GiveCard Collaborates with Visa to Modernize Disbursements in the Public Sector
'GiveCard has built a simple and intuitive platform that helps eliminate the cost, time and complexity associated with disbursement of funds' - Rick Malcolm, Head of Visa Government Solutions North America.
Together, the two organizations are helping the public sector transition into the cashless era with infrastructure that enables secure ledger transfers at scale - through prepaid debit cards, as well as GiveCard-powered real-time bank transfers and automated workflows that reduce administrative overhead.
As the federal government accelerates efforts to modernize payments – including a recent executive order to phase out paper checks by September 30, 2025 – agencies are working to deliver digital-first, audit-ready payment systems. The GiveCard–Visa collaboration offers a turnkey solution: a modern infrastructure that fuses GiveCard's advanced disbursement technology with Visa's prepaid debit cards.
'The world is going cashless, and government and nonprofit systems have been working to modernize their payment systems to keep up,' said Lurein Perera, Co-Founder and CEO of GiveCard. 'We built GiveCard to close that gap: offering a platform that empowers public-sector organizations to move money quickly, compliantly, and without requiring a 20-person operations team.'
GiveCard's infrastructure includes high-limit virtual and physical prepaid debit cards, ACH/RTP/FedNow bank transfers, and a full-service cardholder support system through a platform and live interpreter network that operates in 25+ languages. It's all backed by no-code dashboards, APIs, and customizable workflows so agencies can automate disbursement logic, like eligibility checks or attendance triggers, without building from scratch or hiring additional staff.
'GiveCard has built a simple and intuitive platform that helps eliminate the cost, time and complexity associated with disbursement of funds,' said Rick Malcolm, Head of Visa Government Solutions North America. 'Their ability to integrate into government disbursement systems to manage complex and high-volume payments has made them an early success in the public sector, and we look forward to what we can accomplish together for our customers and stakeholders in the government sector.'
GiveCard is purpose-built for disbursement: its infrastructure was designed to move money into people's hands with minimal friction, especially for unbanked or underbanked individuals. With no SSN or ID required, the system supports programs like housing aid, disaster relief, and research incentives while maintaining full anti-money laundering (AML) and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) compliance.
The new collaboration will enable state and local governments, school districts, and nonprofits to rapidly implement and scale digital disbursement programs with Visa-backed prepaid cards and secure digital rails.
About GiveCard
GiveCard is revolutionizing how organizations move money to people. Our specialized prepaid debit card platform and disbursement management infrastructure make it simple and efficient to launch, scale, and measure the impact of fund distribution initiatives. From nonprofit organizations and government agencies running cash assistance programs to research institutions and school systems, GiveCard enables instant delivery of funds to individuals—no bank account required. Founded in 2018, GiveCard has facilitated the disbursement of millions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of individuals across the U.S. Learn more at www.givecard.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
As Scammers Up Their Fraud Game, Consumers, Banks, And Law Enforcement Must Respond
Technology may make fraud easier—thanks to social media—but it may also be the way to stop it. getty Fraud schemes and scammers are increasingly making headlines, with some scratching their heads to figure out why—and how to stop it. A recent study conducted by BioCatch, a global company focused on solving next-generation digital identity challenges through examining behavioral biometrics, might offer some clarity. The survey found that 81% of Americans cited artificial intelligence (AI) as contributing to more sophisticated financial crimes, with social media (75%) and the dark web (73%) playing key roles in the equation. That data was pulled from a BioCatch survey of 800 senior fraud, anti-money laundering (AML), and risk and compliance professionals across 17 countries on five continents. The survey was an attempt to better understand how financial institutions are fighting fraud and financial crime, the impact of emerging technologies on the dark economy, and the level of collaboration among competing institutions, law enforcement, and governments. The impact on consumer wallets is significant. Nasdaq's Global Financial Crime Report estimates that $3.1 trillion in illicit funds moved through the world's financial system in 2023. Scams and fraud added up to $485.6 billion in projected losses. Of those moves, U.S. victims have taken a beating: the U.S. ranks second globally for major fraud losses. That likely explains why, in the U.S., almost all of those surveyed agree that combating activities that encompass the dark economy is important. So what can be done to stop it? Many professionals aren't quite sure. Most of those surveyed (83%) believe that their financial institutions are winning the fight against fraudsters, while only 56% believe their individual efforts have an impact on combating financial crime. That may not tell the whole story. Matt O'Neill, a former Secret Service agent, says there's a real disconnect between losses and what banks are prioritizing. Fraud losses hit individuals in the pocketbook, not banks. The banks aren't materially affected, and there hasn't been a real push to pivot from the status quo. While U.S. banks may trust technology, they don't trust each other, O'Neill explains. That means there's no meaningful sharing of information. That's a break from behaviors other countries where statistics suggest that when other countries share at scale, their losses are decreasing. (Part of the reluctance to share information may come from consumers. While 32% of those surveyed in the U.S. consider data privacy regulation as one of the main