Connect with us

News

Policymakers should not exacerbate the risks of deglobalisation

Published

on

Policymakers should not exacerbate the risks of deglobalisation

Stay informed with free updates

The writer is chief executive of UBS

As trade has globalised over the past 80 years, the role of banks has evolved with the needs of customers but remained relatively constant: providing the financial lubricant that keeps the world economy humming.

In an era where deglobalisation brings new risks, ensuring that capital flows to local and regional companies and communities is even more crucial to guarantee future prosperity. Yet divergent and often-burdensome regulatory constraints threaten to weaken, if not destabilise, the global financial system.

Advertisement

For most of my nearly 50 years in finance, markets operated on the assumption that global capital would flow with increasing ease. This was the foundation of the world economy following the second world war, fostering growth, innovation and improved standards of living.

That dynamic is now being upended. Trade tensions between the US and China have led to declines in the flows of goods, services, investments, and labour.

It is not just geopolitical rivals who have been harmed by rising economic nationalism. Consider the political reactions in Germany and Italy to a potential takeover of Commerzbank by UniCredit, or bipartisan US opposition to the proposed acquisition of US Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel.

Such protectionist measures reflect growing sentiments that purport to prioritise national interests over global co-operation, but instead lead to missed opportunities for innovation and growth.

In this environment, everyone tends to suffer. As protectionism grows, the flows of capital needed for regions to prosper peacefully are stymied. The result is an increasingly fragmented financial system, with a higher cost of capital for borrowers and a knock-on impact on competitiveness, jobs, consumer prices and household prosperity.

Advertisement

Those in the most connected emerging markets stand to be particularly hard hit. And the implications of this fragmentation extend beyond economics, influencing social stability and international relations.

To prevent this from worsening, it is critical for policymakers and financial regulators worldwide to adopt a co-ordinated approach and ensure banks can operate effectively. Notwithstanding concerns around elements of the Basel III rules on bank capital, many of which I share, we are seeing a patchwork adoption of these reforms, with jurisdictions de facto charting their own paths.

This lack of cohesion creates inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in the global financial system and distorts competition. It also creates further potential for regulatory arbitrage that could produce new and unforeseen pockets of danger, such as with the uncontrolled expansion of shadow banking activities.

The need for strong, well-regulated banks capable of acting as engines of credit creation in their local communities should not come at the expense of nurturing globally connected and competitive institutions.

Moreover, a fragmented approach to rulemaking has the potential to be especially destructive at a time when many banks are faced with the need to restructure their operations and invest to ensure their future existence.

Advertisement

For example, the industry will need to contend with increased cyber security risks — not to mention the potential disruption posed by AI — and play its role in helping fund the estimated $3.5tn per year in investment needed to transition the global economy to net zero by 2050.

The banking sector must navigate these complex challenges while maintaining its fundamental role in facilitating economic growth and stability. Sadly, however, fragmentation looks set to worsen.

In a recent UBS survey, nearly all global central bankers said they believe the world is moving towards a more multipolar system. Only a third said the international financial architecture was resilient enough to survive current challenges without reform. They also embraced a view that one potential outcome of the US presidential election would be a rise in global protectionism.

We are set for a potentially long period of deglobalisation — one in which the coming few decades will be very different from those that shaped today’s business leaders. 

Although banking’s crucial role remains unchanged, barriers are slowly coming up everywhere. It is important that policymakers do not build them in the wrong places, so that banks can continue to act as catalysts for growth, innovation and prosperity not only in their home markets, but around the world.

Advertisement

News

Trump sues IRS and Treasury for $10 billion over leaked tax information

Published

on

Trump sues IRS and Treasury for  billion over leaked tax information

The Internal Revenue Service building May 4, 2021, in Washington.

Patrick Semansky/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Patrick Semansky/AP

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is suing the IRS and Treasury Department for $10 billion, as he accuses the federal agencies of a failure to prevent a leak of the president’s tax information to news outlets between 2018 and 2020.

The suit, filed in a Florida federal court Thursday, includes the president’s sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump organization as plaintiffs.

The filing alleges that the leak of Trump and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

Advertisement

In 2024, former IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn of Washington, D.C. — who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a defense and national security tech firm — was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to leaking tax information about Trump and others to news outlets.

Littlejohn, known as Chaz, gave data to The New York Times and ProPublica between 2018 and 2020 in leaks that appeared to be “unparalleled in the IRS’s history,” prosecutors said.

The disclosure violated IRS Code 6103, one of the strictest confidentiality laws in federal statute.

The Times reported in 2020 that Trump did not pay federal income tax for many years prior to 2020, and ProPublica in 2021 published a series about discrepancies in Trump’s records. Six years of Trump’s returns were later released by the then-Democratically controlled House Ways and Means Committee.

Trump’s suit states that Littlejohn’s disclosures to the news organizations “caused reputational and financial harm to Plaintiffs and adversely impacted President Trump’s support among voters in the 2020 presidential election.”

Advertisement

Littlejohn stole tax records of other mega-billionaires, including Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.

The president’s suit comes after the U.S. Treasury Department announced it has cut its contracts with Booz Allen Hamilton, earlier this week, after Littlejohn, who worked for the firm, was charged and subsequently imprisoned for leaking tax information to news outlets about thousands of the country’s wealthiest people, including the president.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said at the time of the announcement that the firm “failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect sensitive data, including the confidential taxpayer information it had access to through its contracts with the Internal Revenue Service.”

