My finance view

Barnes-Jewish Hospital agreed to pay back $725,185 to a Medicare contractor, according to a government audit released Monday showing that the hospital overbilled for patient care.

According to the audit, the hospital received $660 million in 2009 and 2010 for care provided to patients with Medicare, government health insurance for people who are older than 65 or have a disability.

As part of a regular review of those payments, government auditors checked 240 claims that were deemed at-risk for billing errors, including those with payments above $150,000 and inpatient stays of zero or one day. The auditors found errors in 58 of the claims that resulted in overpayments of $392,829 for outpatient and $332,356 for inpatient charges. Barnes-Jewish “did not have adequate controls to prevent incorrect billing of Medicare claims,” according to the report from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General quick payday loans.

The billing errors involved calculation mistakes on dosages of injected drugs, unreported credits from device manufacturers, duplicate or incorrect coding and incomplete doctors’ orders.

The mistakes were attributed to human error and problems coordinating doctor signatures, dates and times on the paperwork.

The hospital refunded the full amount to Wisconsin Physician Services, a Medicare contractor, according to a letter dated March 30 from hospital President Richard Liekweg.

Barnes-Jewish also bought new billing software and trained employees on Medicare coding, Liekweg wrote.

Source

Get instant health insurance quotes, compare medical insurance plans, and find affordable health insurance to fit your health care coverage needs.

Technology consulting firm Perficient Inc. reported a 67 percent jump in profits in the first quarter. The company, based in Town and Country, reported a profit of $3 million, or 10 cents per share, compared with $1.8 million, or 6 cents per share, in the corresponding period of 2011 totally free credit score. The company reported quarterly revenue of $74.7 million, compared with $56.2 million last year.

Source

The team at Payday Loan Company is ready to tell anyone yes for a payday loans or cash advance for up to $1000 cash.

Delta Air Lines Inc.’s chief executive, Richard Anderson, received a 10 percent raise in his pay package in 2011, a year when the company’s stock price fell by more than a third.

Anderson’s pay package was valued at $8.9 million, up from $8 million in 2010, according to an Associated Press review of a securities filing made Friday.

His salary was unchanged at $600,000 but he received stock awards valued at $7 million, up from $6 million a year earlier. Other items in his pay package _ including retirement benefits, home security and performance pay _ were mostly unchanged.

Delta and other airlines responded to rising fuel costs in 2011 by cutting flights and raising fares and fees.

Shares of the nation’s second biggest airline fell 36 percent in 2011, compared to a 21 percent decline for United Continental Holdings Inc payday loans for bad credit., the No.1 carrier in the nation. The stocks have recovered, with Delta showing a 34 percent gain in the year to date.

United CEO Jeffery Smisek’s pay package tripled to $13.4 million, according to a separate filing Friday.

The AP’s calculation of executive compensation includes salary, bonuses, perks and the estimated value of stock and stock options awarded during the year. The amount that Anderson or other CEOs eventually get can differ, depending on the performance of the company’s stock after awards are granted. Most companies require an executive to wait a certain amount of time before getting stock grants or exercising options.

Source

The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits remained stuck near a three-month high last week, a sign that job gains will likely remain modest.

The report disappointed economists, who had forecast a decline in unemployment applications. Even so, most analysts think employers will add about 175,000 jobs this month. That would be more than in March but less than the robust job growth achieved during the winter.

Last week, applications for unemployment aid dipped to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was little changed from the previous week’s figure, the highest since Jan. 7.

The four-week average, a less volatile figure, rose to 381,750, also the highest in three months. When applications fall below 375,000, it generally suggests that hiring will be strong enough to lower the unemployment rate.

The figures “aren’t bad; they’re just not as good as they have been,” said Jonathan Basile, an economist at Credit Suisse.

Applications jumped sharply three weeks ago, a sign that employers had stepped up layoffs and added fewer jobs. Economists said the increase might have been inflated by temporary layoffs during the spring holidays, when many school employees are laid off.

But applications haven’t dropped back since then. And the consensus estimate that the economy will have added about 175,000 jobs in April is well below the average of 250,000 jobs added each month from December through February guaranteed fast personal loans.

The rise in applications follows a report this month that hiring slowed in March, when employers added only 120,000 jobs.

Still, many economists suggested that weather distorted the March jobs report. A warmer winter likely pulled some hiring that normally would have occurred last month into January and February.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke agreed Wednesday that weather has likely disrupted recent data.

The warm winter “made perhaps January and February artificially strong and March perhaps artificially a little bit weak,” he said at a news conference. “I wouldn’t draw too much conclusion from the March report.”