inhibitors to sharing data with other banks, 30% worry about the potential for misuse. These numbers are higher than global averages.) Nearly all (93%) of those surveyed consider their organization to be effective in fighting financial crime, and four in five of those surveyed say their banks have incorporated behavioral analysis into their technology stack to detect financial crime. Those numbers may sound impressive, but O'Neill says that criminal networks are actually outpacing banks while banks are still playing catch-up. The Role Of Law Enforcement Despite an increase in reports of fraud, law enforcement agencies are reaching out to banks less often. That means there may not be a unified effort to stop scammers. And, tellingly, it makes a real difference where the fraud happens—even when banks do contact local law enforcement, not all law enforcement have the means, ability, and time to respond to sophisticated scams and attacks. The majority of Americans working in financial crime prevention believe that law enforcement should do more when a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is filed. By law, national banks are required to report known or suspected criminal offenses, transactions over $5,000 suspected to involve money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and transactions of $25,000 or more involving a criminal violation, even if no suspect is identified. The level of follow-up from those SARs may be inconsistent across banks and across demographics. Banks also report that they don't receive regular contact from law enforcement about their investigations into criminal activity. When it does happen, the contact tends to be less frequent than on a monthly basis. Customer-Focused Communications On the consumer side, banks and other financial institutions have tried to boost awareness about the potential for fraud, often by creating awareness campaigns. But Seth Ruden, Senior Director of Global Advisory at BioCatch, notes that can only go so far. 'Social engineering is so compelling,' he says, and efforts to combat it are not as effective as the tactics exercised by bad actors. Social engineering is a form of manipulation which relies on human psychology to direct behaviors. In this context, scammers may spend significant resources to convince potential victims to take certain steps like revealing personally identifiable information or transferring assets to a third party. To combat that manipulation, institutions need new controls to fight scammers, including those to alert potential victims. Oftentimes, banks may notice the potential fraud before the victim does, or before third parties do. But it may be too difficult to break the spell. Creating some friction at the consumer level could delay funds from being released. That, combined with the sharing of information between financial institutions, could be a difference maker. When funds leave an account, there's a narrow window of time before they're captured at the receiver bank. 'What if,' Ruden asks, 'we could connect in real time?' That could present an opportunity to stop or mitigate the damage. O'Neill agrees, suggesting that while precision analytics can be a real game-changer for banks, additional resources—including a human touch—can also make a difference. For example, when a potential victim is determined to send funds to a new payee, like a new romantic interest, asking the right questions could result in a pause in activity. Asking a question as simple as, 'Why would send money to someone you have never met before?' could trigger a conversation that could result in enough information to reveal that the payment is very suspicious. The key, of course, is to create friction without making it a competitive disadvantage. That, says Ruden, requires resources. Those on the other side of the equation—the fraudsters—are sophisticated actors and are willing to dedicate time and money to see a scam through. Fighting will require the same dedication from financial institutions. But it may well be the case that those spends are welcome since nearly two-thirds of those surveyed say they'd like to increase their investment in technology (those in the U.S. said so at a much higher rate than the global average). What Can Consumers Do? So much of fighting fraud still rests with the consumer. So, what can consumers do to protect themselves? O'Neill is quick to offer his advice, emphasizing, 'Never ever send money to anyone that you've never seen or touched before.' If you make a mistake, 'The cavalry isn't coming,' he says, noting that the likelihood is slim to recover the funds. 'There isn't a magic button to recover those funds,' so it's important to think it through. 'If it's going to hurt you to lose it, don't send it,' he warns. Ruden says that it's going to take a technology revolution to protect consumers. He thinks such a move should be welcomed, noting that it's in the interest of financial institutions and fiduciaries to help protect their customers. Some do a better job than others—and those are the organizations that consumers should seek out. 'Look for a culture of protection,' he advises, saying that consumers should keep an eye out for institutions that place an emphasis on fraud-fighting. This can mean existing trained fraud prevention teams or otherwise demonstrating a commitment to protect consumers through their business practices. Tax Rules For Losses If you are a victim of a scam, while you may not be able to recover your losses, you may be entitled to tax relief. Earlier this year, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel released a memo providing clarification on the deductibility of theft losses for scam victims. The memo was welcome for taxpayers who were confused about limits resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made another tweak. Under the TCJA, for the tax years 2018 to 2025, personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only to the extent that the losses are attributable to a federally declared disaster. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act made the limits to losses permanent, with one exception: it has been expanded to include state-declared disasters. That means the theft loss deduction is still available for businesses and individuals who incur losses in transactions entered into for profit. There is no statutory definition of "a transaction entered into for profit." However, courts have determined that to meet the criteria, a primary profit motive is required. Next Steps As scammers develop new schemes to steal money and information from consumers (you can read about a new one here), the commitment to fraud prevention must evolve even faster. Understanding what kinds of scams exist and how they operate, as well as the roles that consumers, law enforcement, and financial institutions can play in mitigation and prevention, are all key. That means that education will continue to be a big part in stopping scammers. You can read the Biocatch global survey here. Forbes FBI Warns Scam Victims To Be On The Lookout For Fake Law Firms Offering To Help Recover Losses By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes IRS Issues Warnings On Tax Scams Driven By Bad Advice Often Found On Social Media By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes Some Scam Victims May Be Able To Deduct Related Losses On Their Tax Returns By Kelly Phillips Erb
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
New $250 Visa Integrity Fee Will Cost US $11 Billion, Say Tourism Officials
Topline U.S. tourism officials say Congress's controversial $250 visa integrity fee will deter international visitors and cost the country nearly $11 billion in lost visitor spending and tax revenue over the next three years. Key Facts The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the new $250 visa integrity fee will bring in around $27 billion over a decade—or $2.7 billion per year—to U.S. government coffers and reduce the national debt. But a U.S. tourism official told Forbes the fee will instead cost the U.S. economy $11 billion over three years, including $9.4 billion in lost visitor spending and $1.3 billion in lost tax revenue—or about $3.6 billion per year, according to an analysis by Tourism Economics. In addition, the lost revenue will lead to losing 15,000 U.S. travel jobs, according to U.S. tourism industry estimates. How Will The $250 Fee Impact Tourism To The U.s.? The CBO based its estimate solely on the potential revenue generated by the fee itself, while the U.S. tourism industry looked at the macroeconomic impact of implementing the fee, hence the wildly different estimates. The CBO estimated that charging roughly 11 million annual visa applicants $250 apiece would rake in roughly $2.7 billion per year for the State Department. Tourism officials say Congress wrongly assumed the pricey fee would have little impact on the volume of visitation. Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics, estimated that the $250-per-person fee is onerous enough to deter 5.4% of international visitors from coming to the U.S., which would translate to a drop of nearly 1 million fewer visits annually. Fewer visitors translate to less visitor spending, and in turn to lower tax revenue and job losses in the tourism industry, sending a negative ripple effect throughout the national economy. 'By longstanding tradition, the Congressional Budget Office does not incorporate macroeconomic feedback effects into its traditional cost estimates,' a CBO spokesperson told Forbes. 'We didn't specifically do a dynamic analysis of this provision.' In other words, the CBO did not factor in the potential negative economic impact from lower visitor spending, tax revenue and subsequent job cuts—key metrics used by the U.S. tourism industry and the U.S. Commerce Department to evaluate the overall value of tourism to the U.S. economy. 'I think in the minds of congressional leaders, foreign visitors don't vote, so making them pay more to help fund the [Big Beautiful] Bill wouldn't come at any political cost,' Erik Hansen, senior vice president of government relations at the U.S. Travel Association, told Forbes. 'But the problem is it comes at a huge economic cost to American businesses.' What Else Do U.s. Tourism Experts Say Congress Got Wrong? 'Congress made the mistake of assuming that this worldwide visa integrity fee would not have a big impact on visitors from countries like India or Brazil,' Hansen told Forbes. 'This is the exact type of armchair public policymaking that is going to get us into a big mess.' India, in particular, is a 'bright spot' for inbound international travel because visitation numbers have surpassed where they were in 2019, he said, while most other countries are lagging behind their pre-pandemic volume. In 2024, Indian tourists spent roughly $13.3 billion in the U.S., according to the National Travel and Tourism Office, part of the U.S. Commerce Department. 'Applying a $250 fee to a country where travel is growing is mindboggling. It will absolutely deter travel—that's what our research has found,' Hansen said. What Do International Visitors Need To Know About The Visa Integrity Fee? The fee is not actually as 'refundable' as Congress has billed it to be. As written, the Big Beautiful Bill says the State Department 'may reimburse' the fee after the visitor's visa expires, provided that the visa holder has complied with all conditions of the visa. But most visitor visas are valid for 10 years, Hansen pointed out. 'The idea that you're going to give the government money and then wait around 10 years and remember to ask for it back, even if you followed the rules, is just absolutely crazy,' he said. Indeed, to arrive at its projection, the CBO reasoned in its estimate that 'a large number of nonimmigrants would not be eligible to seek reimbursement until several years after paying the fee' so consequently only 'a small number of people would seek reimbursement.' In other words, said Hansen, 'there's a very good understanding that the refund process itself is not going to be easy, and even if it is easy, that a lot of people aren't going to seek that refund after a decade.' Another red flag: The $250 fee was inserted into the Big Beautiful Bill without a plan for processing refunds. In its analysis, the CBO wrote that 'the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements.' Why Are So Many International Travelers Avoiding The U.s. This Year? In June, a World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) analysis of the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries revealed the U.S. was the only country forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025, which by some estimates is as much as $29 billion. The root causes of this decline, multiple studies have found, are a combination of President Trump's tariffs, travel bans, inflammatory rhetoric and harsher immigration policies, all which have created a chilling effect on visitors. 