Consumer News: Ford targets mass market with $28,350 Fathom electric truck

Some consumer groups may take their argument to court

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The U.S. government has returned about $100 billion of roughly $166 billion collected under President Donald Trumps invalidated emergency tariffs.

• Refunds go to the businesses that imported goods and paid Customsnot directly to shoppers who may have absorbed the cost through higher prices.

• Consumers could benefit from voluntary price cuts, lawsuits or future legislation, but no nationwide compensation program currently exists.

The federal government has refunded approximately $100 billion in tariffs to American businesses after the Supreme Court struck down a central part of President Trumps trade program. For consumers who paid higher prices while the duties were in effect, however, compensation remains far from certain.

The payments represent about 60% of the roughly $166 billion collected under tariffs Trump imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that the emergency-powers law did not authorize the president to impose tariffs, clearing the way for importers to recover the duties. The courts decision did not itself establish a consumer-refund system.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection subsequently created an electronic process known as CAPE to receive and validate refund requests. Businesses must identify eligible import entries and maintain an account in the agencys Automated Commercial Environment, including banking information for electronic payments. CBPs guidance is directed toward importers and customs brokersnot individual shoppers.

Consumers on shaky legal ground

That distinction determines who receives the money. Legally, tariffs are paid to the government by the importer of record. Even when a retailer, manufacturer or distributor raises prices to recover that expense, the customer at the end of the supply chain does not become the tariff payer in the eyes of customs law.

As a result, households generally cannot submit receipts to CBP or request a share of a companys refund.

The economic burden is more complicated than the legal one. Importers may absorb a tariff through lower profit margins, negotiate lower prices from suppliers or pass some or all of the cost to wholesalers, retailers and consumers. Because those effects can spread across several companiesand mingle with changes in transportation, labor and commodity costscalculating how much tariff a particular shopper paid for a particular product can be extremely difficult.

Consumers may still receive indirect relief if companies use their refunds to lower prices, issue credits or avoid future increases. But such measures are generally voluntary. Businesses could instead apply the money to debt, wages, investment, dividends or other expenses, and lower wholesale costs do not guarantee that retail prices will fall.

The courts may have a voice

Some shoppers have turned to the courts. Class-action complaints argue that companies raised prices because of tariffs and should not be allowed to retain both those higher revenues and government refunds. Those cases face significant hurdles, including proving that a price increase was tied to an invalidated tariff, tracing the tariff to specific purchases and establishing a legal duty requiring the seller to reimburse customers.

Political pressure is also building. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has asked the administration to provide payments of $1,700 per Illinois family and has called for legislation requiring companies to pass tariff relief to consumers. His proposal is a request, not an approved federal benefit, and the relevant consumer-relief legislation has not advanced in Congress.

Capitol News Illinois reported that the requested payments would total more than $8.6 billion for the state.

For now, the answer for consumers is straightforward but unsatisfying: there is no automatic federal refund, no household claims portal and no guarantee that businesses will share the money.

Shoppers could eventually benefit through lower prices, successful litigation or a new act of Congress. Unless one of those paths produces concrete relief, the governments historic tariff repayment will remain primarily a refund to importerseven where consumers helped carry the original economic burden.

The rate is not historically high, but it is considering todays home prices

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate rose to 6.69% from 6.66% last week.

• The 15-year rate slipped to 6.01%, down from 6.04%.

• Improving inventory and softer listing prices may help buyers, but borrowing costs remain a major affordability barrier.

The average rate on the most popular U.S. home loan edged higher this week, prolonging an affordability squeeze for prospective buyers even as parts of the housing market show signs of shifting in their favor.

The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage increased to 6.69% from 6.66% a week earlier, Freddie Mac said Thursday. The rate averaged 6.63% at the same time last year.

Meanwhile, the average 15-year fixed mortgage rate declined to 6.01% from 6.04% last week. It stood at 5.75% a year ago, according to Freddie Macs Mortgage Market Survey.

The weekly increase in the 30-year rate amounts to only three basis points and has a limited effect on an individual loan. For example, principal and interest on a $400,000 mortgage at 6.69% would be about $2,580 a month, roughly $8 more than at last weeks rate. The calculation excludes property taxes, homeowners insurance and other costs.

The larger affordability problem is that rates have remained elevated while home prices are still high. The same $400,000 loan would carry a monthly payment nearly $900 lower at a 3% rate, illustrating how sharply buyers purchasing power has deteriorated since the era of ultralow borrowing costs.

Higher rates can also reduce the number of homes entering the market because owners who secured cheaper mortgages may be reluctant to sell and take out a new loan at todays rates. For buyers, that combination of costly financing and constrained supply can make it difficult to find a home that fits both their needs and their budget.

Tentative signs of relief

There are tentative signs of relief. Freddie Mac Chief Economist Sam Khater said listing prices are modestly below their levels of a year ago and the inventory of homes for sale is improving after years of limited supply. Those changes could give buyers greater negotiating leverage, including opportunities to seek price reductions or seller assistance with closing costs.

However, a small decline in a homes asking price may not fully offset mortgage rates near 7%. Buyers must also account for insurance premiums, property taxes, maintenance expenses and, in some cases, homeowners-association fees.

Freddie Macs survey reflects conventional mortgage applications submitted by thousands of lenders nationwide, with rates offered from the prior Thursday through Wednesday. Individual borrowers may receive substantially different offers based on their credit, down payment, loan type and lender.

Updated risk assessments may expand preventive treatment for heart disease

• New cholesterol guidelines recommend statins for an estimated 21.5 million additional U.S. adults.

• The updated approach looks at a person's heart disease risk over 30 years instead of just the next 10.

• Researchers say the changes could shift conversations between patients and doctors about preventing heart disease earlier in life.

If your doctor has never recommended a cholesterol-lowering medication before, that conversation could soon change.

According to a new study published in JAMA, updated U.S. cholesterol guidelines could make more than half of adults between the ages of 30 and 79 eligible for statin therapy to help prevent cardiovascular disease.

The change stems from new recommendations released earlier this year by major cardiology organizations, including the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. Instead of focusing primarily on a person's chance of having a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years, the updated guidance also considers their risk over the next 30 years.

Researchers say this longer-term perspective is intended to identify people who may benefit from treatment before heart disease has a chance to develop.

The shift to a longer view of cardiovascular disease risk is a sea change for doctors in counseling patients, researcher Timothy S. Anderson, M.D., M.A.S., said in a news release. We wanted to better understand the potential population-health effect of this shift.

Before the new guidelines, people who were flagged with high cholesterol in their 30s and 40s tended to be recommended to focus on diet and exercise and were not recommended medication unless the patient already had heart disease or other factors that made them particularly high-risk, like diabetes.

How the researchers measured the impact

To estimate how the new guidelines would affect Americans, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from 4,366 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected between 2017 and 2023.

Those participants represented roughly 154.5 million U.S. adults ages 30 to 79 who did not already have cardiovascular disease.

The study focused on primary prevention, meaning preventing a first heart attack or stroke rather than treating people who already have heart disease. Researchers compared who would qualify for statin therapy under the updated recommendations and found that expanding the eligible age range from 40-75 to 30-79, along with using a 30-year risk assessment, substantially increased the number of people who would be advised to consider medication. Pregnant individuals were not included in the analysis.

What the findings mean for consumers

The researchers estimated that about 87.5 million Americans or 56.6% of adults ages 30 to 79 would now be recommended for statin therapy. That's an increase of approximately 21.5 million people compared with previous recommendations.

Interestingly, relatively few adults in their 30s would qualify about 11.1% while eligibility rises sharply with age, reaching about 85% of people in their 60s and more than 93% of those in their 70s. Much of the increase comes from people who have a low short-term risk of heart attack or stroke but a higher risk over the next three decades.

The authors note that the updated guidelines represent a significant shift in how doctors and patients think about prevention. Rather than waiting until short-term risk becomes elevated, the new approach encourages conversations about whether starting a daily medication earlier in life could help reduce cardiovascular risk over the long term.

Ultimately, in this grey zone, patients should talk to doctors, Dr. Anderson said. This is a preference-based decision that should take into account the potential for modest cardiovascular risk reduction alongside the potential for adverse drug events, costs, and patient preferences.

New research explores a possible connection between plastic exposure and heart health

• Researchers found micro- and nanoplastics in 84% of heart attack patients studied, compared with lower rates in other groups.

• The study identified a link between plastic particles in the blood, smoking, and long-term exposure to air pollution.

• The findings show an association not proof that plastic particles cause heart attacks and more research is needed.

Microplastics and even smaller nanoplastics have been detected in everything from drinking water to human organs, but scientists are still working to understand what those particles might mean for our health. Now, a new study suggests they may also be connected to heart disease.

Researchers found that people who experienced a heart attack were much more likely to have micro- and nanoplastics in their blood than people with chronic heart disease or those with normal coronary arteries.

The findings were presented in the European Heart Journal and add to a growing body of research examining whether environmental pollution could play a role in cardiovascular health. However, the researchers emphasize that the study found an association, not evidence that plastic particles directly cause heart attacks.

Micro and nanoplastics are tiny plastic particles that are found virtually everywhere in the environment, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, and many foods we consume, researcher Dr Pasquale Paolisso said in a news release.

In recent years, scientists have begun to detect these particles in human tissues and organs, raising concerns about their potential health effects.However, very little was known about whether these particles are present in the coronary circulation the blood flowing through the arteries that supply the heart or whether environmental exposures such as smoking and air pollution might influence their presence.

How the researchers studied the connection

The study included 61 adults undergoing coronary angiography, a procedure that allows doctors to examine the heart's blood vessels. Participants were divided into three groups: patients who had suffered a heart attack, those with chronic ischemic heart disease, and people whose coronary arteries appeared normal.

Blood samples were collected during the procedure and analyzed for micro- and nanoplastics. Researchers also gathered information about each participant's smoking status and estimated their long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution over the previous two years.

The goal was to see whether environmental factors might be linked to the presence of plastic particles in the bloodstream.

What the findings could mean for consumers

Among heart attack patients, micro- and nanoplastics were detected in 84% of blood samples, compared with 40% of patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and 32% of those with normal coronary arteries.

The heart attack group also had a greater variety of plastic types in their blood, with polyethylene the plastic commonly used in packaging and consumer products being the most frequently detected.

The researchers also found that people with higher long-term exposure to air pollution were more likely to have plastic particles in their blood, and smokers were six times more likely to test positive than non-smokers. Every participant who both smoked and had higher air pollution exposure had detectable plastics in their blood.

Even so, the researchers caution that these findings do not establish cause and effect. Instead, they suggest that environmental exposures, including plastic pollution, deserve more attention as scientists continue investigating factors that may influence heart health.

These findings do not prove that microplastics cause heart attacks, but they reveal a strong association between environmental exposures, microplastics in the blood and cardiovascular disease, researcher Emanuele Barbato said in the release.

Our findings suggest that smoking might make it easier for micro and nanoplastics to enter the blood stream via the lungs. The results highlight the need to consider microplastic pollution as part of the broader environmental determinants of health. Policies that reduce air pollution, tobacco exposure, and environmental plastic contamination could have benefits that extend beyond environmental protection and potentially improve cardiovascular health.