Latest news with #assessment
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
TNB may face additional RM2bil tax bill
TNB is facing additional tax assessments of nearly RM8 billion for 2013-2024, said CIMB Securities. PETALING JAYA : Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) may be slapped with hefty tax assessments for 2023 and 2024 amounting to RM2 billion by the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN), said CIMB Securities. This will potentially be another blow for the power utility company which had been issued notices of additional assessment for 2013 to 2021 amounting to RM5.89 billion. 'If TNB's FY2023-2024 capex provides any indication, we think the additional tax assessment for 2023-2024 could be around RM2 billion, raising the total amount for 2013-2024 to nearly RM8 billion,' it said in a note today. In a worst-case scenario where it has to pay the full amount, CIMB forecasted the impact to TNB's current target price of RM15.75 could result in an 8% to 9% decline. The stock fell 24 sen or 1.76% to RM13.36 today, valuing the group at RM77.88 billion. So far this year, the shares have fallen 9.5%. The research house has maintained its 'buy' call on TNB, stating it is 'reasonably valued and offers steady dividend returns' over the next few years. A taxing month For TNB, it has been a month to forget as far as tax matters are concerned. Last Thursday, it was slapped with a tax bill amounting to RM840.1 million for the year of assessment 2022. This comes on the heels of the Federal Court ruling against TNB on July 2 in its RM1.25 billion tax assessment dispute with LHDN, for YA 2018. With the apex court ruling it is not eligible to claim reinvestment allowance, TNB is now facing a multibillion-ringgit tax bill. The two parties have been in dispute since 2015 over tax assessments, with RM5.05 billion worth of disputed sum still outstanding, according to TNB's 2024 annual report. In a bourse filing last Friday, TNB said it is evaluating legal options available to address the latest tax bill. The company said it has made a new application for investment allowance under Schedule 7B of the Income Tax Act 1967 on July 25. If it succeeds, the impact could be reduced or even eliminated. TNB has said it is in the midst of assessing the full financial implications of the Federal Court's ruling. The utility giant also assured Malaysians its focus remains on its core mission and long-term priorities, with prudent financial management and consistent cash flow underpinning its operations.
Arab News
18-07-2025
- Sport
- Arab News
CONMEBOL eases Copa America warm-up rules after Brazil's complaints
'This decision was made after a detailed assessment of the condition,' said CONMEBOL For the latest updates, follow us @ArabNewsSport
Harvard Business Review
14-07-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
How AI Assessment Tools Affect Job Candidates' Behavior
According to the World Economic Forum, more than 90% of employers use automated systems to filter or rank job applications, and 88% of companies already employ some form of AI for initial candidate screening. Take Unilever, for example. The consumer goods giant uses AI-driven tools from HireVue to assess early-career applicants, saving 50,000 hours and more than $1 million in the process. Most companies, when considering AI assessment tools, focus on the gains the tools bring in terms of efficiency and quality. But what they don't factor in is how AI assessment may change candidates' behavior during the assessment. Our new research, examining over 13,000 participants across 12 studies, reveals that this is a crucial blind spot. We looked at simulation of a variety of assessment situations in both the laboratory and the field, and we collaborated with a startup platform offering game-based hiring solutions called Equalture. The results show that job candidates consistently emphasized analytical traits when they believed AI was evaluating them, while downplaying the very human qualities—empathy, creativity, intuition—that often distinguish outstanding employees from merely competent ones. This drove candidates to present a different and potentially more homogeneous version of themselves, in turn affecting who was likely to succeed in an AI-enabled hiring process, with implications for organizations using AI in hiring, promotions, or admission decisions. Why This Matters for Your Organization The implications of our findings extend beyond individual hiring decisions. When candidates systematically misrepresent themselves, organizations face several critical challenges: Talent pool distortion: While AI is sometimes blamed for making biased hiring decisions (for example, discriminating against women in the selection process), our research suggests that knowing that one is assessed by AI also biases candidates, making them believe that they should prioritize their analytical capabilities. As a result, companies may be screening out exactly the candidates they need simply by using AI: that innovative thinker or emotionally intelligent leader you're looking for might present themselves as a rule-following analyst because they believe that is what the AI wants to see. Validity compromise: Assessment tools are only as good as the data they collect. When candidates strategically alter their responses, the fundamental validity of the assessment process might be undermined. Organizations may no longer measure authentic capabilities—instead, they may measure what candidates think AI will value the most. Unintended homogenization: If most candidates believe AI favors analytical traits, the talent pipeline may become increasingly