'While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the 'closed' sign,' Julia Simpson, president and CEO of WTTC, said in a statement. 'Given we're halfway through the year and we've seen these impacts, we don't know when the stiffest headwind is, but I think it does stay sustained,' Aran Ryan, director of industry studies at Tourism Economics, told Forbes last month. 'We're generally assuming that this persists for a while and that some of it is going to persist throughout the end of the administration.' Simpson characterized the WTTC study as a 'wake-up call for the U.S. government,' adding that 'without urgent action to restore international traveler confidence, it could take several years for the U.S. just to return to pre-pandemic levels of international visitor spend.' Tangent Trump's signature spending bill contains another blow to U.S. tourism. A Senate committee led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) slashed the budget of Brand USA, the country's public-private destination marketing organization, from $100 million to $20 million. 'This is another error that Congress has made,' Hansen said, noting that the Trump administration recommended full funding for the organization in its fiscal year 2026 budget. 'We have a big misperception problem among international visitors right now, but Congress cut funding for the one organization that's in charge of setting perceptions and sending a welcoming message about travel to the United States.'
Time Business News
12 hours ago
- Time Business News
Next-Generation Approaches to Hematologic Malignancies
Hematologic malignancies are cancer that affect blood, bone marrow, and lymphatic systems including leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma. These cancers disrupt normal blood cell production and immune function. The growth of the hematologic malignancy market is inspired by increasing the prevalence of global cancer, increasing target remedies and immunotherapy, progression in clinical technologies and expanding research in individual medicine. Additionally, increasing awareness, better healthcare infrastructure, and oncology contribute to more investment market expansion in drug development. Key Growth Drivers and Opportunities Increasing the Prevalence of Global Cancer: The increasing global spread of cancer greatly enhances the growth of the market of hematologic malignancies, as blood -related cancer, such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, become a large part of cancer worldwide. As more individuals are affected by these conditions, there is an increasing demand for accurate diagnosis, advanced treatment options and long -term disease management solutions. In cases, this increase encourages drug companies and research institutes to invest in innovative remedies such as targeted treatment, immunotherapy and CAR-T cell therapy. Additionally, high cancer phenomena motivate governments and healthcare systems to increase screening programs and to reach oncology. Challenges Hematologic malignancies markets face several borders, including high cost of advanced treatments such as car-T cell treatment and targeted drugs, which can restrict access to patients in low- and moderate-income areas. Complex regulatory approval, long clinical testing procedures, and severe side effects or ability to resist also face significant challenges. Additionally, limited availability of specialized clinical equipment and lack of efficient health care professionals in some fields obstruct timely and accurate diagnosis, overall treatment affects results and slows down market development. Innovation and Expansion Kyowa Kirin and Kura Oncology Collaborate to Create Ziftomenib for Acute Leukemias In November 2024, in order to develop and market ziftomenib, Kura's selective oral menin inhibitor, which is being researched for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other hematologic malignancies, Kura Oncology, Inc. and Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd. announced they have formed a global strategic partnership. Kura will get USD 330 million up front as part of the deal, and it anticipates receiving up to USD 420 million in near-term milestone payments, including one when ziftomenib is introduced in the monotherapy relapsed/refractory (R/R) context. Merck Launched Phase III Trials for Novel Treatments for Blood Disorders and Cancer In January 2024, With the start of pivotal Phase III studies for four new candidates for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, Merck's strong oncology and hematology portfolio is progressing. Essential thrombocythemia (ET), small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), some patients with endometrial carcinoma who have already received treatment, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are among the conditions for which the company announced active enrollment for investigational medications. The firm is committed to ongoing research to broaden our portfolio of oncology treatments in order to continue addressing unmet needs in cancer care. The company has a rich history of transforming groundbreaking science into medicines that save and enhance lives worldwide. Inventive Sparks, Expanding Markets The key players operating the hematologic malignancies market includes, Johnson & Johnson Services Inc., Pfizer Inc., Novartis AG, AbbVie Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., Celgene Corporation, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited., and others. About Author: Prophecy is a specialized market research, analytics, marketing and business strategy, and solutions company that offer strategic and tactical support to clients for making well-informed business decisions and to identify and achieve high value opportunities in the target business area. Also, we help our client to address business challenges and provide best possible solutions to overcome them and transform their business. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
