL still claims it hasn’t technically raised rates…which is absolutely disingenuous.”

To add insult to injury, AGL is currently seeking approval of an additional rate increase of $54 million per year. If approved by the PSC, the rate hike would take effect this fall.

There’s been a lot of chatter about the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision to overturn caps on damages for victims of medical malpractice. It’s understandable this would generate interest, since it affects our most basic rights as citizens.

In 2005, Senate Bill 3 was heralded as a fix for many of the ills facing the health care industry. Despite the promises of tort reform proponents, doctors have not stampeded into Georgia, medical liability insurance premiums have not come down and competition in the medical liability market has not increased.

What Senate Bill 3 has done is limit accountability for medical negligence and padded the profit margins of large insurers.

Let’s set the record straight on the number of doctors in Georgia. According to the American Medical Association, the largest doctor organization in the country, the number of doctors per capita in Georgia did not change between 2005, when SB 3 passed, and 2008. Any increases in the number of doctors have matched population growth.

Quite simply, access to care in Georgia was not improved by SB 3. Doctors have not rushed into our state over the past five years and medical liability insurance rates have not markedly improved in that time. According to the Medical Liability Monitor, a trade publication, the average medical malpractice insurance premium increased by 145 percent between the years of 2001 and 2005. Doctors were understandably eager for some relief from such price gouging.

But since SB 3 passed, the average premium fell by only 7 percent. So even after successfully pushing for legislation that tramples on the rights of injured patients, doctors are still stuck paying exorbitant premiums for coverage that they must have to practice.

In addition to high premiums, health care professionals in Georgia only have a limited number of liability insurers to choose from. Information from the Insurance Commissioner’s office shows that since the passage of SB 3 in 2005, competition in Georgia hasn’t increased. That year, there were 139 licensed medical liability insurers in Georgia. In 2009, there were 138.

In 2005, the largest insurer of doctors, MAG Mutual, had 41.1 percent of the market. MAG Mutual is still the largest, and now controls 40.8 percent of the market.

If the legislature wants to reduce malpractice premiums, they can start by taking steps to reduce malpractice.

According to the Institute of Medicine, medical errors kill roughly 98,000 people in America every year. Simple measures like requiring doctors and hospitals to utilize checklists during procedures will reduce preventable harm. Additionally, a uniform electronic medical records requirement will allow health care providers to get accurate and timely information on patients, reducing the likelihood of errors.

SB 3 failed miserably at reducing liability insurance premiums and increasing competition, but it was wildly successful at limiting our fundamental rights. Our state and U.S. constitution guarantee that people who are harmed by others have a right to a trial by jury. But by passing SB 3 in 2005, the legislature took away the jury’s ability to make a decision based on the facts.

For victims of medical malpractice and their families, caps on damages is really a trial by the 2005 Georgia Legislature, which set an arbitrary cap of $350,000 on non-economic damages.

Consider the case of Betty Nestlehutt, who was severely harmed through medical negligence. After hearing testimony and seeing the evidence of Mrs. Nestlehutt’s permanently disfigured face, the jury returned a verdict that was higher than the one-size-fits-all cap imposed by SB 3.

That law mandates that a victim of malpractice, no matter how egregious their injury, cannot recover more than the cap set by the legislature, thus ignoring the ability of the jury to render a fair decision. It substitutes the judgment of the 2005 legislature for that of the jury. Even if Mrs. Nestlehutt had lost her life, the negligent defendant would only be liable for $350,000 in non-economic damages.

In a unanimous decision, our state Supreme Court overturned caps on damages, stopping the government from treading on the rights of malpractice victims and citizen juries. Our founding fathers recognized that heavy-handed government intervention poses a threat to individual rights. Thankfully, that core principle still stands in Georgia.

Angela Speir Phelps is executive director of Georgia Watch, a consumer watchdog group . Danny Orrock is deputy director.

[Note: This appeared Saturday, 01 May 2010, in the Savannah Morning News.]

by Holly Lang

In a March ruling that could hold implications for all nonprofit hospitals, the Illinois Supreme Court stripped not-for-profit Provena Covenant Medical Center of its exemption from property tax, stating that the hospital did not provide enough charity care to justify that exemption.

