Facebook's CEO is in India to attend an Internet.org summit and meet Prime Minister Modi to partner with the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan
Mark Zuckerberg, the chairman and chief executive of Facebook Inc. arrived in India today. He is on a visit to India to attend an Internet.org summit in New Delhi. He is also expected to meet Prime Minister Modi tomorrow. They are expected to discuss possibilities of technological partnership for social programs like Swacch Bharat Abhiyan.
Mark Zuckerberg is the second Facebook top executive, after COO Sheryl Sandberg, to have visited India to meet the PM. However, the latest among many corporate heads who have visited the country since PM Modi took office.
India is among the severely under-serviced internet markets where a majority of internet users use mobile phones to access the internet. With China having shielded its market from competition and pushed its local companies to become home-grown Facebooks and Twitters (China has Sina Weibo, QQ etc that function as the leading social networks in China) the next and biggest untapped market remains India.
At the Internet.org summit, Zuckerberg spoke about and highlighted the barriers to better internet connectivity and the vision that Internet.org and its founders which include the likes of Qualcomm, Samsung, Nokia, Ericsson etc have for internet accessibility around the world.
Talking about the Facebook users in India, Zuckerberg said, “65% of Facebook users use a language other than English, including ten Indian languages.” On their push for internet connectivity, he unveiled plans for internet access through wireless drone-like satellites, which is much like the Google plan to offer free internet all over the world using balloons.
“Internet connectivity should be a human right,” said Zuckerberg in his speech. NDTV quoted Zuckerberg as saying that, “technology isn't progress by itself. It enables progress and it has to serve the whole of society. It needs to be an opportunity for everyone. Since last year, we have been working with Airtel to provide free basic Internet in Zambia."
With the flurry of meetings between tech titans and industry honchos with PM Modi, it remains to be seen if something concrete comes out for the general users and consumers. However, seeing the PM's push for a Digital India, it is possible that technology use may make delivery of government services much more efficient.
Many of the charges were for such texting services as horoscopes and celebrity gossip that consumers never signed up for. Officials urge consumers to carefully check cell phone bills for unauthorized charges
From 2012-2013, AT&T made about $270 million in revenues from third party charges placed on customers’ phone bills. On Wednesday, the company agreed to pay back less than half of that in a joint settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and 51 attorneys generals billed as the largest of its kind regarding cramming allegations.
“We allege that AT&T had strong reason to suspect that the charges were unauthorized, yet continued to place these charges on its customers’ bills,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez at a joint press conference. “… But instead of acting to stop the charges, AT&T continued to make hundreds of millions of dollars from the practice by taking at least 35 percent of every charge and refused to provide refunds to many consumers.”
In 2011 alone, the FTC’s complaint states, AT&T received more than 1.3 million calls to its customer service department about the charges. The complaints about the charges prompted an AT&T employee to write in an email: “Cramming / spamming has increased to a new level that cannot be tolerated from an AT&T or industry perspective.”
However, federal officials said AT&T continued to make it hard for consumers to get refunds, including by telling consumers there was nothing the company could do, or telling them to call the third-party company themselves about the charges, but then it was not providing enough information on how to contact the third-party. Also, AT&T did not require the third-party company to prove customers had authorized the charges.
Many of the charges for such texting services as horoscopes and celebrity gossip that consumers never signed up for — which often totalled $9.99 a month – were lumped into the consumers bills in hard-to-detect forms, such as being called “Basic Data Plan” or as part of a line called “AT&T Monthly Subscriptions.”
Excerpts from an actual AT&T bill showing cramming charges, according to the FTC, which provided the graphic.
The agreement settles allegations that the company, dating back to 2009, unlawfully placed charges on cell phone bills that consumers never authorized and didn’t want, made it “difficult if not impossible” for consumers to identify the charges, and told the companies originating the charges that it would help lower refunds by limiting them to two months worth even if the customer was billed for the authorized charges for a year. The AT&T complaint is the seventh mobile cramming case brought by the FTC since 2013.
Under the terms of the settlement, AT&T will pay $80 million to the FTC for customer refunds, and $25 million to the FCC and 50 states and the District of Columbia. It also requires that the company notify consumers who were wrongly billed, obtain expressed consent for third-party charges, clearly and conspicuously disclose the charges, and bolster its refund practices.
In a statement issued Wednesday, AT&T said last year it discontinued third-party billing for these types of services. In addition, spokesman Mark Siegel said:
Today, we reached a broad settlement to resolve claims that some of our wireless customers were billed for charges from third-parties that the customers did not authorize. This settlement gives our customers who believe they were wrongfully billed … the ability to get a refund.
Federal officials said they had also taken action against some of the third-party companies and said the AT&T case was part of a continual joint effort to enforce “a time tested principle of consumer protection, that consumers must not be charged for business or service that they didn’t authorize.” Ramirez said she’d like to see cell phone companies give consumers the ability to opt out and block all forms of third-party billing.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler advised consumer to search their bills for charges that seem vague including looking specifically for charges that come to $9.99 and to ask their carriers if they have any third-party charges on their bills.
The causes are not clear, but men account for more than 90% of the 300 doctors who received the most money from drug and medical device companies, according to new federal data
This story was co-published with The New York Times' The Upshot.