uniform, potentially undermining diversity initiatives and limiting the range of perspectives in organizations. Companies like IBM and Hilton, which integrate AI into both hiring and internal promotion systems, must now contend with whether such tools nudge employees toward formulaic self-presentation. New transparency regulations like the EU's AI Act, which require organizations to disclose AI use in high-stakes decisions, make these outcomes all the more likely. When candidates are aware that an AI is assessing them, they are more likely to change their behavior. What Leaders Can Do Based on our findings, organizations can take several concrete steps to address the AI assessment effect: Radical transparency: Do not just disclose AI assessment—be explicit about what it actually evaluates. Clearly communicate that your AI can and does value diverse traits, including creativity, emotional intelligence, and intuitive problem-solving. This might include providing examples of successful candidates who demonstrated strong intuitive or creative capabilities. Currently, few companies seem to be transparent about what exactly it is that AI assesses—at least this information is not easily accessible when clicking through career page information on the websites of many major companies. That said, applicants discuss and share their intuitions on blogs and videos, which may be counterproductive because it may or may not align with actual practices. We advise companies not to leave their candidates to speculate. Regular behavioral audits: Implement systematic reviews of your AI assessment outcomes. For instance, New York City has enacted Local Law 144, requiring employers to conduct annual bias audits of AI-based hiring. In response, one of the market leaders in AI-based hiring, HireVue reports their recent audits for race or gender bias across jobs and use cases. In addition to examining biases regarding demographics, we suggest using these audits to look for patterns indicating behavioral adaptation: Are candidates' responses becoming more homogeneous over time? Are you seeing a shift toward analytical presentations at the expense of other valuable traits? Hybrid assessment: Some organizations combine human and AI assessments. For example, Salesforce notes that besides technology, a human will review applications. Nvidia and Philip Morris International guarantee ultimate assessment and decision-making through a human. One of our studies shows that while this hybrid human assessment does reduce candidates' tendency to highlight analytical capabilities, it does not eliminate it. To close the gap, you need to train your human hirers to compensate for the AI effect. The Path Forward As AI becomes increasingly embedded in organizational decision-making, we must recognize that these tools do not just change processes—they change people. The efficiency gains from AI assessment may come at the cost of authentic candidate presentation and, ultimately, the human diversity that makes organizations innovative and resilient. The irony is striking: In our quest to remove human bias from hiring, we may have created a system where AI introduces a new form of bias. The solution is not to abandon AI, but to design assessment systems that account for and counteract these behavioral shifts. Only by keeping humans—not just metrics—at the heart of our assessment strategies can we build hiring systems that truly identify and nurture the diverse talent our organizations need.
BBC News
12-07-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Tees, Esk and Wear NHS ADHD assessment wait times of 618 days
Adults are waiting on average 618 days for an ADHD assessment at an NHS figures for Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust (TEWV) were released in a response to a Freedom of Information trust said waiting times could vary depending upon a number of factors, including whether individuals had an existing mental health diagnosis, while the local NHS care board said there had been a "major increase" in the demand for ADHD assessments and support services over the last few years.A man from Spennymoor, who wished to remain anonymous, said his wait for assessment had "added to the issues that ADHD already causes". He said: "My relationship has fallen apart, my career is also failing and I'm constantly stressed."After an initial GP phone appointment I was seen quite quickly by a mental health specialist who then put me on the waiting list at TEWV."In the nearly three years since, I have received two phone calls to simply say I was still on the list and they couldn't tell me how much longer I will be waiting."The Freedom of Information request asked how long, on average, an adult undergoing assessment for ADHD by TWEV have been waiting for that assessment on 11 June 2025. 'Eight-year wait' Thea Stein, chief executive of health think tank the Nuffield Trust, said the reasons for the significant increase for ADHD assessments nationally and internationally "remain unclear".She thinks many adults had their symptoms missed as children and now they are presenting themselves for tests."Waiting times for NHS services are increasing across the country with waits of up to four years for children and up to eight years for adults."Often [a diagnosis] can help people 'make sense' of the difficulties they've faced, allow them to find the right type of support, and live better lives overall," she NHS North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board said it recognised that "too many adults in our region are waiting too long".A spokesperson said: "We have seen a major increase in the demand for ADHD assessments and support services over the past few years. "These services require a workforce with specialist skills and knowledge, which will take time to increase in order to meet demand. "This is not just an issue in the North East and North Cumbria, but nationally." Follow BBC North East on X and Facebook and BBC Cumbria on X and Facebook and both on Nextdoor and Instagram.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