A hospital earns its tax-exempt status through the benefits it provides to the community, the most of which being the free or reduced-cost care for those eligible for such assistance. Such care is deemed indigent or charity care.

As it stands, IRS regulations for providing this care are vague; there are no specific guidelines as to what a hospital is to provide in terms of community benefits, nor is there a specification that this should include free care.

But through its denial of Provena’s property tax exemption, the Illinois Supreme Court reasoned that providing free care is a key component of a nonprofit hospital’s obligation to earn its tax-exempt status, as is the hospital’s obligation to make clear to the public that financial assistance exists.

“The record showed that during the period in question here, Provena did not advertise the availability of charity care,” Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote for the majority. “Patients were billed as a matter of course and unpaid bills were automatically referred to collection agencies.”

By definition, a nonprofit hospital is not only to have a charitable mission that benefits its community but to also render itself transparent and accountable to that community. Noting Provena’s failure to provide not only an adequate amount of charity care but also insufficient information this care even exists, the Court effectively gave legal backbone to a sentiment that is growing throughout the US – are our nonprofit hospitals earning their right to a tax-exempt status?

As it stands, Georgia does not set forth any minimum percentage for charity care, except as established through our Certificate of Need, or CON, program, which applies to both nonprofit and for profit hospitals. Hospitals with an active CON are required to provide a set percentage of their annual adjusted gross revenue, or AGR, as uncompensated care to eligible patients – generally between 3 percent and 3.5 percent.

But some hospitals barely hit that required amount, much less surpass it. For example, in 2008, one of the state’s largest hospitals held a CON that required 3.15 percent of its AGR as uncompensated care. It provided only 3.2 percent – just one twentieth of a percentage point above its required amount.

But outside of CON regulations, there are no minimum free care requirements for tax-exempt hospitals, nor are there any efforts to even establish the value of a hospital’s tax-exempt status so that we are able to receive the accountability and transparency promised through their nonprofit designation. With that information, we would be better able to understand exactly how much money we’re forgoing in needed tax revenue to help pay for our schools and our police forces, and to see if we’re receiving back the proper benefit.

In a time when our communities are in serious fiscal distress, it seems only fair we are able to carefully examine the return on tax breaks given to nonprofit hospitals. Successful businesses keep a close eye on yields on investment, and so should Georgia. Perhaps our lawmakers, hospital administrators, and community leaders should consider ways to help ensure we’re getting the biggest bang for our buck.

The Georgia Legislature has an opportunity to pass meaningful ethics reform. They should stop passing the buck and get the job done.

Georgians are hungry for integrity in the political process. It has become tattered and we the people are disgusted with the greed, backroom deals, and unscrupulous antics taking place in our state capitol.

The current proposed ethics bill (SB 17) does not restrict lobbyists from giving gifts to legislators. In fact, it specifically exempts lobbyists from having to disclose the “reimbursement or payment of actual and reasonable expenses for food, beverages, travel, transportation, lodging, registration, and other related activities for a meeting which is provided to a public officer to permit such public officer’s participation in such meeting.”

Under this proposal, a lobbyist could legally buy a legislator a first class trip to the tropics, including airfare, accommodations at the Ritz Carlton, and room service and it would not have to be disclosed if the trip was for the purpose of a meeting. The people of Georgia deserve better than that.

HB 920, which was introduced in January by Rep. Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs), would have placed monetary limits on gifts that public officials can receive from lobbyists. The bill was signed by more than 40 House members, including members from both parties and an independent.

However, House leaders instead decided to use SB 17 as the vehicle for ethics reform. The current version of SB 17 does not include a limit on gifts to elected officials, thereby leaving the door wide open for moneyed special interests to continue to influence those elected to serve the people.

It’s hard for the voice of the little guy to be heard over the din created by unrestricted gifts from special interests. If the legislature wants to substantively change the culture in state politics then they should do the right thing and clamp down on practices that at the very least create the appearance of impropriety. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

The ethics bill should be cleaned up to provide more disclosure and transparency. It should be done right and it should be done now.

