Outside the Box

Entitlement Bandits

August 2, 2011

This week’s Outside the Box is guaranteed to upset you. It is about Medicare fraud. Warning: it was written by a very conservative analyst and is “pro” the Ryan plan. I want you to read it not because I am trying to get you to support the Ryan plan but to get a handle on the size of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and just how easy it is to perpetrate.

There may well be better ways than the Ryan plan as advocated here, but something must be done. Want to cut spending by $1 trillion in ten years? Eliminate the fraud. If American Express can hold fraud to 0.3%, maybe we should outsource our Medicare fraud detection to them. I say that only slightly tongue in cheek.

This outraged me. I knew it was bad, but I had no idea… The piece is short, but it will strike a nerve, I bet. The link to the original is http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271006/entitlement-bandits-michael-f-cannon?page=1.

Tomorrow morning I leave for New York and then on to Maine with my youngest son, Trey, for a few days of fishing, wine, and friends; and then I’m back for a night and off the next day to a consulting gig in Calgary. In and out and then home for a few weeks (I hope).

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Get John Mauldin's Over My Shoulder

"Must See" Research Directly from John Mauldin to You

Be the best-informed person in the room
with your very own risk-free trial of Over My Shoulder.
Join John Mauldin's private readers’ circle, today.


Entitlement Bandits

Adapted from the July 4, 2011, issue of National Review.

The budget blueprint crafted by Paul Ryan, passed by the House of Representatives, and voted down by the Senate would essentially give Medicare enrollees a voucher to purchase private coverage, and would change the federal government’s contribution to each state’s Medicaid program from an unlimited “matching” grant to a fixed “block” grant. These reforms deserve to come back from defeat, because the only alternatives for saving Medicare or Medicaid would either dramatically raise tax rates or have the government ration care to the elderly and disabled. What may be less widely appreciated, however, is that the Ryan proposal is our only hope of reducing the crushing levels of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

The three most salient characteristics of Medicare and Medicaid fraud are: It’s brazen, it’s ubiquitous, and it’s other people’s money, so nobody cares.

Consider some of the fraud schemes discovered in recent years. In Brooklyn, a dentist billed taxpayers for nearly 1,000 procedures in a single day. A Houston doctor with a criminal record took her Medicare billings from zero to $11.6 million in one year; federal agents shut down her clinic but did not charge her with a crime. A high-school dropout, armed with only a laptop computer, submitted more than 140,000 bogus Medicare claims, collecting $105 million. A health plan settled a Medicaid-fraud case in Florida for $138 million. The giant hospital chain Columbia/HCA paid $1.7 billion in fines and pled guilty to more than a dozen felonies related to bribing doctors to help it tap Medicare funds and exaggerating the amount of care delivered to Medicare patients. In New York, Medicaid spending on the human-growth hormone Serostim leapt from $7 million to $50 million in 2001; but it turned out that drug traffickers were getting the drug prescribed as a treatment for AIDS wasting syndrome, then selling it to bodybuilders. And a study of ten states uncovered $27 million in Medicare payments to dead patients.

These anecdotes barely scratch the surface. Judging by official estimates, Medicare and Medicaid lose at least $87 billion per year to fraudulent and otherwise improper payments, and about 10.5 percent of Medicare spending and 8.4 percent of Medicaid spending was improper in 2009. Fraud experts say the official numbers are too low. “Loss rates due to fraud and abuse could be 10 percent, or 20 percent, or even 30 percent in some segments,” explained Malcolm Sparrow, a mathematician, Harvard professor, and former police inspector, in congressional testimony. “The overpayment-rate studies the government has relied on . . . have been sadly lacking in rigor, and have therefore produced comfortingly low and quite misleading estimates.” In 2005, the New York Times reported that “James Mehmet, who retired in 2001 as chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, said he and his colleagues believed that at least 10 percent of state Medicaid dollars were spent on fraudulent claims, while 20 or 30 percent more were siphoned off by what they termed abuse, meaning unnecessary spending that might not be criminal.” And even these experts ignore other, perfectly legal ways of exploiting Medicare and Medicaid, such as when a senior hides and otherwise adjusts his finances so as to appear eligible for Medicaid, or when a state abuses the fact that the federal government matches state Medicaid outlays.