Few women are on the list of doctors paid the most money by drug and medical device companies last year, according to a ProPublica analysis of new data released by the federal government.
More than 90 percent of the 300 doctors who collected the most money for speaking and consulting are men, based on information from the new government database, called Open Payments. By comparison, men accounted for about 68 percent of active physicians in the United States in 2012, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
What we found adds to a growing body of evidence that male and female doctors are paid differently and may in fact practice medicine differently, though the reasons for the discrepancy are not completely clear. It's possible that men are more willing to accept payments from drug companies than women. It's possible that drug companies are more likely to make offers to male doctors. Or it's possible that male doctors are simply much more likely to be in the senior positions or medical specialties that appeal to drug companies.
But even in primary care fields, men dominated the list of the 300 highest-paid speakers and consultants in Open Payments. Of the 91 internists, just 12 percent were women. Nationally, women made up 34 percent of internists in 2010. There were five obstetrician-gynecologists on the list; all were men.
There are plenty of caveats regarding the new federal data. It covers only the last five months of 2013, and more than one-third of speaking and consulting payments are missing the names of those who received them. (The government redacted the names, citing data inconsistencies.)
That said, the broad finding is consistent with Dollars for Docs, ProPublica's online search tool that reflects payments made by 17 drug companies over four years. The overwhelming majority of large payments for speaking and consulting went to men. In an analysis we performed last year, 21 of the 22 doctors who earned more than $500,000 in speaking and consulting fees were men.
The federal data set covers all drug and device companies — more than 1,000 in all.
The data doesn't explain why the gender disparity exists. While current medical school classes are close to evenly split between male and female students (men still have a slight edge), many subspecialties are still dominated by men, as are the leadership ranks of medicine.
"I don't perceive any gender bias from my colleagues, the people I work with," said Alison Tendler, a South Dakota ophthalmologist who was among the top-paid women, primarily because she serves as the TV advertising spokeswoman for the eye drug Restasis, made by Allergan.
"I do feel that we can be potentially overlooked from an industry standpoint for being leaders and innovators in our likely professions,"Tendler said. "I'm not sure if they perceive us as not as assertive. I'm not sure why."
Tendler said she sees a gender divide, although not in her interactions with Allergen. "In general, you have to raise your hand a little higher," she said.
Some of the other female doctors on the top-paid list are well-known academics and researchers. Nesli Basgoz, a leader at Massachusetts General Hospital, is on the board of directors of the drugmaker Actavis and was on the board of Forest Labs, which Actavis acquired this year. Alessia Fornoni is the director of the Peggy and Harold Katz Family Drug Discovery Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
Basgoz could not be reached for comment. The Miller School of Medicine declined to comment on Fornoni's behalf.
What's clear from research is that women in medicine earn less than men. A study last year in JAMA Internal Medicine found that the median earnings of male physicians exceeded those of female ones by more than $56,000 between 2006 and 2010, a bigger gap than in prior years, even after factoring in inflation. The data was adjusted for hours worked and for years of experience, but not for physician specialty. Some specialties, like dermatology or orthopedic surgery, pay better than general practice.
A 2011 report in the journal Health Affairs also found a gender disparity among doctors who recently completed their residency training programs. It persisted even after taking into account doctors' choice of specialty.
Gender differences were once again on display in data released earlier this year on Medicare's payments to physicians. An analysis by the website Nerd Wallet found that men, on average, were paid 88 percent more than women in Medicare reimbursements in 2012. Men saw more Medicare patients, performed more services per patient, and were paid more money per patient. This gap persisted within specialties in which women have a larger presence, including obstetrics and gynecology.
Roberta Gebhard, national secretary of the American Medical Women's Association and chairwoman of its gender equity task force, said the dearth of women among the industry's top-paid list was "not a surprise."
"In my experience, women are less likely to be in the specialty that's going to be tapped," she said. "They're less likely to be asked if they're in that specialty. And then if they are asked, they are less likely to accept" payments from drug and device makers. Gebhard said her female colleagues don't want to be unduly influenced by such relationships.
Anthony T. Lo Sasso, a professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was the lead author on the 2011 Health Affairs article. He said women have tended to work in primary care fields, such as internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics and obstetrics-gynecology, which provide fewer opportunities for consulting and speaking work.
In 2010, for example, women made up just 4 percent of orthopedic surgeons in the United States. (Thirty-nine male orthopedic surgeons — and no women — were among the 300 top speakers and consultants.)
"The notion that women physicians may be willing to trade off some income for greater flexibility" to improve the work-life balance may be a consideration, he said. Consulting and speaking engagements take even more time after work hours. "If they're willing to forgo some salary in order to get some predictability and to balance work and nonwork life, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising to see them not take up these additional consulting gigs," he said.
Anupam B. Jena, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the proliferation of data on gender disparities among physicians was ripe for further study. Jena, an author of the 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine report, suggested that physicians' ages and specialization would reduce the extent of the disparity in the Open Payments data, but may not eliminate it entirely.
"I wouldn't be surprised to see that even when you adjust for all these things, you still see more payments going to men than to women," he said.
Check Dollars for Docs to see whether your doctor has received payments from the 17 companies we track. Email us at [email protected] and tell us what you find.