Quantcast
Channel: Health Insurance Headlines on One News Page [United States]
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live

As of March 1st, Low Income Benefits are Available for People in Michigan with Medicare

$
0
0
The Michigan Medicare/Medicaid Assistance Program (MMAP receives funding to assist older adults and people with disabilities

Lansing, MI (PRWEB) March 16, 2014

MMAP executive director, Jo Murphy said, “Millions of low-income older Americans struggle to pay their prescription, health care, food, and energy costs. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) grants have been instrumental in helping these disadvantaged seniors to regain their economic footing and lead healthy, independent lives.”

Under MIPPA, the Michigan Medicare/Medicaid Assistance Program (MMAP) receives funding to help Medicare beneficiaries apply for the Medicare Part D Extra Help/Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) and the Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs). MMAP, Inc. has helped qualified low-income Michigan seniors and younger adults with disabilities submit over 14,000 applications for benefits that make Medicare affordable.

For someone with very low income, the savings offered by public benefits can mean not having to make tough choices between paying for food or medicine, health care or utilities. The Social Security Administration estimates the value of the Part D Low Income Subsidy at $4,000/yr. Medicare Savings Programs save, at a minimum, $1,200/yr, while the average annual benefit for seniors under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is $1,428/yr.

Every dollar spent in federal benefits generates local economic activity. When people miss out, it affects not only them, but their communities as well, as benefits are spent or used at local pharmacies, grocery stores, and physicians’ offices.

MMAP educates vulnerable seniors about how to use and retain these programs.

A MMAP counselor relates this story of a man she helped to receive LIS: “Last month I assisted a new Medicare beneficiary. While discussing his monthly income, I noticed that he was $2 below the threshold to qualify for the Low Income Subsidy, which I helped him to apply for.

Two weeks after applying, I received a telephone call from the beneficiary. He was in tears because it not only lowered his monthly premium, but one of his seven medications has a retail cost of $1,600 per month. The most he will pay for his medications now is $245 a month.

The man told me that his prescriptions have never been that affordable. He was very grateful for the help he received.”

About Michigan Medicare/Medicaid Assistance Program (MMAP)

MMAP (pronounced “map”) provides free health benefits counseling services for Michigan’s Medicare beneficiaries, including younger adults who have Medicare due to a disability and Medicare beneficiaries who may also qualify for Medicaid. MMAP counselors provide personalized counseling to help beneficiaries understand and make informed decisions about their Medicare benefits and plan options. MMAP also promotes Medicare Fraud Awareness and works to educate beneficiaries on how to detect and report suspected Medicare Fraud.

MMAP is part of the national networks of State Health Insurance Assistance Programs (SHIP) and Senior Medicare Patrols (SMP). It is dedicated to providing objective and confidential health benefits counseling services and is not affiliated with nor does it receive funding from the insurance industry. Funding for MMAP comes from grants from the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Beneficiaries who would like to talk with a MMAP counselor should call 1-800-803-7174 Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

My husband took off and now I can't get an Obamacare subsidy

$
0
0
*My husband took off and now I can't get an Obamacare subsidy*

*Q. *I am married, no kids, and my husband took off three years ago. I have no idea where to find him so I can get a divorce. I’ve been filing my taxes as “married but filing separately” and have found out that unless I file jointly I can’t get financial assistance with my health insurance premium. What am I supposed to do?

*A.* As you have already discovered, the IRS has made it crystal-clear that under the rules of the new health care law, anyone who is married must file a joint 2014 tax return with a spouse in order to qualify for tax credits to lower the cost of health insurance.

If you had children, you could get the tax credits by exercising your option of filing as “head of household” as long as the kids lived with you more than half the year, you paid more than half the household expenses, and were living apart from your husband for the last six months of the year.

But without kids, your only recourse is to get a divorce, which turns out to be possible even if your husband is nowhere to be found, according to Maria Cognetti, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

“The issue you need to resolve is service of the divorce papers,” she said. “You need to prove to the court that you’ve done everything possible to locate him, at which point you’ll be allowed to proceed” with your divorce even in his absence. The requirements to prove you’ve searched high and low vary from state to state, she says, but might include such measures as mailing the papers to his last known address, submitting sworn affidavits that you’ve talked to relatives or friends who might know where he is, or even publishing a notice in the local newspaper.

It's probably best to have the help of a matrimonial lawyer to get you through this process. Cognetti recommends starting with your state or local bar association, which can refer you to free legal service programs if your income qualifies you, or, if it doesn’t, to an affordable matrimonial lawyer on their referral list.