“Under the current ethics proposal, a lobbyist could legally buy a legislator a first class trip to the tropics including airfare, accommodations at the Ritz Carlton, and room service – and it would not have to be disclosed. The people of Georgia deserve better than that,” said Angela Speir Phelps, Executive Director of Georgia Watch.

House Bill 920, which was introduced in January by Rep. Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs), would have placed monetary limits on gifts that public officials can receive from lobbyists. That bill was signed by over 40 House members, including members from both parties and an independent.

However, House leaders instead decided to use Senate Bill 17 as the vehicle for ethics reform. The current version of SB 17 does not include a limit on gifts to elected officials, thereby leaving the door wide open for moneyed special interests to continue to provide gratuities to those elected to serve the people.

“It’s hard for the voice of the little guy to be heard over the din created by unrestricted gifts from special interests,” Phelps said. “If the legislature wants to substantively change the culture in state politics then they should do the right thing and clamp down on practices that are questionable at best.”

SB 17 is awaiting action in the House Rules Committee, which will decide when to send it to the floor for a vote. After that, the House changes will need to be approved by the Senate.

ATLANTA, GA – (April 12, 2010) – According to a new study released today by a team of researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute, aggressive adoption of energy efficiency programs in Georgia would lower utility bills by $3.8 billion and create 32,200 new jobs by 2020. Avoided annual electricity consumption is equal to the amount of electricity produced by six power plants in 2020 and 10 power plants in 2030.

Across the Southern region, aggressive adoption of energy efficiency programs would lower utility bills by $41 billion and create 380,000 new jobs by 2020.

“Georgia families are letting hundreds of dollars slip through their fingers each year – money none of us can afford to waste,” Angela Speir Phelps, executive director of Georgia Watch (and former Georgia Public Service Commissioner) said. “It’s imperative that state leaders encourage energy efficiency as a way to help consumers mitigate increasing utility bills.”

Total energy demand in the South, where per capita energy consumption is already higher than average, is projected to increase 16 percent from 2010 to 2030. At the same time, many Southern states spend less on energy efficiency programs than their peer states in other parts of the country. The research strongly indicates the South’s projected growth in energy consumption need not materialize if the region begins to tap into its tremendous energy efficiency potential. See the attached fact sheet for detailed Georgia findings.

“An aggressive commitment to energy efficiency could be an economic windfall for the South,” said Dr. Marilyn Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology, co-lead researcher of the study. “Such a shift would lower energy bills for cash-strapped consumers and businesses and create more new jobs for Southern workers.”

The energy efficiency policies examined by the research team fall into three broad categories: residential, commercial and industrial. Residential policies include changes to building codes, appliance standards and incentives, weatherization assistance, retrofit incentives and equipment standards. Commercial building policies include appliance standards and building retrofit incentives. Industrial policies include plant utility upgrades, process improvement policies, and combined heat and power incentives.

“Energy Efficiency in the South” found that the adoption of aggressive energy-efficiency initiatives in the South would:

-Prevent energy consumption from growing over the next 20 years. In the absence of such initiatives, energy consumption in these three sectors is forecast to grow by approximately 16 percent between 2010 and 2030.

- Generate new jobs, cut utility bills and sustain economic growth. Overall utility bills would be reduced by $41 billion in 2020 and $71 billion in 2030; the average residential electricity bill would decline by $26 per month in 2020 and $50 per month in 2030; electricity rate increases would be moderated; and 380,000 new jobs would be created by 2020 (annual job growth increases to 520,000 new jobs in 2030). The region’s economy is anticipated to grow by $1.23 billion in 2020 and $2.12 billion in 2030.

- Reduce the need for new power plants. Almost 25 gigawatts of older power plants would be retired and the construction of up to 50 gigawatts of new plants (equal to the amount of electricity produced by 100 power plants) would be avoided.

- Result in substantial water conservation. The reduction in power plant capacity would save southern NERC regions 8.6 billion gallons of freshwater in 2020 and 20.1 billion gallons in 2030.

“The set of energy efficiency policies we examined are also highly cost effective,” said Etan Gumerman of Duke University’s Nicholas Institute and co-lead researcher of the study. On average, each dollar invested in energy efficiency over the next 20 years will reap $2.25 in benefits.”