‘I was an NHS manager – its rule-breaking is costing you thousands of pounds'
Have you been turned down for help with continuing care costs after an online assessment? Get in touch: money@ Most people have never heard of 'continuing healthcare' – and the NHS likes it that way. If you are successful in securing continuing healthcare, the health service will pay the cost of your care no matter your wealth. It is fiendishly difficult to make a successful application (I've written about my top tips here). Today, I'm writing about the assessment process – and where the NHS could be breaking its own rules. Have you attended an online continuing healthcare assessment organised by your local NHS integrated care board to determine if the NHS should pay for someone's care? If the answer is yes, then the NHS has broken the rules. Last year, my brother-in-law contacted me to ask for help with his mother's NHS continuing healthcare assessment which had been carried out online. The rules around assessing someone for continuing healthcare are set out in the legally binding national framework, and are very clear – assessments have to be carried out in person (with the proviso that if the social worker cannot attend in person, then they can dial in to the NHS nurse who should be in the room). I was therefore very surprised to discover that the local integrated care board had a contract with a private company to carry out online-only assessments. I sent a Freedom of Information request to the integrated care board, and asked to see the impact assessment which should have been written to evaluate how this contract impacted older people (age is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010). This is important because older people are disadvantaged by an online assessment. How can an older person with hearing and/or comprehension problems, and who watches television with subtitles, for example, take part in an online assessment? Public sector bodies are required by the Equality Act to carry out impact assessments, but in this case, the integrated care board hadn't written one. When I challenged this on appeal at the NHS England panel, it emerged that the senior manager from a different integrated care board on the panel also had a contract with the same company. Unsurprisingly, she dismissed my arguments. I wrote to the external auditors of both integrated care boards to complain that payments made under these contracts to this company were unlawful because online assessments contravened both the national framework and equality law. Both auditors are investigating. How to appeal a rejection So what can you do if you have been denied funding or had funding withdrawn based on an online assessment for NHS continuing healthcare? My advice is to complain formally to your integrated care board, and request that the decision be set aside on the basis that it has no legal powers to make a decision in respect of continuing healthcare where it has not complied with the national framework and the Equality Act. When I put these points to NHS England, it said: 'NHS England expects all integrated care boards to offer face-to-face meetings for continuing healthcare assessments, while online consultations should also be made available when preferred by the patient.' Holding an assessment meeting in person, as required by the legally binding national framework, instead of online should be very straightforward, but this is symptomatic of wider NHS failures. In 2024-25, the NHS in England carried out 51,981 standard assessments for continuing healthcare funding, and rejected a massive 41,806 of them (an 80.5pc failure rate). Whenever the NHS gets it wrong, it is often the local authorities who pick up the bill. This is because councils pay care costs when someone's assets fall below £23,250. In order to find out the extent of the problem of the NHS shifting care costs on to local councils, I wrote to three councils to ask them the number of people in nursing homes (not residential homes) for whom the council is paying all or part of their care, and the cost of this care over the past year. The reason for asking this is that if someone's needs can only be met by the level of nursing care provided in a nursing home, then they should qualify for NHS continuing healthcare funding. The results were enlightening. In 2024-25, Staffordshire Council paid £83.9m for 2,019 residents; in Kent the council paid £79.4m for 1,618 residents; and in Derbyshire the council paid £52.5m for 1,313 residents. My suggestion for Reform UK (which has taken control of these councils) is to set up a social care task force to review all of these residents, and make sure that the NHS pays according to the rules. If they did this, then they would save local taxpayers a lot of money. Of course, you could argue that the taxpayer would pay anyway if the NHS picks up the bill for nursing home fees instead of the council. But why should local council taxpayers subsidise NHS malpractice, especially when there are so many local demands on local budgets? The good news is that NHS England is being abolished and the Department of Health and Social Care is taking over. Hopefully when that happens, NHS integrated care boards will finally be forced to comply with the law.