Government watchdogs are well aware of the problem. Every year since 1990, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has released a list of federal programs it considers at a high risk for fraud. Medicare appeared on the very first list and has remained there for 22 straight years. Medicaid assumed its perch eight years ago.

How can there possibly be so much fraud in Medicare and Medicaid that even the “comfortingly low” estimates have ten zeros? How can this much fraud persist decade after decade? How can it be that no one has even tried to measure the problem accurately, much less take it seriously? The answers are in the nature of the beast. Medicare and Medicaid, the two great pillars of Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” agenda, are monuments to the left-wing ideals of coerced charity and centralized economic planning. The staggering levels of fraud in these programs can be explained by the fact that the politicians, bureaucrats, patients, and health-care providers who administer and participate in them are spending other people’s money — and nobody spends other people’s money as carefully as he spends his own. What’s more, Medicare and Medicaid are spending other people’s money in vast quantities. Medicare, for example, is the largest purchaser of medical goods and services in the world. It will spend $572 billion in 2011. Each year, it pays 1.2 billion claims to 1.2 million health-care providers on behalf of 47 million enrollees.

For providers, Medicare is like an ATM: So long as they punch in the right numbers, out comes the cash. To get an idea of the potential for fraud, imagine 1.2 million providers punching 1,000 codes each into their own personal ATMs. Now imagine trying to monitor all those ATMs.

For example, if a medical-equipment supplier punches in a code for a power wheelchair, how can the government be sure the company didn’t actually provide a manual wheelchair and pocket the difference? About $400 million of the aforementioned fines paid by Columbia/HCA hospitals were for a similar practice, known as “upcoding.”

And how does the government know that providers are withdrawing no more than the law allows? Medicaid sets the prices it pays for prescription drugs based on the “average wholesale price.” But as the Congressional Budget Office has explained, the average wholesale price “is based on information provided by the manufacturers. Like the sticker price on a car, it is a price that few purchasers actually pay.” Pharmaceutical companies often inflate the average wholesale price so they can charge Medicaid more. Teva Pharmaceuticals recently paid $27 million to settle allegations that it had overcharged Florida’s Medicaid program by inflating its average wholesale prices, and the Department of Justice has accused Wyeth of doing the same. Merck recently settled a similar case.

Most ominously, how does the government know that people punching numbers into the ATMs are health-care providers at all? In his testimony, Malcolm Sparrow explained how a hypothetical criminal can make a quick million: “In order to bill Medicare, Billy doesn’t need to see any patients. He only needs a computer, some billing software to help match diagnoses to procedures, and some lists. He buys on the black market lists of Medicare or Medicaid patient IDs.” With this information in hand, Billy strides right up to the ATM, or several at a time, and starts punching in numbers. “The rule for criminals is simple: If you want to steal from Medicare, or Medicaid, or any other health-care-insurance program, learn to bill your lies correctly. Then, for the most part, your claims will be paid in full and on time, without a hiccup, by a computer, and with no human involvement at all.” These schemes are sophisticated, so Billy might hire people within Medicare and at his bank to help him avoid detection.

Last year, the feds indicted 44 members of an Armenian crime syndicate for operating a sprawling Medicare-fraud scheme. The syndicate had set up 118 phony clinics and billed Medicare for $35 million. They transferred at least some of their booty overseas. Who knows what LBJ’s Great Society is funding?

And there are other forms of fraud. An entire cottage industry of elder-law attorneys has emerged, for instance, to help well-to-do seniors appear poor on paper so that Medicaid will pay their nursing-home bills. Medicaid even encourages the elderly to get sham divorces for the same reason. It’s all perfectly legal. It’s still fraud.

Medicaid’s matching-grant system also invites fraud. When a high-income state such as New York spends an additional dollar on its Medicaid program, it receives a matching dollar from the federal government — that is, from taxpayers in other states. Low-income states can receive as much as $3 for every additional dollar they devote to Medicaid, and without limit. If they’re clever, states can get this money without putting any of their own on the line. In a “provider tax” scam, a state passes a law to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, which triggers matching money from the federal government. Yet in the very same law, the state increases taxes on hospitals. If the tax recoups the state’s original outlay, the state has obtained new federal Medicaid funds at no cost. If the tax recoups more than the original outlay, the state can use federal Medicaid dollars to pay for bridges to nowhere. As Vermont began preparations for its Obamacare-sanctioned single-payer system this year, it used a provider-tax scam to bilk taxpayers in other states out of $5.2 million. In his book Stop Paying the Crooks, consultant Jim Frogue chronicles more than half a dozen ways that states game Medicaid’s matching-grant system to defraud the federal government.