The study was developed using the same state-of-the-art economic modeling tool that the U.S. Energy Information Administration uses in making its annual energy forecasts. The research team used this tool to compare a “business as usual” scenario with a scenario that included a specific set of energy efficiency investments. As the findings indicate, the analysis found substantial reductions in energy use, prices, utility bills, water use and carbon emissions in the energy efficiency scenario as compared with business as usual. This study provides a useful estimate of the benefits associated with an aggressive commitment to energy efficiency. Since it does not include every energy efficiency investment that could be considered, it is by no means an exhaustive measure of the benefits associated with an aggressive commitment to energy efficiency.

“Energy Efficiency in the South” and state profiles that have been developed for each of the states are available on the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) Web site. SEEA is a nonprofit organization that promotes energy efficiency in the Southeast. This project is funded with support from the Energy Foundation, the Kresge Foundation and the Turner Foundation.

About Dr. Marilyn Brown and Georgia Tech: Dr. Marilyn Brown, a professor in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is an internationally-recognized leader in the analysis and interpretation of energy futures in the United States. In 2007, Brown was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the other members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Vice President Al Gore. Additional information about Brown and her research can be found at http://www.spp.gatech.edu/faculty/faculty/mbrown.php.

Brown has been nominated to serve on the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority and awaits confirmation.

Georgia Tech’s Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts offers one of the world’s top public policy programs. The research-intensive and globally engaged curriculum aims to solve complex problems in the public interest related to issues of research and technology, energy and sustainability, economic development and governance. The School of Public Policy is dedicated to scholarship and learning that is reflective, effective and sustainable.

About Etan Gumerman and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute: Etan Gumerman is a scientific engineer at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute, Gumerman was employed by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and served as the lead modeler and analyst for the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future Project. In this role, Gumerman coordinated the efforts of scientists at five national laboratories.

The Nicholas Institute is a nonpartisan institute founded in 2005 to help decision makers in government, the private sector, and the nonprofit community address critical environmental challenges. The Institute responds to the demand for high-quality and timely data and acts as an “honest broker” in policy debates by convening and fostering open, ongoing dialogue between stakeholders on all sides of the issues and providing policy-relevant analysis based on academic research. The Institute’s leadership and staff leverage the broad expertise of Duke University as well as public and private partners worldwide. Since its inception, the Institute has earned a distinguished reputation for its innovative approach to developing multilateral, nonpartisan, and economically viable solutions to pressing environmental challenges.

“This bill will leave thousands of Georgians who are AT&T customers no recourse and nowhere to turn for help,” said Angela Speir Phelps, executive director of Georgia Watch. “A customer can file a complaint and the Commission can ‘receive’ it – but without the authority to resolve it – the company can say ‘go jump’ and that’s that – and that’s not good for consumers.”

A provision in section 6 of the bill (proposed OCGA 46-5-251(b)(2)) would remove the enforcement authority that the PSC currently has in regards to consumer phone complaints. Instead of being able to resolve complaints, the PSC would only be able to “receive” complaints. HB 168 is a comprehensive bill that makes sweeping changes to the UAF (Universal Access Fund) and mandates changes to what small local telephone companies can charge AT&T.

According to the PSC, in calendar year 2009, the Commission assisted AT&T customers with complaints resulting in $145,650.18 of credits or refunds.  This amount is almost half of the total amount of credits and refunds the Commission helped consumers to secure across all utilities, including natural gas, electric, and telecom, thus highlighting the importance of the Commission retaining its ability to resolve telecommunications complaints.  If HB 168 were to pass in its current form, the Commission would no longer have the authority to help phone customers who have billing or service issues to be issued credits or refunds when appropriate and also would lose any leverage to order the phone companies to resolve a customer’s non-credit/refund-related complaint.

“This legislation is being pushed by AT&T, so it makes sense that they want to tie the hands of regulators,” said Danny Orrock, deputy director of Georgia Watch. “But it doesn’t make sense to leave consumers out in the cold when they have been wronged by their phone company.”

HB 168 has been passed by both the House and Senate, but the different versions of the legislation must be reconciled before the bill can go to the Governor for signature. It is currently awaiting Senate action.