Despite the slowing improvements, the job market appears healthier than it did last year. The unemployment rate has fallen to 8.2 percent from 9.1 percent in August.

Part of the drop came from the fact that people gave up looking for work. People who are out of work but not looking for jobs aren’t counted among the unemployed.

Economists note that unemployment benefit applications remain lower than they were last year. The government’s report next week on April employment should help clarify the jobs picture.

Source

SXC Health Solutions Corp. agreed to buy Catalyst Health Solutions Inc. in a cash and stock transaction valued at $4.4 billion to stay competitive as larger pharmacy benefit managers join forces.

Catalyst investors will receive $28 in cash and 0.6606 shares of SXC stock for each Catalyst share under the terms of the agreement, the companies said. That implies a purchase price of $81.02 per Catalyst share, 28 percent above Tuesday’s closing prices.

Pharmacy benefit managers are combining after Express Scripts Inc., the largest in the U.S., agreed to pay $29.1 billion for Medco Health Solutions Inc. SXC, one of the biggest providers of technology for processing prescription claims, was the target of speculation last month.

The company is now in position to be one of the nation’s largest pharmacy benefit companies, said Brian Tanquilut, an analyst with Jefferies & Co. in Nashville, Tenn.

“SXC will be the next big player in the PBM space,” Tanquilut said. “The opportunity to win new business from the larger guys, meaning Express-Medco, CVS, is there.”

SXC Chairman and Chief Executive Mark Thierer will continue in those roles in the combined company. “We will be the second-largest independent PBM in the country, in terms of prescription volume,” Thierer said. “The transaction will expand our reach to larger clients.”

The companies have little overlap among clients, with Catalyst having many state employers while SXC has state Medicaid clients, Thierer said.

“This catapults SXC and Catalyst into a much better negotiating stance,” said Anthony Vendetti, a Maxim Group LLC analyst in New York who follows both companies. “It gives them more leverage with drug manufacturers and drug distributors and because of their increased size, it gives them more leverage with clients.”

Founded as Systems Xcellence in 1993, SXC negotiates with drugmakers for lower prescription medicine prices on behalf of health insurers, Medicare and Medicaid plans, workers’ compensation programs and long-term care facilities.

SXC also makes software that processed one out of every five drug claims in the U.S., according to the company’s 2010 annual report.

Tanquilut said the company may take a year to complete the integration, then move on to more deals to keep growing and compete with Express Scripts and CVS. The company needs to add smaller assets in specialty pharmaceuticals, most of which are likely to be closely held regional companies, he said.

Source

Never have I been less qualified to address a subject than the one you’ll read about today — fashion.

Let the record show I’m wearing jeans as I write this. It’s Wednesday. Not that it matters now that casual Friday has morphed into casual every day.

I once looped a tie around my neck every morning. It usually didn’t match my threadbare oxford shirt and always carried evidence of meals that didn’t quite make it from the plate-to-my-mouth. But it was, at least, a feeble nod toward professional attire.

I couldn’t tell you the last time I wore a tie to work or, for that matter, last purchased neck wear. Nor, apparently, can a lot of other people.

“There is no one way to dress for business anymore, where there used to be a set formula,” said Nancy Nix-Rice, a St. Louis image and wardrobe consultant.

Anyone who has paid a visit recently to an office occupied by small business or start-up can certainly attest to that.

Jeans, polo shirts and sweaters are standard attire in the boutique marketing firms, information technology and other companies with no designs of ever nailing down a spot on the Fortune 500.

In the small-business world, shorts are de rigueur summer wear for both men and women, and a tie is what happens when a soccer game ends with neither team scoring.

“There’s no doubt some people have taken business casual way too far,” said Nix-Rice. “And that sends a message that either says, ‘I’m an intellectual, and can’t be bothered by something so mundane as to how I look.’ Or, it’s a (finger gesture) approach that tells your employer, ‘You can’t tell me what to do even if you own the company.’”

Many trace the dressing down trend to young tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. But many medium-to-large corporations and law firms continue to buck the trend, unwilling to allow employees to dress as they see fit.

With the exception of casual Fridays in the summer months and occasional informal office celebrations, Edward Jones employees are expected to meet certain standards whenever they stroll into corporate headquarters.

For men, the rules call for a shirt, tie, suit or sport coat. For female employees, it means business attire.

Human resources executive Beth Cook said the Edward Jones dress policy rests on “the fundamental belief that being a professional is dressing like one.”

Monsanto, a little more lax, encourages its employees to arrive at the office in business casual.

