The FCC hosted the second meeting of the Robocall Strike Force on Wednesday, October 26. The focus: what has been accomplished since the Strike Force had been assembled two months earlier, The result? Depends on whom you ask.

The Strike Force’s intended mission is a commitment to developing comprehensive solutions to prevent, detect, and filter unwanted robocalls. The Strike Force was set in motion by a mandate from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, demanding an action plan to address consumer concerns with robocalls and deploy anti-robocall solutions within 60 days.

Did they do it?

“We are not yet where we want to be,” Wheeler said Wednesday. “We’ve not reached the goal. We need solutions now.”

This may have been a lot for Wheeler to expect in 60 days. Wednesday’s meeting looked at three goals:

Goal 1: Robust Call Blocking & Filtering Tools for Consumers

FCC Call for Industry Action:

• Immediately Offer Free Call Blocking & Filtering to Consumers
• Facilitate Call Blocking & Filtering by Downstream Providers

Strike Force Delivered:

• Proposal for Network-to-Device Information Sharing Framework to Give
• Consumers Better Call Data & Call Handling Solutions
• Consumer Outreach Plan with FCC-Hosted Webpage for Call Blocking Resources
• Commitments to Facilitate Call Blocking By Downstream Providers

Work That Remains:

• Consumer Access to Free Call Blocking & Filtering Solutions Now
• Deadline for Development of Network-to-Device Information Sharing Framework 

Success: Not really. Wheeler wanted to see one thing: Immediate call blocking for consumers. The Strike Force delivered…a lot of other things.

Goal 2: Faster Implementation of Caller ID Authentication Standards

FCC Call for Industry Action:

• Accelerate Development & Deployment of VoIP Caller ID Verification Standards
• Implement SS7 Indicator for Verification of Incoming VoIP Calls to Downstream

TDM Carriers

• Conform with Existing Obligations to Transmit Call Routing Information
• Ensure Caller ID Information is Not Altered or Removed

Strike Force Delivered:

• Accelerated Standards Development with Rollout Milestones
• Submission of SS7 Authentication Solution to Standards Body

Work That Remains:

• Deadlines for Full Deployment of VoIP Caller ID Authentication & SS7 Solution
• Provider Commitments to Join AT&T in the “Race to Zero” 

Success: Again, no. (Also again: they had 60 days to deliver, which may have been unfair.)

Goal 3: Solutions to Detect & Mitigate Unwanted Calls

FCC Call for Industry Action:

• Improve Detection & Avoidance of Unwanted Calls Through Creation &
• Management of a “Do-Not-Originate” List

Strike Force Delivered:

• Successful IRS DNO Trial Following FCC Public Notice
• 90% Reduction in IRS Scam Call Complaints
• Increased Participation & Cooperation in Industry Efforts, Including
• Development of Best Practices for Call Blocking & Trace-Back

Work That Remains:

• Expand DNO Trial to Include Additional Providers & Numbers

Success: Yes! The decrease, specifically with regards to IRS scam calls, was significant. Which made Chairman Wheeler expect to see even greater decreases going forward.

insideARM Perspective: Scam IRS calls were the main impetus for this task force — a paradigm the debt industry is familiar with. Leaving aside whether greater regulation will succeed in diminishing phone scams of all stripes, consumers have seen some relief from some kinds of unwanted robocalls.

While the debt industry wasn’t specifically mentioned, it’s not a long step from IRS scam robocalls to debt collection scam robocalls. Consumer protections suggested and offered by this task force have the chance to have influence over the way collection agencies call consumers, too.

STERLING, Ill.– VeriFacts Inc., the leader in skip tracing
solutions, is proud to announce the appointment of Stephanie Clark as
President.  Mrs. Clark will be responsible for the strategic leadership of
the company, while maintaining a focus on business development and sales. 

“Stephanie’s dedication to VeriFacts and leadership
experience will strengthen VeriFacts’ position in the financial industry. 
She has a proven record of success and a positive vision for our future,”
said Jim Gabler, owner and Chairman of the Board. 