Since 1986, the GAO has published at least 158 reports about Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and there have been similar reports by the HHS inspector general and other government agencies. In 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared health-care fraud America’s No. 2 crime problem, after violent crime. Since then, Congress has enacted 194 pages of statutes to combat fraud in these programs, and countless pages of regulations.

Yet federal and state anti-fraud efforts remain uniformly lame. Medicare does almost nothing to detect or fight fraud until the fraudulent payments are already out the door, a strategy experts deride as “pay and chase.” Even then, Medicare reviews fewer than 5 percent of all claims filed. Congress doesn’t integrate Medicare’s myriad databases, which might help prevent fraud, nor does it regularly review the efficacy of most of the anti-fraud spending it authorizes. Many of the abuses noted above, such as those of the Brooklyn dentist, were discovered not by the government but by curious reporters poking through Medicaid records. The amateurs at the New York Times found “numerous indications of [Medicaid] fraud and abuse that the state had never looked into,” but “only a thin, overburdened security force standing between [New York’s] enormous program and the unending attempts to steal from it.

The federal government’s approach to fraud is sometimes so inept as to be counterproductive. Sparrow testified that a defect in the strategy of Billy, our hypothetical criminal, is that he doesn’t know which providers and patients on his stolen lists are “dead, deported, or incarcerated.” But Medicare’s anti-fraud protocols help him solve this problem. When Medicare catches those claims, it sends Billy a notice that they have been rejected. “From Billy’s viewpoint,” Sparrow explained, “life could not be better. Medicare helps him ‘scrub’ his lists, making his fake billing scam more robust and less detectable over time; and meanwhile Medicare pays all his other claims without blinking an eye or becoming the least bit suspicious.”

Efforts to prevent fraud typically fail because they impose costs on legitimate beneficiaries and providers, who, as voters and campaign donors respectively, have immense sway over politicians. At a recent congressional hearing, the Department of Health and Human Services’ deputy inspector general, Gerald T. Roy, recommended that Congress beef up efforts to prevent illegitimate providers and suppliers from enrolling in Medicare. But even if Congress took Roy’s advice, it would rescind the new requirements in a heartbeat when legitimate doctors — who are already threatening to leave Medicare over its low payment rates — threatened to bolt because of the additional administrative costs (paperwork, site visits, etc.).

Politicians routinely subvert anti-fraud measures to protect their constituents. When the federal government began poking around a Buffalo school district that billed Medicaid for speech therapy for 4,434 kids, the New York Times reported, “the Justice Department suspended its civil inquiry after complaints from Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and other politicians.” Medicare officials, no doubt expressing a sentiment shared by members of Congress, admit they avoid aggressive anti-fraud measures that might reduce access to treatment for seniors.

It’s not just the politicians. The Legal Aid Society is pushing back against a federal lawsuit charging that New York City overbilled Medicaid. Even conservatives fight anti-fraud measures, albeit in the name of preventing frivolous litigation, when they oppose expanding whistle-blower lawsuits, where private citizens who help the government win a case get to keep some of the penalty.

Sparrow argued that when Medicare receives “obviously implausible claims,” such as from a dead doctor, “the system should bite back. . . . A proper fraud response would do whatever was necessary to rip open and expose the business practices that produce such fictitious claims. Relevant methods include surveillance, arrest, or dawn raids.” Also: “All other claims from the same source should immediately be put on hold.”

Some of the implausible claims will be honest mistakes, such as when a clerk mistakenly punches the wrong patient number into the ATM. And sometimes the SWAT team will get the address wrong, or will take action that looks like overkill, as when the Department of Education raided a California home because it suspected one of the occupants of financial-aid fraud. How many times would federal agents have to march a handcuffed doctor past a stunned waiting room full of Medicare enrollees before Congress prohibited those measures?