The biotechnology giant’s dress code, in part to protect lab workers, bans open-toed shoes along with “shorts, skirts, tank tops and other garments that expose large areas of skin…”

The definition of professionally appropriate fashion started to evolve long before the first office worker through caution to the wind and wore shirt sleeves on a stifling August afternoon.

A reader responding to an informal survey on dress codes I posted to LinkedIn recalled the day when corporations required male employees to cover their heads.

“The hat you chose spoke to your status and position in the company as well as your attitude of professionalism,” the reader wrote remembering the co-worker who, in flaunting convention, was “henceforth known as ‘the man without a hat.’ A label he wore with pride.’”

Today, as often as not, the label will read Levi Strauss.

Nix-Rice has no squabble with jeans in the workplace. But she counsels it’s best to offset (preferably unfaded) denim with shirts and upper body wear that conveys a more, well, buttoned-down approach.

“Appearance is language,” she advises clients. “It’s what you are saying all day, even to yourself.”

In many ways, the folks at Edward Jones and other offices with strict dress codes have an easier time than those left to our own sartorial devices.

“Business dress today is confusing,” Nix-Rice acknowledged. “On one hand, you don’t want to look like the dork who didn’t get the business casual memo. But on the other hand, you don’t want to be the slob who doesn’t tuck in his polo shirt.”

Looking ahead, it’s not difficult to envision tomorrow’s corporate cubicle and office dwellers viewing mandatory business attire through the same prism with which we regard the rules that once placed a hat on the head of our grandparents.

Don’t think it will happen? Consider this: Time MoneyLand last month reported the results of a survey in which 93 percent of millennials (20- and 30-year-olds) said they gravitate toward workplaces that allow them to dress “in a way that makes them comfortable.”

Jeans, evidently, symbolize the truest measure of comfort, with 79 percent of the respondents saying they should be allowed to wear denim to work at least some of the time.

Finally, a note to anyone tempted to invest their life’s savings in necktie futures. MTV has attached another moniker to an age group already tagged as millenials and Gen Y.

It’s the “No Collar Workforce.”

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

“It must always be noted that these numbers are statistics—and complicated ones, based on tens of thousands of surveys from businesses and households, which are then massaged by a variety of quantitative techniques to produce the unemployment rate, the size of the labor force, and a host of other numbers. They are not absolutes, and they are not unequivocal facts. The definition of “unemployment” is not simply out of work; you can be without a job for years and not “unemployed” as a statistic; once you cease actively looking for work, you cease to be part of the workforce and hence are not “unemployed.” “Employed” also says nothing about wages. You can have two jobs and still earn less than the official poverty rate or be unable to support a family of five, and that indeed is the case for tens of millions of people.” - Primer by economist and money manager Zachary Karabell on how to interpret the federal government’s monthly report on unemployment.

Source: The Daily Beast

BY THE NUMBERS

$42,569 - The median salary for 2012 college graduates holding a bachelor’s degree at minimum — a 4.5 percent increase over the median salary earned by the Class of 2011.

Source: National Association of Colleges and Employers

FINAL WORD

“At G.M. you did the same thing every 48 seconds. In the nursing job, you don’t know what’s going to walk in the door.” — former autoworker Ken Harris on a new career path he took as a result of the type of retraining program now endangered by federal budget cuts.

Source: The New York Times  

Source

Identity theft isn

Payrolls rose far less than expected in March, keeping the door open for further monetary policy support from the Federal Reserve, even as the unemployment rate fell to a three-year low of 8.2 percent.

Employers added 120,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, the smallest increase since October. Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm employment to increase 203,000 and the jobless rate to hold at 8.3 percent.

The weak employment growth last month likely reflected the fading boost from unseasonably warm winter weather. The payrolls count for January and February was revised to show just 4,000 more jobs created than previously reported.

The drop in the unemployment rate, to the lowest level since January 2009, reflected a drop in the labor force. The separate household survey, from which the jobless rate is derived also showed a drop in employment.

The weak employment gains could hurt President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election in November. The unemployment rate has fallen from 9.1 percent in August.

The painfully slow recovery in the labor market is a concern for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is keeping open the option of further monetary policy support for the economy if the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high pay day loans.

Minutes of the Fed’s March policy meeting released this week showed policymakers seeing a broadening of the economic recovery, leaving them slightly less inclined to launch a third round of bond purchases, known as quantitative easing, to spur growth.

The private sector added 121,000 new positions in March, while government employment edged down 1,000.

Manufacturing enjoyed another month of strong job gains, with factories adding 37,000 new positions, helped by carmakers trying to meet pent-up demand for motor vehicles. Factory jobs increased by 31,000 in February.