Stephanie brings 15 years of experience representing VeriFacts’
Sales and Client Services divisions. She had previously transitioned to the
role of SVP, where she continued to expand and strengthen the company.

VeriFacts, Inc. is a family owned, Midwest company, providing high
quality location information and outstanding customer service.  VeriFacts
is well known for developing long lasting business relationships and being a
trusted partner in the financial industry. VeriFacts’ flagship product is
locating verified places of employment with 100% accuracy guaranteed.  To
learn more about VeriFacts visit www.verifactsinc.com.

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Stellar Recovery started collaborating
with RevSpring, a company that focuses on revenue acceleration, in June 2016 on
projects to change our letter design and series as well as develop a new
payment portal. RevSpring has been integral in the development and
implementation of a new, unique letter series that includes full color letters,
post cards, and self-mailers now being used to communicate with consumers about
their account. Chief Analytics Office Kendra Vallerelli said “RevSpring made
the whole process easy. It was impressive how they were able to take the ideas
we gave them and turn them into great final products”. The new letters designed
by RevSpring are more appealing to the eye and offers the consumer professional
correspondence regarding their account. Since the implementation of the new
letter series Stellar has seen an increase in consumer responsiveness.

The new payment portal, which went live on October 10, was
created with the idea of allowing the consumer to self-manage their account. It
brings a new compliance level to the account management process. The new, sleek
look of the portal has already proven to be inviting to the consumer. We have
doubled our online payment portal activity since going live. Analytics show
that the new payment portal, which allows consumers to do everything from
negotiating a settlement to viewing all correspondence about their account, is
being used by consumers in lieu of talking to a live agent. Thus, consumer
complaints are down. Consumers are utilizing our website not only to make a
payment, but to discuss and provide feedback versus filing complaints
and suing. With less human interaction there is less risk
and “happier” consumers. “Being in debt is stressful. We are making
our consumers happier with our effortless consumer channel solutions”, said EVP
Kim Harvey. The new products that RevSpring has created is helping Stellar
successfully address every consumer group and maintain a high level of
compliance.

About Stellar Recovery

Stellar
Recovery, Inc is a collection agency
based in Jacksonville, Fl. and is dedicated to excellence in the accounts receivable
industry by meeting and exceeding our client’s expectations. Stellar Recovery
leverages the use of technology to drive effective and efficient collections,
while eliminating risks. Visit our website at www.stellarrecoveryinc.com or contact
us at 904-438-2500.

This article was written by David N. Anthony, Ethan G. Ostroff,
and Alice Grabe and originally published on the Troutman
Sanders LLP Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor and
is republished here with permission.  

In  Igor Vayngurt v. Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P., the Eastern District of New York
ruled that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by attempting to obtain payment of a collection fee at the same time as the
principal balance of the debt and requesting prompt contact in the initial
validation notice.

Vayngurt alleged that Southwest Credit Systems
misrepresented the balance due by “falsely represent[ing] that the $38.80
collection fee was due in full as of the date of the Collection Letter” because
the collection fee was not yet incurred.  In this case, a contract between
Vayngurt and his cellular phone provider stated that he “agree[s] to pay
collection agency fees [the creditor] incur[s].”  Vayngurt argued that the
collection fee is a “contingent fee” only incurred at the time the principal
balance is collected.

The Court ruled that Vayngurt and the creditor
intended the collection fee to be owed at the same time as the principal
balance.  The Court further explained that this interpretation is
favorable to the consumer because it “prevents multiple rounds of collection
activity from the same debt” and “allows the collection fee to be negotiated
down at the same time as the principal.”

This case also involved an overshadowing claim
regarding the language used in the collection letter that stated, “We are
willing to work with you, but you must contact our office promptly.”  The
Court ruled that this language did not overshadow the validation notice’s
thirty-day dispute period because “a single sentence requesting prompt contact
does not create an impression of dire urgency” when it immediately follows “the
validation notice, which reference[s] the thirty-day dispute period three
times.”  The Court reasoned that notices requesting “prompt contact …
could be to notify the sender that the debt is disputed, or to seek the
identity of the original debtor” and are thus “regularly found to be consistent
with § 1692g” of the FDCPA.