“It seems extraordinary,” Sparrow said, that the HHS Office of Inspector General recommends “weak and inadequate response[s] . . . to false claims and fake billings” and that Medicare “fail[s] . . . to properly distinguish between the imperatives of process management and the imperatives of crime control.” Extraordinary? How could it be any other way? Anti-fraud efforts will always be inadequate when politicians spend other people’s money. Apologists for Medicare and Medicaid will retort that fraud against private health plans is prevalent as well, but this only drives home the point: Since employers purchase health insurance for 90 percent of insured non-elderly Americans, workers care less about health-care fraud, and have a lower tolerance for anti-fraud measures, than they would if they paid the fraud-laden premiums themselves.

The fact that Medicare and Medicaid spend other people’s money is why the number of fraud investigators in New York’s Medicaid program can fall by 50 percent even as spending on the program more than triples. That is why, as Sparrow explained in an interview with The Nation, “The stories are legion of people getting a Medicare explanation of benefits statement saying, ‘We’ve paid for this operation you had in Colorado,’ when those people have never been in Colorado. And when you complain [to Medicare] about it, nobody seems to care.” The Ryan plan offers the only serious hope of reducing fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Its Medicare reforms, especially if they were expanded later, would make it easier for the federal government to police the program, and its Medicaid reforms would increase each state’s incentive to curb fraud.

To see how the Ryan plan would reduce Medicare fraud, imagine that the proposal really were what its critics claim it is: a full-blown voucher program, with each enrollee receiving a chunk of cash to spend on medical care, apply toward health-insurance premiums, or save for the future. Instead of processing 1.2 billion claims, Medicare would hand out just 50 million vouchers, with sick and low-income enrollees receiving larger ones. The number of transactions Medicare would have to monitor each year would fall by more than 1 billion.

Social Security offers reason to believe that a program engaging in fewer (and more uniform) transactions could dramatically reduce fraud and other improper payments. As a Medicare-voucher program would, Social Security adjusts the checks it sends to enrollees according to such variables as lifetime earnings and disability status. The Social Security Administration estimates that overpayments account for just 0.37 percent of Social Security spending. Overpayments are higher in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program (8.4 percent), a much smaller, means-tested program also administered by the Social Security Administration. But total overpayments across both programs still come to less than 1 percent of outlays.

In reality, the Ryan “voucher” is much closer to the current Medicare Advantage program, through which one in four Medicare enrollees selects a private health plan and the government makes risk-adjusted payments directly to insurers. Skeptics will rightly note that, judging by the official improper-payment rates, Medicare Advantage (14.1 percent) is in the same ballpark as traditional Medicare (10.5 percent). Therefore, the Ryan plan should be seen not as a solution to Medicare fraud in itself, but as a step toward a vastly simplified, Social Security–like program in which the task of policing fraud is less daunting.

The Ryan plan would also vastly increase the states’ incentive to curb Medicaid fraud. Just as a state that increases funding for Medicaid gets matching federal funds, a state that reduces Medicaid fraud gets to keep only (at most) half of the money saved. As much as 75 percent of recovered funds revert back to the federal government. In a report for the left-wing Center for American Progress, former Obama adviser Marsha Simon noted that “states are required to repay the federal share . . . of any payment errors identified, even if the money is never collected.” The fact that Albany splits New York’s 50 percent share of the spending with municipal governments may explain why the Empire State is such a hot spot for fraud: No level of government is responsible for a large enough share of the cost to do anything about it. The result is that states’ fraud-prevention efforts are only a tiny fraction of what Washington spends to fight Medicare fraud.

Ryan would replace Medicaid’s federal matching grants with a system of block grants. Under a block-grant system, states would keep 100 percent of the money they saved by eliminating fraud. In many states, the incentive to prevent fraud would quadruple or more. Block grants performed beautifully when Congress used them to reform welfare in 1996. They can do so again.

The Ryan plan would not reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud to tolerable levels, but neither would any plan that retains a role for government in providing medical care to the elderly and disabled. What the Ryan plan would do is reduce how much the fraudsters — many of whom sport congressional lapel pins — fleece the American taxpayer. And that is no small thing.

— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-author of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It. This article is adapted from the one that appeared in the July 4, 2011, issue of National Review.

 

Get Varying Expert Opinions in One Publication
with John Mauldin’s Outside the Box

Discuss This

0 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Page 1 of 3  1 2 3 > 

Frank Kassel

Aug. 7, 2011, 8:37 a.m.

John, I know you are a CFA.  That means you have an understanding of economics, which means you have at a minimum a cursory understanding of (1) incentives/disincentives, (2) direct/indirect and value-added and non-value added costs, (3) private sector vs. public sector involvement.

Meaning, this article about Medicare Fraud seems to revolve around the temporal definition of a class of “patients” as defined by Medicare in terms of the current definition of who is/is not covered under Medicare.

Yes there is fraud in the Medicare system among and between all participants as described.  But outside of Medicare and in the private sector Health Insurance Market, there is also fraud, as defined by (1) gatekeeping by anti-trust exempt insurance companies in denying coverage to those with pre-existing condition (IMO - that is fraud), and (2) deferring market/business process cost savings because of health insurance company anti-trust exemptions from lowering premiums to those insured.  The result is not only do we have Medicare Fraud, but we have an Imputed “Private Health Insurance Fraud, and moreover a “Health Care Market Failure”.  Everyone knows this, but you, and the Republican Party and their lobbyists.  Obamacare “rules”, is invited and is the right solution to solve a Republican, lobbyist driven market failure, even if current dogma prevents a CFA from seeing true market impacts.  Think otherwise?  Compare US Health Care cost and access at 19+ pct of GDP to Taiwan’s cost and access at about 9%. 

Why not write an article about what you think of this difference, and whether you think the US Healthcare market is competitively free functioning or is otherwise, locally or internationally, a failure.

Richard De Graff

Aug. 4, 2011, 4:24 p.m.

One of my xwives had the top Blue Cross program. When I went for a normal check up he saw the “blue card” and ran every test whether I needed it or not. Everytime I went to a doc they ran every test they could think of. That included a broken hand. There is fraud across the whole spectrum that ruins the good doctors.
Cheerio !!!

Russell Barr

Aug. 3, 2011, 11:56 p.m.

I am a physician specializing in geriatrics. I treat many Medicare patients every work day.

I agree with some of the criticism above of the article, but the underlying principle is correct: The major problem is that our healthcare system makes it seem like we are spending someone else’s money when we receive care. People are much wiser consumers when they know they are spending their own money.

I was not in practice when Medicare started. I presume at some time in the past, health insurance was outside the doctor/patient relationship. The doctor treated the patient, the patient paid the doctor then the patient sent in a statement to the insurance company to be reimbursed for a portion of the cost of their care. All of the fraudulent “anonymous charges” schemes would crumble as the patient would actually read the bill and challenge any charges that seemed questionable before writing the check or handing over the cash.

Of course, this only works in a world where patients feel their health care is valuable privilege rather than a right they are entitled to. This also assumes people are not living paycheck to paycheck, and actually have a little savings to draw upon in an emergency. Major expenses such as emergency hospitalizations would need to be covered in a different manner. A national catastrophic insurance could be funded with a nominal income or consumption tax, if it only kicked in when a person’s healthcare expenses exceeded say $50,000 in a calendar year. With this kind of coverage, each of us could but insurance to cover the expenses below the catastrophic cutoff. It shouldn’t cost anywhere near what I pay for family coverage, about $13,000 per year. You could pay more for a lower personal deductible, or if you had more savings, pay less for a high deductible policy.

RT Barr MD

Robert Flora

Aug. 3, 2011, 1:53 p.m.

John, obviously you had reservations about using a scripted piece from the far right, whose goal it is to abolish entitlement programs.  You, of course recognize that the most massive waste and fraud in the history of our Nation has resulted from tax money spent for national defense, not health.  Unfortunately, in my lifetime I have seen our national treasure wasted on war prepardness and few among us object, even when waste and fraud is so very obvious,  Ckearly the right is delighted by spending the greatest part of tax revenues for defense.  How much better our Nation would have fared if this loss of our resource were not the case; how much waste and fraud would have been avoided if this were not the case.