Construction hiring fell 7,000, the second straight monthly decline. In the huge service sector, gains were in healthcare, professional and business services categories. Temporary help fell 7,500 after rising 54,900 in February.

Despite the weak employment gains last month, average hourly earnings rose 5 cents.

The workweek dipped to 34.5 hours from 34.6 hours in February.

Read more

You’ve heard it a thousand times: Health reform will stifle small business and kill jobs.

But some business owners are telling another story — it just might make health insurance more affordable.

"This is all about leveling the playing field so small businesses get a fair shake, so we can effectively compete against larger companies," said Mike Roach, co-owner of Paloma Clothing in Portland, Ore.

Roach is a member of the National Federation of Independent Business, a powerful trade group that helped propel the case before the Supreme Court. He has also joined the American Small Business Majority, which is on a crusade against the idea that health reform is a job killer.

Health care reform isn’t a job killer - yet

He and others pin their optimism about the 2010 Affordable Care Act on the promise of new statewide insurance exchanges.

The exchanges, set to start in 2014, could allow individuals and companies access to less expensive health insurance by pooling together and spreading out risk.

Roach doesn’t worry about one of the main criticisms of the law — a rule forcing companies of 50 or more employees to provide insurance or face fines. That’s because he’s nowhere near that threshold. He is among the 5.2 million firms with fewer than 20 workers, a group that makes up 90% of small employers.

What does worry him is the cost of covering his employees.

Paloma Clothing has been offering insurance since 2008; today six of its nine workers are opting in. Roach is paying close to $17,000 annually — not a trivial expense.

Every February, just before Roach and his wife, Kim Osgood, sit down with their insurance broker, they toss the same ideas back and forth.

"Can we continue to be as generous?" she asks.

"We could lose these people," he reminds her. "The 15% they pay is already a substantial burden for them."

They’ve always renewed, even when costs jumped 20% in 2010. Roach admits it wasn’t entirely from the kindness of his heart. He is afraid of losing workers to Nordstrom, a large chain with a few stores a short drive away.

Roach also supports another aspect of health reform, a tax credit for small companies that provide workers health insurance. The $5,500 credit he received for 2010 is far above the $1,407 average.

For others, the insurance exchanges would be a place their workers could go themselves.

"If my employees have health coverage, they’ll take care of themselves, be around a lot longer and be very productive for the company," said Anthony Serianni, president of Omicron Biochemicals in South Bend, Ind. "Ailing employees leave, and you have to hire new people. It doesn’t make sense to have that kind of turnover."

What if the health reform mandate dies?

Serianni offers his employees extra salary to help them cover as much as 65% of their own insurance costs. So if they can find cheaper coverage in the exchange, his tab will fall too.

Roberta Tichenor, owner of Annie Bloom’s Books in Portland, picks up 80% of the insurance costs for her three full-time employees. That amounts to $30,000 a year.

Her 14 part-time employees are left to fend for themselves, and she hopes the exchanges would give them an affordable option, diminishing their incentive to quit for a company that offers insurance.

"I think [health reform] actually saves jobs because it’s not easy to attract quality employees to a job that pays $10 an hour," Tichenor said. 

Source

1994 was great for movie fans. "Pulp Fiction." "The Shawshank Redemption." "Forrest Gump." But bond investors definitely would rather forget that year.

The yield on the 30-year Treasury (then the benchmark, as opposed to the 10-year that’s the benchmark now) began 1994 at about 5.8%. At the time, the economy was starting to show some signs of life after a big housing bust wreaked havoc on consumers and big banks. (Sound familiar?)

By the end of the year, long-term yields had popped to around 8%, one of the biggest bond market bloodbaths ever. Remember that prices fall when rates rise.

Flash forward to 2012. The 10-year started the year at a rate of just 1.87%. It spiked as high as 2.4% and has since settled back to about 2.25%. With the economy slowly improving, do bond investors have to fear that it’s 1994 all over again?

Some experts are, to paraphrase the Ace of Base song that topped the charts in 1994, seeing the sign. (1994 was not nearly as good a year for music as it was for film.)

But rates may only go so high. The big difference between now and two decades ago is that, in 1994, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan was raising rates.

Current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has gone out of his way numerous times, including in a speech Monday morning, to point out that the central bank needs to stick with "accommodative" monetary policy to keep the job market and economy humming.

How the Fed hurts retirees

The Fed has already pledged to keep short-term rates near zero through the end of 2014. And investors strongly believe that if there’s any evidence that economic growth is starting to stall, Bernanke will likely agree to the Fed’s third big bond buying program since the 2008 financial crisis.

This so-called quantitative easing, or QE3, could put a lid on how high bond rates can go, experts said. That’s because the Fed would be viewed as a buyer of last resort for long-term Treasuries.