Payment to
healthcare providers involves three key processes in the revenue cycle:
Insurance follow-up, denials management, and self-pay management. Historically,
the first two have rightfully consumed most of the attention from hospitals,
doctors, and their business offices. But that was then, and this is now: With
the rise of High Deductible Healthcare Plans (HDHPs), and shrinking
reimbursement from government insurers, healthcare providers are seeing a large
portion of their revenue tied up in patient receivables. With little experience
on how to efficiently tackle this problem, providers are faced with a big
challenge. 

To help weather
the storm, we have identified four objectives providers can accomplish to
improve patient follow-up processes in the revenue cycle:

• Build more efficient workflows with a focus on compliance
• Understand your patients’ level of financial ability
• Enhance patient engagement with a full contact management strategy
• Manage disparate data sources for a single patient
  experience 

Establish efficient workflows with a focus on compliance

Between
501(r), a newly-looming gaze from the CFPB, and continuously-evolving patient
and regulatory demands, keeping your train on the rails while speeding up is a
difficult but important task. As you build out your strategy for patient
follow-up, compliance needs to be a key component in the process. Most providers
understand the need to be well-versed when dealing with regulatory standards,
but aren’t particularly savvy when it comes to TCPA, UDAAP, and other regulations
that directly affect how and when they can contact and collect from the patient.
Strict regulations governing how you gain permission to call patients on their
cell phones is one example of limitations they put forth.  As you navigate these obstacles and set up
your processes, be sure to use resources like the insideARM Compliance
Professionals Forum to ensure you have the right procedures in place. 

Understand and act based on each patient’s
ability to pay

Once you
have these processes established, it’s important your operation comes to understand
each patient’s financial ability.  Some
patients can afford to pay while others struggle. Determining these financial capabilities
enables you to focus on helping the latter cases obtain financial assistance or
charity care, in turn driving the approach with each group. For example, those
with an ability to pay should not be contacted immediately after their visit. Give
them time to reach out with questions or make the payment on their own from the
statement they receive. On the other hand, patients with less of a financial
ability to pay should be assigned them to financial counselors for qualification.
The middle range group, those who could have some level of financial ability, may
need structured, long-term payment plans. Reach out to these patients sooner
than later so they understand their options before time elapses and they get
too far behind.   

Create multiple engagement channels

Once you
have your process built and groups identified, providers need to build a full
patient contact engagement strategy.  Create
multiple engagement channels beyond the usual statements, including online portal,
IVR, and live agents to engage the patient on their terms.  This not only helps to resolve the balance
but improves patient satisfaction as well. 
With HCAP scores tying Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements directly to
survey results from the patient, providers need to make the patient experience
better enhancing every interaction with their billing process, including the
billing experience.  By building a
patient engagement strategy through your contact management program, you end up
speaking with the right people, at the right time, about the right information.

Combine all patient information in
one place

Finally,
providers need to pull all of the information from their disparate systems into
a single integrated platform.  Most
providers inevitably have resulting from an acquisition, affiliation, or simply
different versions of the same software. 
To the patient, the provider is one. Most find it difficult to
understand why they get more than one bill from their provider.  This creates inefficiencies at the CBO level
as providers rely on multiple patient accounting offices, instead of managing a
single, holistic process. Combining all of this data into one integrated system
enables a single experience for the patient through all of your patient
engagement touch points including your portal, IVR and inbound call center.  It also improves productivity, giving you the
chance to pool resources into one team. 
This gives you one patient, one system, one experience.    

Flexibility
is important when it comes to each and every one of these objectives. Some
providers choose to outsource financial assistance processes and/or self-pay
collections while others do everything in-house, or opt for a hybrid model. Whichever
way you choose, ensure that these four objectives are made standard. Doing so more
often than not results in an efficient, compliant process that provides the
patient centric process you need.  

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a
self-proclaimed 21^st century agency. They back this up with
activities like Project Catalyst, which yesterday released its first-ever
Innovation Highlights Report.