Your contributor, Michael Cannon, has a somewhat silly emotional piece with no actual data and lots of ancedotal stories.  Obviously he has no real interest in government waste and fraud, only that which is associated with government sponsored health care programs.  Health care in the US is, of course, ripe for fraud and abuse since we as a Nation throw excessove amounst of money into it, far more than other developed nations, receiving in return, poorer results.  See -
Americans Pay More for Health Care, Get Less: Chart of the Day - Bloomberg [link does not transfer, see David Altaner, 8/1/11]
Fix the problem of excessive spending for health care and fix the problem of excessive spending for defense and waste and fraud in both these areas will greatly decline.

Russ Abbott

Aug. 3, 2011, 4:29 a.m.

Since Medicare provides more health care per dollar than private insurance, and it is this riddled with fraud and corruption, what does that say about private insurance? Either it is far worse with respect to fraud and corruption, or it is enormously wasteful, or it is outrageously profitable.

michael finn

Aug. 3, 2011, 4:02 a.m.

Medicare is currently paying US heart surgeons $1200-$1600 for a 3 vessel bypass surgery,a 4-5 hour operative procedure followed by months of followup. .This is for an incredibly complicated procedure which takes years of training to perform- and you wonder why physicians are bailing out of medicare and medicaid- just wait until the next rounds of healthcare provider cuts; we’ll all be going overseas to get out heart surgery becuase there won’t be any heart surgeons in this country. There are many reasons that health care has gotten so expensive in the USA including the corruption mentioned in the article .The main reason,however, is that medicare has so expanded it its reimbursements for procedures and interventions of questionable efficacy, that it is running out of funds for providers who deliver gudeline based quality care.

Michael Bell

Aug. 3, 2011, 3:19 a.m.

John,

You should stick to forwarding articles that you yourself are able to evaluate.

Medicare is such an intellectual mess no one can evaluate it. One of our government’s great ploys is to publish bogus numbers and then make it look as though they are being defrauded or in some other way taken advantage of - “the poor, abused government”. The so called “correct” utilization numbers published by Medicare are a complete fabrication with no basis in fact.

No physician in America can abide by the quagmire of Medicare rules and regulations. The ploy is to inundate physicians with thousands of pages of senseless rules and then persecute mercilessly for not following them.

As a physician, I have no doubt that fraud exists in our Medicare system. But I believe the numbers are greatly exaggerated using anecdotal evidence, and perpetuated by government myrmidons, i.e. government appointed lawyers and for-profit fraud squads, seeking to fulfill their own greed-ridden and politically expedient agendas. The problem is not fraud (except perhaps the government defrauding it’s own people into thinking their health is being cared for); the problem is a system perceived as “free” by those using it, and therefore abusing it, encouraged by immoral politicians for political gain.

Edward Lack

Aug. 3, 2011, 2:33 a.m.

Last comment for medical billing excess
Edward Lack MD

Edward Lack

Aug. 3, 2011, 2:32 a.m.

The problem is even more egregious. Politicians want fraud to continue so they don’t upset voters.
For instance, the rate of skin cancer is at an all time high in the United States but the rate of surgery for “possible premalignant growths” is markedly higher. Histographic surgery of the skin for cancer is much more costly than traditional surgery. It is designed for potentially disabling or fatal cancers. Yet it has become the treatment of choice for skin cancer. Only 10-20% of dysplastic nevi become malignant melanoma yet it comprises a huge volume of surgery in the US. Exaggerated diagnoses are rampant in billing yet are condoned by medical societies as necessary for the possibility of actual disease.

R Conlan

Aug. 3, 2011, 12:40 a.m.

I am surprised by the lack of quality of argument in this essay versus your normal level of rigor. $87 billion a year? All this text over that? And it isn’t like we can realistically expect fraud to push 0 - the private insurance industry has plenty - so we’re really talking about an ultimate delta of a much smaller number. And tricks that American Express can use - like shutting off a card that may be being misused and trusting the consumer to sort it out if it was a mistake - are life threatening when applied to the medical industry.

I’m not saying the causes of fraud presented aren’t shocking. But similarly to how people paid too much attention to Wall Street bonuses that didn’t really matter in the grand scheme (http://xkcd.com/558/), this is losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Page 1 of 3  1 2 3 >