Fw: NSF is NOT National Science Foundation

[Guest guest]

: http://www.nsf.org/info/NSFhistory.html

:

: Regarding one member's misapprehending the IAQ conference being sponsored

by

: NSF, from their own website here is what it stands for:

:

:

: What is the History of NSF International?

: NSF International, founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation,

is

: known for the development of standards, product testing and certification

: services in the areas of public health safety and protection of the

: environment. The NSF Mark is placed on millions of consumer, commercial

and

: industrial products annually and is trusted by users, regulators and

: manufacturers alike.

:

: Technical resources at NSF include physical and performance testing

: facilities and analytical chemistry and microbiology laboratories. NSF

: professionals include engineers, chemists, toxicologists, sanitarians and

: computer scientists with extensive experience in public health, food

safety,

: water quality, and the environment. NSF certification programs are

: accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Dutch

: Council for Accreditation (RvA) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).

:

:

: You are aware that NSF International is sponsoring their 2nd annual

: conference on indoor air health - Jan 29 - 31 in Miami Beach. If you read

: the posts from Albert Donnay concerning Dr. Ron Gots' relationship with

NSF,

: you will understand why I am not promoting this meeting. Like Albert

: Donnay, I am appalled that Dr. Gots has not had his license to practice

: medicine revoked. Not that he ever practiced medicine that we know of,

but

: after the Dateline investigation into insurance bad faith and fraud, and

the

: subsequent investigation of his activities as Medical Director of in the

: Washington Post there is no way he should still be going to conferences

and

: promoting his anti-MCS, anti-sick building syndrome agenda on behalf of

the

: insurance companies. Mr. Donnay revealed an all too cozy relationship

: between Ron Gots and NSF which further troubles me about this supposedly

: nonpartisan organization. He is still on their steering committee.

Those

: of you familiar with his parasitic activities over the years, particularly

: his using his credentials to testify for the defense against people sick

: with MCS or sick building problems - most of whom he never even saw,

tested

: or examined know why I despise this person. Not only has he hurt people

: whom he never even met but offering bogus testimony against their claims

for

: disability insurance, he has tirelessly worked to cloud all the issues

: around MCS and prevent federal agencies from investigating and getting

: involved in badly needed research. I was delighted when his nefarious

: activities were brought to light and the public became aware of the

: insurance

: scam of using these fraudulent " medical review " firms to prevent injured

: claimants from getting treatment their doctors had requested.

:

: To refresh your memory

:

: PHONY MEDICAL REVIEWS

:

: Auto Insurers Facing Legal Challenge By Walsh

: Washington Post Staff Writer

: Sunday, July 4, 1999; Page A1

:

: The nation's largest automobile insurer has settled several lawsuits over

: the past year that allege the company used fraudulent medical reports by

: outside firms to slash or deny insurance claims submitted by people

injured

: in car accidents. Now, three consumer groups have gone into federal court

in

: Oregon seeking to unseal the records of one of the cases, arguing that it

: holds clues to what could be a widespread practice within the industry.

:

: The case, in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., involves the settlement

of

: a lawsuit filed by Debbie Foltz, an Oregon woman, against State Farm

Mutual

: Automobile Insurance Inc. After her son was injured in an auto accident,

: Foltz alleged that State Farm sent her medical claim to a supposedly

: independent outside firm for review, knowing that the firm would return a

: phony medical analysis that said State Farm should deny or reduce the

claim.

:

: According to Foltz's lawyer and others who have represented plaintiffs in

: lawsuits against auto insurers, the Foltz case, which began in 1994, is

but

: a small piece of a larger pattern. The use of independent, outside firms

to

: review medical claims is extremely common in the insurance industry, and

is

: even mandated in two states. The plaintiffs' lawyers charge that, in an

: effort to keep down costs, insurance companies are systematically using

: dubious reports from some such firms as a pretext to cut their payments

for

: medical treatment.

:

: Last year, a jury in Idaho found State Farm did exactly that in one case.

A

: few months later, the insurer settled with Foltz and several other

: policyholders who had made similar allegations.

:

: But the details of the Foltz case and others that were settled may never

be

: known. A key provision of the settlement, insisted upon by State Farm, was

: that U.S. District Judge R. Hogan seal virtually the entire case

: record, an apparently voluminous file containing four years of pretrial

: skirmishing by lawyers for the two sides. Lawyers involved in the case are

: precluded from discussing it or identifying the related cases that were

: settled at the same time. The records in those cases are also believed to

be

: sealed.

:

: The secrecy surrounding the Foltz settlement, and the insurance industry

: practices that it may shroud, is the focus of the new legal action by the

: consumer groups and the Washington-based Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

: Foundation. The groups are attempting to persuade Hogan to unseal the

court

: records in an effort to shed light on a relatively new practice by the

: insurance industry that plaintiffs' lawyers say is saving insurance giants

: like State Farm millions of dollars a year at the expense of their

: policyholders.