Representatives of the White House, Treasury and IRS were not immediately available for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: 4.2-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Montana

Published

on

Map: 4.2-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Montana

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Mountain time. The New York Times

A light, 4.2-magnitude earthquake struck in Montana on Thursday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 12:41 p.m. Mountain time about 7 miles northeast of Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Mountain time. Shake data is as of Thursday, Jan. 29 at 2:56 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Thursday, Jan. 29 at 5:42 p.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Medicare Advantage insurers face new curbs on overcharges in Trump plan

Published

on

Medicare Advantage insurers face new curbs on overcharges in Trump plan

Dr. Mehmet Oz leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. A CMS plan to keep payments to Medicare Advantage flat in 2027 roiled health insurance stocks this week.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Medicare Advantage health plans are blasting a government proposal this week that would keep their reimbursement rates flat next year while making other payment changes.

But some health policy experts say the plan could help reduce billions of dollars in overcharges that have been common in the program for more than a decade.

On Jan. 26, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials announced they planned to raise rates paid to health plans by less than a tenth of a percent for 2027, far less than the industry expected. Some of the largest, publicly traded insurers, such as UnitedHealth Group and Humana, saw their stock prices plummet as a result, while industry groups threatened that people 65 and older could see service cuts if the government didn’t kick in more money.

Advertisement

In Medicare Advantage, the federal government pays private insurance companies to manage health care for people who are 65 and older or disabled. 

“Chart reviews”

Less noticed in the brouhaha over rates: CMS also proposed restricting plans from conducting what are called “chart reviews” of their customers. These reviews can result in new medical diagnoses, sometimes including conditions patients haven’t even asked their doctors to treat, that increase government payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

The practice has been criticized for more than a decade by government auditors who say it has triggered billions of dollars in overpayments to the health plans. Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced a record $556 million settlement with the nonprofit health system Kaiser Permanente over allegations the company added about half a million diagnoses to its Advantage patients’ charts from 2009 to 2018, generating about $1 billion in improper payments.

KP did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

“I do think the administration is serious about cracking down on overpayments,” said Spencer Perlman, a health care policy analyst in Bethesda, Maryland.

Advertisement

Perlman said that while the Trump administration strongly supports Medicare Advantage, officials are “troubled” by plans that rake in undue profits by using chart reviews to bill the government for medical conditions even when no treatment was provided.

In a news release, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said curbing this practice would ensure more accurate payments to the plans while “protecting taxpayers from unnecessary spending that is not oriented towards addressing real health needs.”

“These proposed payment policies are about making sure Medicare Advantage works better for the people it serves,” Oz said.

Richard Kronick, a former federal health policy researcher and a professor at the University of California-San Diego, called the proposal “at least a mildly encouraging sign,” though he said he suspected health plans might eventually find a way around it.

Kronick has argued that switching seniors to Medicare Advantage plans has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars more than keeping them in the government-run Medicare program, because of unbridled medical coding excesses. The insurance plans have grown dramatically in recent years and now enroll about 34 million members, or more than half of people eligible for Medicare.

Advertisement

David Meyers, an associate professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, called the proposed restriction on chart reviews “a step in the right direction.”

“I think the administration has been signaling pretty strongly they want to cut back on inefficiencies,” he said.

The outcry from industry, mostly directed at the proposal to essentially hold Medicare Advantage payment rates flat, was quick and sharp.

“If finalized, this proposal could result in benefit cuts and higher costs for 35 million seniors and people with disabilities when they renew their Medicare Advantage coverage in October 2026,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans.

CMS is accepting public comments on the proposal and says it will issue a final decision on the payment rates and other provisions by early April.

Advertisement

Meyers said health plans often claim they will be forced to slash benefits when they aren’t satisfied with CMS payments. But that rarely happens, he said.

“The plans can still make money,” he said. “They mostly are very profitable, just not as profitable as shareholders expected.”

The government pays Medicare Advantage plans higher rates to cover sicker patients. But over the past decade, dozens of whistleblower lawsuits, government audits, and other investigations have alleged that health plans exaggerate how sick their customers are to pocket payments they don’t deserve, a tactic known in the industry as “upcoding.”

Many Medicare Advantage health plans have hired medical coding and analytics consultants to review patients’ medical charts to find new diagnoses that they then bill to the government. Medicare rules require that health plans document — and treat — all medical conditions they bill.

Yet federal audits have shown for years that many health plans’ billing practices don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Advertisement

A December 2019 report by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that the health plans “almost always” used chart reviews to add, rather than delete, diagnoses. “Over 99 percent of chart reviews in our review added diagnoses,” investigators said.

The report found that diagnoses reported only on chart reviews — and not on any service records — resulted in an estimated $6.7 billion in payments for 2017.

This week’s proposal is not the first time CMS has tried to crack down on chart reviews.

In January 2014, federal officials drafted a plan to restrict the practice, only to abruptly back off a few months later amid what one agency official described as an “uproar” from the industry.

The health insurance industry has for years relied on aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns to fight efforts to rein in overpayments or otherwise reduce taxpayers’ costs for Medicare Advantage.

Advertisement

What happens this time will say a lot about the seriousness of the Trump administration in its crack down on controversial, long-standing payment practices in the program.

Perlman, the policy analyst, said it is “quite common” for CMS to partially backtrack when faced with opposition from the industry, such as by phasing in changes over several years to soften the blow on health plans.

David Lipschutz, an attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit public interest law firm, said finalizing the chart review proposal “would be a meaningful step towards reining in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans.

“But in the past, he said, even a minor change to Advantage payments has led the industry to protest that “the sky will fall as a result, and the proposal is usually dropped.”

“It’s hard to tell at this stage how this will play out,” Lipschutz said.

Advertisement

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.

Continue Reading

Trending