"This is completely different from 1994," said Michael Mata, manager of the ING Global Bond Fund () in Atlanta. "As long as Bernanke is Fed Chairman, the Fed will buy more Treasuries as it deems necessary."

Still, many bond investors are bracing for higher rates — albeit not at 1994 levels. If the economy continues to pick up steam, the Fed will probably let its current stimulus effort, which sells short-term bonds and uses the proceeds to buy long-term Treasuries, expire in June as currently scheduled.

The end of this program, dubbed "Operation Twist," should lead to more selling of long-term bonds and higher rates.

Wilmer Stith, portfolio manager of the Wilmington Trust Broad Market Bond Fund () in Baltimore, said that yields on the 10-year could climb as high as 3% after the Fed ceases with Twist. For this reason, he said his fund is betting more on high-quality, investment-grade corporate bonds over Treasuries.

But Stith points out that higher rates are not necessarily a significant problem for the economy — as long as they don’t climb too quickly. And he believes a move from 1.8% to 3% for the 10-year would lead some bond investors to flock back to Treasuries, since they might think the bonds are now a good value.

"At the end of the day, a slow but recovering economy should augur higher yields," Stith said. "But a yield near 3% would be up nicely from the lows, and the net result could be some more buyers."

Another key difference between 1994 and now was that 1994 was also a bad year for stocks. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq fell while the Dow finished the year up just 2%. Investors back then were nervous about the impact of the Fed’s rate hikes on both corporate profits and the broader economy payday loan lenders.

This year, investors seem to be fleeing bonds to rush back into stocks. But this newfound love for riskier assets could itself make life more difficult for bond investors.

Ben Bernanke is just doing his job, folks

Tommy Huie, president and CIO of BMO Asset Management US in Chicago, points out that, until Treasury yields spike significantly higher, investors who want to take part in the market rally but still receive steady income streams might be better off with dividend-paying companies. Heck, even Apple (, Fortune 500) has finally agreed to pay a dividend.

"There are many more attractive opportunities than Treasuries," Huie said. "Concerns about another sell-off like 1994 are legitimate. But it will probably be gradual. Rates may creep up as opposed to spiking up."

Politics could affect bond yields too. Doug Peebles, head of fixed income for AllianceBernstein in New York, said he’s being asked the 1994 question more often lately — especially from people in Europe.

With the U.S. facing yet another crucial deadline for the debt ceiling sometime after the presidential election, it’s possible that bond rates could move much higher (like they did in Italy, Spain and yes, Greece) if investors feel that Republicans and Democrats can’t come to a meaningful agreement on deficit reduction.

Peebles said he does think Treasury rates should be higher than what they are now, but that it’s highly unlikely yields will approach the levels well north of 5% that plague Spain and Italy.

Of course, how high rates head all depends on the economy. And at least one investing expert is worried that if the Fed continues to stick with its pledge to leave short-term rates low for another two years, even if the recovery proves to be sustainable, inflation fears could resurface with a vengeance.

"The slump in economic activity won’t last forever. Interest rates near their lows won’t last forever," said Keith Skeoch, CEO of Standard Life Investments in Edinburgh, Scotland. "Something strange is afoot. The bond sell-off is going to happen. It’s just a matter of when."

Best of StockTwits: Some traders are starting to wonder if Bernanke has "I heart QE" tattooed on his bicep.

mohannadaama: Next best thing to actually doing #QE is threatening to do so when the market least expects it. #Bernanke $SPY $GLD #Stocks #Bonds

etfdigest: Pending home sales down -0.5%, consensus 1.0%, down from 2.0%: That’s gonna leave a mark. Oh wait…more QE? $SPY

DavidSchawel: We live in a QE world; more & more RF assets being sucked out of the system - a form of financial repression as some call it. $SPY $TLT

This is what worries most about the rally this year. It’s hard to tell whether investors really think the economy is getting better, or if they are willing to keep buying stocks because they think Bernanke will drop another quarter in the QE pinball machine every time the market flashes Tilt.

EddyElfenbein: Always amazed at the disconnect between what Ben Bernanke says and what some people think he says.

A fair point. Bernanke isn’t completely tipping his hand. While he’s not as opaque as his predecessor Mr. Greenspan, he’s not as blunt as his European contemporary Mario Draghi at the ECB.

Investors may be grasping for QE3 straws in every Bernanke utterance. But after QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist, can you blame them?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul R. La Monica. Other than Time Warner, the parent of CNNMoney, and Abbott Laboratories, La Monica does not own positions in any individual stocks. 

Source