Why is Axa stalling on my car claim?

My Toyota Yaris was hit in a supermarket car park, smashed beyond economical repair, in August 2012. My boyfriend was driving – I was unwell – and as he was not a named driver, he was only covered for third party claims. There were no such claims as it was entirely the other driver's fault.

But because he was driving, neither my insurer nor the legal expenses cover on my policy would get involved. The other driver was insured by Swiftcover, part of Axa. I had to tackle them on my own.

My road tax and insurance ran out at the end of August so I had to pay to store the car, awaiting an Axa inspection. Despite frequent reminders, I heard nothing from Axa. In the meantime, I could not afford another car and after paying for four months' storage, I sold the car as scrap for £500.

Now, more than six months after the incident, I have still heard nothing from Axa. KL, Teddington, Middx

Motor insurers are notoriously difficult when dealing with legitimate claims from other parties. In this case, it was doubly difficult as both your insurer and legal expenses provider washed their hands of you because your boyfriend was covered under his own policy only for third-party risks when driving another car.

There was initially some confusion over who would obtain the CCTV footage from the car park. But this does not explain the six months of delay.

Axa owned up swiftly when we called. It blamed an "inexcusable lack of communication" and added: "We didn't reply. We didn't give the service we should have. It was unacceptable." The only reason it could come up with was that it was hit in August by a "surge of events", mostly relating to last summer's bad weather.

Axa has now agreed to pay you the full value of the car – it calculated this slightly higher than your estimate – less the scrap value, plus storage costs and a £10 a day public transport allowance: £3,917. It will also add £200 to compensate you for its poor service.

This week's column is guest-written by Tony Levene.

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Bachelor & Brignall, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Industry editorial makes outlandish claim about impact of medical devices

Minnesota is the home of several medical device makers.  So there’s been a lot of editorializing about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act. There has been some criticism of Minnesota politicians over whose interests they represent on the issue.

Today’s Star Tribune carries a commentary from an industry spokesman – Dale Wahlstrom, president and CEO of LifeScience Alley. He retired from Medtronic in 2006 after 24 years.  His commentary includes this claim:

Medical devices save and improve lives. Between 1980 and 2000, medical device technology slashed the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent. As a result, life expectancy was extended by more than three years.

Please note: I’ve written to a contact at LifeScience Alley asking for the source of that data.  In fairness, he hasn’t had much time to respond but I don’t expect an answer on the data source because I don’t think there is one. I’ll be happy to post an amendment/addendum if/when an answer is forthcoming. That editorial has been published for hours already and I think it’s important to publish even this quick analysis as quickly as I can.

This quote attributes ALL cardiovascular health improvements to devices rather than siphoning off the mere fraction that might be attributable to devices versus drug therapies versus lifestyle changes.

One analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded:

Approximately 47% of this decrease (in coronary disease death rate) was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively).

So a little less than half is attributable to changes in risk factors.  A little more than half to ALL treatments – including drugs, surgery, etc.

The largest reductions in deaths came from the use of secondary-prevention medications or rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction or after revascularization (a total reduction of approximately 35,800 deaths) and from the use of initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (approximately 35,145 deaths), followed by treatments for heart failure and hypertension, statin therapy for primary prevention, and treatments for chronic angina.

The editorial is more than a matter of playing loose with the numbers; it is a vast overstatement and a distortion of the evidence. There’s no question that medical devices have contributed to the decline.  It is disingenuous to attribute ALL of the benefit to devices.

I’m not going to comment on the medical device tax.  For now, I’ll leave that to the politicians and special interests.

But on this site, we address and try to correct any misleading claims about medical interventions whenever we see them – whatever the source.  And this editorial made a whopper!

I only hope that such whopping misleading claims aren’t misleading politicians into positions they wouldn’t take if they evaluated the claims.

View the original article here

Industry editorial makes outlandish claim about impact of medical devices

Minnesota is the home of several medical device makers.  So there’s been a lot of editorializing about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act. There has been some criticism of Minnesota politicians over whose interests they represent on the issue.

Today’s Star Tribune carries a commentary from an industry spokesman – Dale Wahlstrom, president and CEO of LifeScience Alley. He retired from Medtronic in 2006 after 24 years.  His commentary includes this claim:

Medical devices save and improve lives. Between 1980 and 2000, medical device technology slashed the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent. As a result, life expectancy was extended by more than three years.

Please note: I’ve written to a contact at LifeScience Alley asking for the source of that data.  In fairness, he hasn’t had much time to respond but I don’t expect an answer on the data source because I don’t think there is one. I’ll be happy to post an amendment/addendum if/when an answer is forthcoming. That editorial has been published for hours already and I think it’s important to publish even this quick analysis as quickly as I can.

This quote attributes ALL cardiovascular health improvements to devices rather than siphoning off the mere fraction that might be attributable to devices versus drug therapies versus lifestyle changes.

One analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded:

Approximately 47% of this decrease (in coronary disease death rate) was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively).

So a little less than half is attributable to changes in risk factors.  A little more than half to ALL treatments – including drugs, surgery, etc.

The largest reductions in deaths came from the use of secondary-prevention medications or rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction or after revascularization (a total reduction of approximately 35,800 deaths) and from the use of initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (approximately 35,145 deaths), followed by treatments for heart failure and hypertension, statin therapy for primary prevention, and treatments for chronic angina.

The editorial is more than a matter of playing loose with the numbers; it is a vast overstatement and a distortion of the evidence. There’s no question that medical devices have contributed to the decline.  It is disingenuous to attribute ALL of the benefit to devices.

I’m not going to comment on the medical device tax.  For now, I’ll leave that to the politicians and special interests.

But on this site, we address and try to correct any misleading claims about medical interventions whenever we see them – whatever the source.  And this editorial made a whopper!

I only hope that such whopping misleading claims aren’t misleading politicians into positions they wouldn’t take if they evaluated the claims.

View the original article here