You can access
the full report here.

CFPB Director Cordray also spoke Sunday night at the Money
20/20 conference about promoting consumer friendly innovation. He said, 

“One of
Project Catalyst’s top priorities is to engage closely with companies,
entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders who are at the front lines of innovation…
To help facilitate access and innovation, the Consumer Bureau launched Project
Catalyst four years ago. Back then, this initiative was a novelty for a
banking regulator, both here and around the world. We have since had many
discussions with our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere, and we share a
growing enthusiasm for finding ways to leapfrog forward to products that are
more accessible, more affordable, more convenient, and more empowering of
consumers.”

He highlighted the following developments:

• Expanding access to credit
• Supporting safe consumer financial records access
• Better cash-flow management
• Increasing options for student loan refinancing
• Modernizing mortgage servicing platforms
• Improving credit reporting engagement
• Improving peer-to-peer money transfers
• Supporting consumer savings

Project Catalyst also oversees the Bureau’s “trial
disclosure waiver” policy which is intended to support pilot testing of new
innovative disclosure approaches that could promote transparency and improve
consumer understanding, as well as its “no-action” letter policy, which is
designed to reduce potential regulatory uncertainty for innovative products
that promise significant consumer benefits.

insideARM perspective

We at insideARM applaud the CFPB’s focus on innovation. We
have also recognized the reality (irony?) that the Bureau’s actions are encouraging
innovation in all areas… except debt collection. In that area, the actions and
potential rules seem to be taking the country backwards, reinforcing the use of
snail mail, and not providing sufficient guidance for the use of modern
technology. Some would say that the outline of proposed rules presumes the use
of email, or possibly other methods of communication, assuming one has consent.
But the method of gathering and managing that consent is the devil in the
details. Basically, you’ve got to get consent through one of those methods with
which consumers generally refuse to engage.

Also worth mentioning here is the fact that the clock is
being turned back in the area of calling on the telephone too. While this is
the purview of the Federal Communications Commission and not the CFPB, the
latest innovation in dialing produced by the recent rules is basically… wait
for it… the rotary phone.

We too are focused on
innovation. To this end, The iA Institute (publisher
of insideARM) is in the process of forming an Innovation Council to leverage
the collective imagination of big thinkers from across – and outside – the ARM
industry, including creditors, collectors, and technology organizations. The
Innovation Council will work closely the Consumer
Relations Consortium, also managed by The iA Institute, to develop
ways to address emerging regulations, better serve consumers, and still manage
to remain profitable. If you think you can contribute, please get in touch.

This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission. insideARM has also previously written about this decision. We are publishing Mr. Yarborough’s post to offer additional insight regarding this important case. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided it will review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Johnson v. Midland Funding LLC.

A link to the docket is available here: Link to Docket. 

As you will recall from my previous article, Johnson was the second case decided by the Eleventh Circuit addressing time-barred proofs of claim in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In the first case, Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA when it files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case on a debt that it knows to be time-barred. In Johnson, the Eleventh Circuit held that there is no irreconcilable conflict between the FDCPA and the Bankruptcy Code.

In their briefs at the Writ of Certiorari stage, both sides urged the Supreme Court to grant the writ in order to resolve the circuit split created by rulings in the Fourth (Dubois v. Atlas), Seventh (Owens v. LVNV), and Eighth (Nelson v. Midland) Circuits. Those courts have held that the filing of a time-barred proof of claim does not violate the FDCPA. Donald Maurice, of Maurice Wutscher LLP, argued the cause for the successful debt buying company in the Fourth Circuit case and led a team of Maurice Wutscher attorneys in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the National Creditors Bar Association in the successful Seventh Circuit case.

An interesting wrinkle is that an earlier petition requesting review by the Supreme Court was filed from the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Owens. As of this writing, the Court has not ruled on the request.

Appeals involving time-barred proofs of claim are still pending in the First, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits. Last month, Maurice presented oral argument in the Third Circuit, which has not yet issued an opinion. You can listen to the oral argument at this link: https://goo.gl/ub9qVz. It remains to be seen whether the courts might stay the remaining cases until the Supreme Court decides Johnson.

Crawford and Johnson Deny Creditors Due Process

The Crawford and Johnson rulings are far from benign. By making it unlawful for creditors holding a particular claim from participating in a Chapter 13 case, the decisions deny creditors their constitutional due process. At the same time, to correct the due process violation, the decisions result in excepting the same debts from discharge. A debtor will not receive the “fresh start” a successful Chapter 13 case would have delivered.

In most instances, the expiration of a statute of limitations does not extinguish a consumer debt nor does it deprive a state court of jurisdiction over a claim to enforce the debt.  The FDCPA does not extinguish debts or regulate the contract rights of creditors and debtors. It only regulates a debt collector’s conduct when collecting consumer debt. Creditors can continue to lawfully collect “time-barred” debts in complete compliance with the FDCPA.

Every decision since Crawford exploring the issue of proofs of claim for time-barred debts agreed that even these debts are claims within the meaning of the bankruptcy code. The Eleventh Circuit conceded the point in Johnson. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit implicitly recognized that creditors holding these claims possess a property right; namely, the right to continue to collect the time-barred debt under state law.

A debtor’s filing of a Chapter 13 case initiates a judicial proceeding designed to curtail, even strip this fundamental property right.  Once the case is initiated, the bankruptcy code imposes an automatic stay prohibiting the creditor from taking any action to collect “a claim.” If the Chapter 13 case is successfully concluded, the court enters a discharge injunction permanently enjoining the creditor from exercising its right to enforce the claim, provided the claim received treatment in the bankruptcy case.

The impact is not limited to “debt collectors” subject to the FDCPA. Their creditor clients, who depend on debt collectors to file proofs of claim on their behalf, are also barred from participating in Chapter 13 cases within the Eleventh Circuit.

Crawford’s Absurd Result Harms Consumers

Because of these adverse impacts on a creditor’s property rights, every Chapter 13 case requires the creditor to be afforded constitutional due process – notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Crawford and Johnson, by prohibiting the filing of a proof of claim against a debt they recognize as a valid claim, deny creditors the opportunity to be heard.

This produces an odd result because in instances where a creditor is denied due process in a bankruptcy case, the debts owed to it are not discharged.The issue arises mostly when a debtor has not scheduled or inaccurately scheduled a creditor. As a result, the creditor lacked notice of the case and did not have the opportunity to file a proof of claim before the claim bar date. In such instances, courts will except the creditor’s debt from discharge unless the debtor can demonstrate that despite his failure to properly schedule the creditor, the creditor did have actual notice of the bankruptcy filing in time to file its proof of claim.

So even when there is a defect in bankruptcy noticing, due process is still satisfied when the creditor had the opportunity to be heard. But that opportunity is exactly what Crawford and Johnson prohibit. Debt collectors cannot file a proof of claim when the debt is subject to the defense of an expired limitations period. The remedy is to prevent discharge and allow the creditor to continue to collect the debt.

This ridiculous result is simply one of many created by barring creditor participation in Chapter 13 cases. Consumers seek bankruptcy protection to stop debt collection efforts and to relieve their debt burden. Crawford harms consumers because it takes these protections away from them. The bankruptcy code encourages creditor participation. Crawford prohibits and discourages it.

The Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to end the absurdity and allow the bankruptcy code to operate as Congress intended.

On Monday, we announced the winners in our 9th annual Best Places to Work in Collections program. After a rigorous evaluation process managed by the independent firm Best Companies Group, 36 companies met the threshold to be named a “Best Place to Work in Collections” in 2016. Best Companies Group manages Best Places to Work programs in 24 states, 9 regions, and 14 industries, as well as 12 programs across Africa, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

To be judged, companies participate in a two-part survey program. First, employers provide information on workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics. Then, employees complete a survey that measures employee experience. The combined scores (employee opinion is weighted more heavily) determine the top companies and final rankings.

Winners are divided into three categories, by size: small (15-49 employees), medium (50-149 employees), and large (150+ employees).

Click here to see all 36 winners and profiles, in ranked order.