:

: " Consumers cannot fight what they do not know about, " said Sherry of

: Consumer Action, one of the groups that is attempting to intervene in the

: case.

:

: At the heart of the Foltz case and several others against major insurance

: companies is a process known as " utilization review " or " paper review. " It

: involves the review of insurance claims by outside companies that employ

: physicians and other medical experts to determine whether medical

treatments

: were necessary and the charges reasonable, the standard set in law. Much

of

: the analysis is done by computer, matching the claims submitted to an

: insurance company against stored information on past treatments and

charges

: for the same condition.

:

: But critics charge that some insurance companies, which began using

: utilization review about 10 years ago in an attempt to root out claims for

: unnecessary medical treatments and inflated charges, have entered an

: alliance with unscrupulous outside firms that promise they will reduce

: insurers' costs by generating reports that are all but guaranteed to

: recommend denial or slashing of claims.

:

: One such case that reached trial was in Idaho, where in 1994

: sued State Farm over a three-year delay in the payment of medical claims

: stemming from an automobile accident. When the trial ended last year, the

: jury awarded $2,500 in damages under her policy, $100,000 in

: additional damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and

$9.5

: million in punitive damages.

:

: In a blistering opinion last August, Idaho District Judge D. Duff McKee

: upheld the jury verdict and the amount of damages. Reviewing the testimony

: in the case, McKee wrote that " the evidence was overwhelming that the

: utilization review company selected by the claim examiner was a completely

: bogus operation. The company did not objectively review medical records

but

: rather prepared 'cookie-cutter' reports of stock phrases, assembled on a

: computer, supporting the denial of claims by insurance companies. The

: insured's medical records were not examined and reports were not prepared

by

: doctors or even reviewed by doctors. "

:

: McKee said that State Farm's management knew that the reports it was

: receiving from outside utilization review companies were false but

condoned

: the practice because it was " leading to reduced claim expenses. "

:

: " The defendant's conduct in this case was outrageous, intentional, harmful

: and an extreme deviation from reasonable conduct, " McKee wrote. " The

: practice

: of manufacturing evidence to use in defeating a claim being made by the

: insurance company's own insured is reprehensible. "

:

: The utilization review firm that produced the reports in 's case

was

: Medical Claims Review Services (MCRS), which was based in Bethesda and is

: now apparently defunct. Ten years ago, the company's president, E.

: Gots, wrote an article in an insurance industry trade publication urging

the

: industry to turn to utilization review as a way to combat what he

described

: as the " vast economic interests " that were constantly pressing for

: " exaggerated medical losses. "

:

: Gots, a physician who now heads two other companies in Rockville, did not

: respond to messages left at his office.

:

: State Farm, which has 36.7 million auto insurance clients, is appealing

the

: verdict. Officials at the company's Bloomington, Ill.,

headquarters

: said they could not comment on any of the cases or the general subject of

: utilization review. " Anything we say about this topic could come back to

: haunt us in discovery in some case involving this, " said Dave Hurst, a

State

: Farm spokesman.

:

: But the cadre of plaintiffs' lawyers who daily do battle with the

insurance

: industry in courtrooms and law offices across the country are more than

: eager to talk about the topic. " It's all over the country, these phony

: medical review services. They have a computer program that says all soft

: tissue injuries heal in six months. "

:

:

:

: I found this posted at one of the insurance watchdog sites. They had

posted

: comments about this article that said:

:

: [ CYBER VIGILANTE COMMENTS: At Allstate, this computer program is called

: Colossus. By some quirk of programmer's humor it is named after an evil

: fictional computer, except this program, although still evil, is Real. As

: for secrecy, just read our site about Vacatur, gag orders, and " silence "

: deals. The insurance industry hides over Half their crimes from the press

: and the unsuspecting public with these shabby maneuvers. ]

:

:

: Gots also founded another organization to manipulate the data on MCS

called

: ESRI (Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute) http://www.esri.org

: which awards small grants to researchers investigating MCS and related

: disorders. After all, what better way to control and suppress the science

: than to catch it when it is in it's infancy. Thanks to Albert's

vigilance,

: many people have learned about the Gots/ERSI connection and one plaintiff

: was even successful in having Gots disqualified as an expert witness when

: the Hearing Officer would not allow him to testify if he would not reveal

: the nature of his affiliation with ESRI. But we have to remain vigilant,

: because even though Mr. Gots' greed led to his downfall, there are others

: all too eager to take his place. We have already seen the emerging

: adversaries who served on the bogus outside panel of " experts " for the

CDC's

: attempt at severing the scientific connection between stachy and human

: health effects in infants.

:

: If you missed reading the report known as the " predecisional draft " on

: MCS - they have it at their website: http://www.esri.org/pubs_gov.htm It

: has languished now for several years and unless there is strong consensus

to

: throw it out and start all over using all the data and research, it will

: continue to languish.

:

: Barbara

:

:

:

:

: