Consumer News: Fake MyChart messages use frightening test results to spread malware

Sensors and cameras make some collision repairs more expensive

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Vehicle repair prices have risen more than 40% since 2020, but crash-avoidance sensors are only part of the reason.

• Cars with advanced safety systems can cost more to repair after a collision, yet they generate significantly fewer insurance claims.

• IIHS data suggest the technology reduces total insurance losses while helping drivers avoid deductibles, injuries and other costs.

Todays cars are packed with technology designed to prevent crashes, but when a collision does occur, that equipment can make the repair bill more expensive.

That apparent contradiction has contributed to criticism of advanced driver assistance systems, including automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring and lane departure warning. These features rely on cameras, radar units and other sensors that may be damaged in a crash and often require careful calibration after repairs.

However, a new analysis from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety argues that focusing only on the cost of individual repairs misses much of the financial benefit. Although equipped vehicles can be more expensive to fix, they are also involved in fewer crashes.

If you got in a crash, you were probably shocked at the size of the bill. But if you made it through the week without hitting anything and without anybody hitting you you paid nothing, said Matt Moore, chief insurance operations officer, in the IIHS-HLDI blog. That, in a nutshell, is how crash avoidance systems are saving consumers money even as they also contribute to higher average repair costs: Though theyre expensive to fix, theyre remarkably good at preventing crashes.

According to the IIHS analysis, vehicle repair prices have risen more than 40% since 2020, far outpacing overall inflation. But the institute says advanced safety technology is only one factor behind that increase.

New vehicles are generally larger, more powerful and more complex than they were in the past. SUVs and pickup trucks dominate the market, while nearly two-thirds of new vehicles have all-wheel or four-wheel drive. More than half have turbocharged or hybrid engines or are fully electric.

Even components that once were relatively simple, such as headlights and power seats, have become more sophisticated and expensive to replace. Newer powertrains may also require specialized parts, tools and training.

Higher costs when crashes occur

The Highway Loss Data Institute compared otherwise similar vehicles from model years 2017 through 2022, some equipped with a package of crash-avoidance features and others without it.

Collision claim severity the average amount insurers paid to settle a claim was about 10% higher for vehicles with the safety technology. That difference is consistent with the higher cost of replacing and calibrating cameras and sensors.

But the analysis uncovered a more complicated pattern.

Property damage liability claim severity, which reflects damage to another vehicle caused by the policyholder, was 15% higher for vehicles equipped with crash-avoidance systems. Because that coverage pays to repair the other vehicle, the higher figure cannot be explained by the cost of fixing sensors on the insured vehicle.

IIHS says the explanation lies in the types of crashes that remain.

Automatic emergency braking and similar systems prevent many minor, low-speed collisions. With a large number of fender benders eliminated, more serious and expensive crashes make up a larger share of the remaining claims. That pushes up the average cost per claim even though the total number of claims declines.

Fewer claims lower total losses

Claim frequency was about 10% lower for collision coverage among vehicles with the safety package. For property damage liability coverage, claim frequency was nearly 40% lower.

When claim frequency and claim severity were considered together, total insurance losses were about 5% lower under collision coverage and almost 30% lower under property damage liability coverage for vehicles equipped with the technology.

For consumers, fewer crashes can mean avoiding a deductible, rental-car expenses, lost time and the possibility of higher insurance premiums. Crash-avoidance features have also been linked to substantial reductions in injury claims, providing benefits that go well beyond repair costs.

The findings do not mean every driver will save money or that every advanced safety feature performs equally well. Insurance premiums, repair costs and system effectiveness vary by vehicle and insurer.

But Moore says the broader data show why an expensive sensor replacement does not tell the whole story. Crash-avoidance systems can make a repair more costly when a collision happens but their greater value may be in keeping many of those collisions from happening at all.

Housing, utilities, food and transportation consume large portions of household budgets

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Electricity prices have risen about 37% in five years, while rents, restaurant meals and gasoline are up roughly 27% to 29%.

• Housing creates the greatest strain because consumers face higher prices, elevated mortgage rates, rising rents, insurance and utility costs at the same time.

• Overall consumer prices are about 22% higher than in July 2021, meaning slower inflation has not reversed the increase in the cost of living.

Affordability has become one of consumers biggest concerns, creeping into the political debate, but not all price increases hurt equally.

Some products may post large percentage increases without significantly disrupting a household budget. Housing, food, utilities and transportation are different: They are expensive, recurring and difficult to avoid.

An analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from July 2021 through July 2026 shows that overall consumer prices increased approximately 22% during the five-year period. Several essential expenses rose even faster.

The biggest increase was in electric bills, which are up 37% over five years. Restaurant meals and rent are both up 29% while gas prices have risen 27%.

The calculations compare the unadjusted Consumer Price Indexes for July 2021 and July 2026. Individual households may have experienced much larger or smaller increases depending on where they live and what they buy.

Housing delivers the biggest blow

Housing is arguably the center of the affordability crisis because consumers have been hit by several rising costs at once.

The BLS shelter index, which includes rent and the estimated rental value of owner-occupied homes, increased nearly 28% over five years. The rent index alone rose about 29%.

Homebuyers face an additional hurdle. The median existing-home sales price reached $434,100 in July, according to the National Association of Realtors. That was up 2% from a year earlier and roughly 21% above the median price reported in July 2021.

But home prices tell only part of the story. Mortgage rates have more than doubled from their 2021 levels. A 30-year fixed-rate mortgage carried an average rate below 3% during much of the summer of 2021, compared with rates above 6% now.

For example, principal and interest on a $300,000, 30-year mortgage would be approximately $1,244 a month at 2.87%. At 6.5%, the payment would be about $1,896a difference of more than $650 a month before taxes and insurance.

Existing homeowners with low fixed mortgage rates are largely protected from that increase, but renters, first-time buyers and people who need to relocate are not. Homeowners in many areas have also faced rising insurance premiums, property taxes, maintenance expenses and utility bills.

Electricity is one of the fastest-rising necessities

Electricity posted one of the largest five-year increases among major recurring expenses, rising about 37%.

Unlike gasoline, electricity is difficult for consumers to avoid. Households may reduce usage, but they generally cannot stop heating, cooling or powering their homes.

The pressure is especially serious for retirees and lower-income households, which may spend a larger share of their income on utilities. High summer temperatures can also make cutting air-conditioning use unsafe for older adults and people with certain health conditions.

Electricity prices were still rising in July 2026, increasing 4.2% from a year earlier, the BLS reported.

Food prices went upand stayed up

Grocery prices increased approximately 26% over the five-year period. Restaurant prices rose even more, climbing about 29%.

Food inflation has moderated from the rapid increases seen earlier in the decade, but that does not mean prices have returned to previous levels. It means they are generally rising more slowly from an already elevated base.

That distinction helps explain why consumers may remain frustrated even when inflation reports improve. A grocery basket that rose from $100 to approximately $126 does not become cheaper simply because its latest annual increase is smaller.

Consumers can trade down to store brands, shop sales or eat out less often, but there is a limit to how much food spending can be reduced.

Transportation remains expensive

Gasoline prices were roughly 27% higher in July 2026 than five years earlier, though fuel is among the most volatile expenses and can move sharply in either direction.

The cost of driving also includes vehicle prices, financing, repairs and insurance. Even where new- and used-vehicle price inflation has eased, consumers financing a purchase face interest rates that are considerably higher than those available in 2021.

That creates the same problem seen in housing: The sticker price may stabilize while the monthly payment remains unaffordable.

Why consumers still feel squeezed

The affordability problem is not simply that inflation remains above the Federal Reserves target. It is the cumulative effect of five years of price increases.

In July, consumer prices were 3.4% higher than a year earlier. But compared with July 2021, the overall cost of the governments consumer basket was about 22% higher.

Consumers do not experience that increase evenly. A household that owns its home outright and drives little may be relatively insulated. A renter with children, a long commute and high utility bills may face much greater pressure.

That is why housing, utilities, food and transportation are causing the most pain. They combine substantial price increases with something consumers cannot easily change: the need to keep a roof overhead, the lights on, food on the table and a reliable way to get to work.

More homes and slower price growth are improving buyers options

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.66%, nearly unchanged from the previous week.

• Buyers are benefiting from more listings and slower price growth, but borrowing costs remain a major affordability hurdle.

• Mortgage applicants should compare several lenders because even a small rate reduction can produce significant long-term savings.

Mortgage rates barely moved this week, giving potential home buyers a measure of stability but no meaningful improvement in affordability.

The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 6.66% as of Aug. 27, according to Freddie Macs latest Primary Mortgage Market Survey. That was up slightly from 6.65% the previous week and 6.56% one year ago.

The average 15-year fixed mortgage rate rose to 5.98%, from 5.95% a week earlier. A year ago, it averaged 5.69%.

Mortgage rates changed little this week, Freddie Mac Chief Economist Sam Khater said. He noted that consumer spending and household incomes remain resilient, while an increase in homes for sale and slower price growth in many markets are giving buyers more choices.

For potential buyers, the latest report presents a mixed picture. Rates remain high enough to keep monthly payments elevated, but a more balanced housing market may give buyers greater negotiating power.

What 6.66% means for payments

At a 6.66% interest rate, the monthly principal-and-interest payment on a $300,000, 30-year mortgage would be approximately $1,927. That does not include property taxes, homeowners insurance, mortgage insurance or homeowners association fees.

On a $400,000 mortgage, the principal-and-interest payment would be about $2,570 a month.

The weekly increase from 6.65% to 6.66% would make little difference to an individual borrower.

The larger problem is that rates have remained around the mid-6% range, keeping payments substantially higher than they were when mortgage rates were closer to 3% or 4%.

A $300,000 mortgage at 4%, for example, carries a principal-and-interest payment of approximately $1,432. At 6.66%, the payment is nearly $500 higher.

Buyers may have more leverage

While borrowing costs remain challenging, market conditions are showing signs of becoming more favorable to buyers. More listings mean shoppers may face less competition, while slower price growth could reduce the pressure to make an immediate offer.

In markets where homes are sitting longer, buyers may also be able to negotiate a lower price, ask the seller to pay closing costs or request a mortgage-rate buydown. A seller-funded buydown can reduce the borrowers interest rate temporarily or permanently, depending on how it is structured.

However, buyers should avoid assuming that mortgage rates will fall sharply in the near future. Rates can move quickly in response to inflation reports, employment data, Federal Reserve policy expectations and changes in Treasury yields.

Shopping around matters

Freddie Macs survey reflects conventional, conforming purchase loans offered to borrowers with excellent credit who make a 20% down payment. Individual borrowers may receive higher or lower quotes based on their credit score, debt, down payment, location and loan type.

Potential buyers should obtain estimates from at least three lenders and compare the annual percentage rate, fees and discount pointsnot just the advertised interest rate. Even a quarter-point difference can save thousands of dollars over the life of a mortgage.

Buyers who find an affordable home and expect to remain there for several years may decide that waiting for lower rates is too uncertain. If rates decline later, refinancing could be an option, although it comes with closing costs and is not guaranteed to produce savings.

74% of U.S. households still make cable or satellite payments, a new report finds

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• U.S. households with cable or satellite service pay a median of $125 a month, or $1,500 a year.

• That is only $4 less than the median monthly electric bill, according to an analysis of actual bill payments.

• Costs vary widely by location, with median annual bills exceeding $2,400 in some cities.

Americans may be watching less traditional television, but many are still paying a hefty price for it.

U.S. households with cable or satellite service pay a median of $125 a month, according to the 2026 doxoINSIGHTS U.S. Cable & Satellite Report. That works out to $1,500 a yearand is only $4 less than the median household electric bill of $129 a month.

The report estimates that 74% of U.S. households pay a cable or satellite bill, creating a market worth approximately $172 billion annually.

This is one of those bills that quietly became a big one, Steve Shivers, co-founder and CEO of doxo, said in announcing the findings. He noted that television expenses can increase a few dollars at a time until they rival the cost of an essential service such as electricity.

The report is based on aggregated bill-payment data from more than 10 million consumers.

Doxo said its data cover more than 120,000 billers and 97% of U.S. ZIP codes.

Bills remain high despite cord-cutting

The size of the typical bill is notable because traditional pay-TV providers have continued to lose subscribers.

DISH and Sling ended the second quarter with a combined 6.4 million subscribers after losing 241,000 customers, according to figures cited in the report. Comcast lost 280,000 video customers, reducing its total to 10.7 million, while Charter lost 21,000 and finished the quarter with 12.5 million.

But those declines have not necessarily translated into lower bills for the households that remain. Cable and satellite packages may include equipment rentals, regional sports fees, broadcast television charges and other costs beyond the advertised base price.

Some bills may also include bundled internet, telephone or premium services, depending on how the provider categorizes and collects the payment. Consumers comparing their bills with the reports $125 median should examine which services are included.

Where consumers pay the most

Vermont had the highest median annual cable and satellite bill among the states, at $1,980. It was followed closely by South Carolina at $1,962.

The five most expensive states were:

• Vermont: $1,980 a year

• South Carolina: $1,962

• Delaware: $1,912

• Nebraska: $1,910

• Rhode Island: $1,800

Costs were even higher in some large cities. Louisville, Kentucky, topped the list with a median annual bill of $2,439, equivalent to more than $200 a month.

Kansas City, Missouri, followed at $2,270, while Miami households paid a median of $2,244. Denver and Omaha rounded out the five most expensive large cities, with annual bills of $2,137 and $2,134, respectively.

How to lower the bill

Unlike electricity, cable and satellite service is generally an optional expense, giving consumers more room to cut costs.

Households can begin by reviewing their bills for equipment, channels or premium services they no longer use. Calling the provider to request a lower rate may also produce promotional pricing, although consumers should ask when the discount expires.

Other options include switching to a smaller channel package, returning extra cable boxes or eliminating traditional television service in favor of an antenna or selected streaming platforms.

However, streaming is not automatically cheaper. Subscribing to several services can quickly recreate a cable-size bill, especially after recent price increases. Consumers should compare the total monthly costincluding internet servicebefore cutting the cord.

The report suggests that cable may deserve the same level of scrutiny consumers give insurance, wireless service and other recurring bills. At $1,500 a year, even a modest reduction could produce meaningful savings in a household budget.