The first-place winner in the Small Companies category is The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates from Milton, GA.

A collection law firm led by CEO & Managing Attorney
Mitchell Bluhm, the firm employs 41 people (74% female, 26% male), with exempt
employees making an average salary of $86,468. The firm bills itself as “a debt
collection law firm that focuses on the success of all parties involved in the
recovery process,” using “cutting edge compliance and quality control systems”
which “are extremely innovative and work to support both our emphasis on
patient advocacy and retention of high quality Account Specialists.”

The company is dedicated to being an Equal Opportunity
Employer. When asked about the subject, the firm says “we provide a 10% pay
premium for bi/multi-lingual speaking staff in addition to target recruitment
activities (job fairs, flyers, employee referrals) at locations that would
increase our presence” throughout the community.

The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates offers
a “generous incentive program” to employees, giving staff the opportunity to
earn monthly cash bonuses, earn prizes through regular production-based
contests, and participate in an annual $10,000 cash giveaway. The firm also
holds quarterly catered lunches for employees, in addition to hosting several
company parties throughout the year.

The company prioritizes the
health of its staff through offering discounted gym memberships to all
employees. Additionally, the firm provides company-sponsored participation in
Tough Mudder events. If you prefer to hang out around the office, The Law
Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates have something for you too – the
firm provides a recreation room at the office filled with shuffleboard and pool
tables.

For 2017, the Best Places to Work in Collections program will become Best Call Centers to Work for

The program will celebrate excellence among call center work environments in care, collections, and outsourcing. In addition to collection firms, creditor and business process outsourcing (BPO) companies will be eligible to participate.

Best Places to Work winners use their award as an important recruiting tool. Plus, winning sends a great message to clients and potential clients about the strength of your operations. Even those who don’t come out on top have can receive extremely valuable information — candid feedback from employees, and a road map for improvement.

Winners in the 2017 program will be recognized during an awards dinner at the next insideARM First Party Summit, in May 2017. 

Click here to let us know you are interested in participating. We will make sure you are aware when registration opens (about a month from now).

Ethics set the tone for the first day of insideARM’s First Party
Summit, in Itasca, Illinois.

The keynote, given by Al Gini, professor of business
ethics at Loyola University of Chicago, looked at “Leadership and Business
Ethics.” However, it was the panel discussion afterwards that took some of
the lofty, theoretical ideas of from the keynote and discussed their practical
applications within the collections industry.

The panel for “Business Ethics in the Day-to-Day
World of Clients and Vendors in the ARM/CRM/BPO Industries” was:

• Kelly Knepper-Stephens, Stoneleigh
  Recovery Associates LLC
• Barbara M. Woodworth, CGI Financial
  Solutions Group
• Therese M. Yakel, Early Out Services,
  Inc., and General Services Bureau

The message from the panel: ethics needs to make its way
from a buzzword shopped around in RFPs and company manuals directly to a
company’s bottom line. There is an incredible cost for unethical behavior —
cost that, maybe once, was easily explained away due to high collection rates.

That paradigm is shifting, though, and regulators and
government entities are measure the debt industry’s successes and failures
against an ethical yardstick.

Unethical behavior is also fueling headlines: Kelly
Knepper-Stephens reminded the audience of the recent Wells Fargo meltdown,
highlighting specifically how policies and procedures from one of the leading
banks weren’t necessarily the practices of many within the company.

Closer to home was the case of Commercial Recovery
Systems. A complaint charged that CRS participated in deceptive acts or
practices — specifically, that employees called consumers claiming to be
attorneys or judicial employees. Consumers were told that lawsuits had
 been filed against them, offering to settle the lawsuits out of court;
or, they claimed that consumers’ wages would be garnished.

On September 21, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas entered a stipulated order for a permanent injunction (can’t
ever participate in debt collection activities again) and civil penalty
judgment against the vice president of Commercial Recovery Systems.

What
is clear now is that ethical behavior is not a polite story agencies can tell
about themselves, but instead must be a thoroughly-lived practice. The
consequences are both devastating and costly.