Clearly this is a project that you're not going to be able to finish by the end of this year's open enrollment period on March 31, which raises another issue. If you remain uninsured past open enrollment, and manage to get your divorce in, say, July, you won’t qualify for a “special enrollment period” to get insurance outside of open enrollment, according to Tara Straw, an expert on enrollment rules at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C. research organization. “Divorce doesn’t trigger a special enrollment unless it results in a loss of coverage,” she said, so if you’re not covered to begin with, you’re out of luck.

The solution to this is to purchase the cheapest plan available to you on your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace during open enrollment, even though you’ll be paying full price. When your divorce comes through, the change in your subsidy eligibility status will qualify you for a special enrollment period. You can take advantage of that to claim your subsidy and upgrade to a better plan if you want. I priced out unsubsidized plans for a 35-year-old in your community and the cheapest available was a Bronze plan for $241 a month. You should buy it right away and start work on getting rid of your soon-to-be-former husband.

Got a question for our health insurance expert? Ask it here; be sure to include the state you live in. And if you can't get enough health insurance news here, follow me on Twitter @NancyMetcalf.

—Nancy Metcalf*We're providing regular coverage of the new health care law. To get health insurance advice tailored to your situation, use our Health Law Helper, below.*

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers or sponsors on this website. Copyright © 2006-2014 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
   
   
   
   
    Reported by Consumer Reports 17 hours ago.

Obamacare's Market Problem

$
0
0
In a now-familiar policy ritual, the White House has just re-jiggered the Affordable Care Act -- this time by allowing consumers to renew millions of non-compliant health insurance policies for at least two more years. It remains to be seen whether the courts will uphold the legality of these unilateral changes in the program, and whether the ACA's approach to expanding health insurance -- the multi-trillion dollar question -- can only be assessed once the program is up and running.

These abrupt retreats are designed to render a vast unpopular more palatable to consumers, providers, and insurers. This political imperative reveals a fundamental principle that confront all large social programs, regardless of the administration in power: they cannot succeed unless they can come to terms with the robust markets in which they are embedded. Policymakers who hope to improve these markets must also reckon with the persistence and power of their underlying dynamics.

Our political culture deeply mistrusts the federal government (except in certain areas like national defense), while believing strongly in the virtues of competitive markets. Public faith in Washington is low and falling. In 2010, only 4 percent had a lot of confidence that it will solve the problems it takes on. (The notoriously feckless ACA roll out has presumably driven that share closer to zero). In 2011, only three years after the 2008 market collapse that caused Americans so much pain, 64 percent viewed "big government" as the largest threat to the nation's future; only 26 percent named "big business." And big government has grown even bigger since then, with the implementation of the Dodd-Frank law and the ACA -- together adding enormous regulatory authority in two of the largest areas of the economy.

There are many functions that only the government can perform and many others that Congress has decided that it should perform. In the case of the ACA, as with many other programs, its relationship with the relevant markets is ambivalent, uneasy, and uncertain. While unwilling to supplant them, the government is determined to reshape them. In doing so, it risks sacrificing the very features of markets that Americans admire -- features that contrast sharply with those that characterize government. Here are a few of them:

Speed. Markets respond to new information and developments quickly, sometimes instantaneously, whereas government is congenitally averse to change. For example, a 1931 law (the Davis-Bacon Act) vastly inflates the costs of federal projects in order to protect unions. It could never survive in a competitive market.

Diversity. Markets search for profitable niches to serve different consumers' needs, while public programs prefer one-size-fits-all approaches -- especially for low-income clients who have few alternatives. Gypsy vans, for example, serve the transport needs of many poor people better than fixed-route municipal buses do.

Sophistication. Markets are increasingly complex, technical, and specialized, so even zealous officials often find it hard to comprehend and regulate them effectively. Despite the Volcker Rule's long gestation period, policymakers failed to anticipate the damage that it would inflict on community banking. Only after implementation began was this problem acknowledged and the regulations cut back.

Flexibility. Government rules tend to restrict supply and thus raise prices. When firms respond by substituting other goods, the policy may be frustrated, as when banning DDT led to more dangerous pesticides. Markets also transcend the jurisdictional lines that bind government. When the Sarbanes-Oxley law made IPOs more costly, firms simply moved them offshore to avoid the law. Similarly, "informal" markets quickly spring up to circumvent government restrictions -- sometimes usefully (e.g., gypsy vans) but often tragically (e.g., the failed War on Drugs).

Competition. Markets often compete with government successfully for customers, talent, resources, and performance. Parents with vouchers often choose privately-run schools they think will better serve their children. The most skilled workers prefer the private sector to the government -- and not just because of higher pay. (In fact, most mid- and low-level federal workers are paid more, better insured, and enjoy greater job security than comparable private sector workers). Private firms often supply similar services more efficiently. The Postal Service, for example, cannot compete with Fedex and UPS for profitable services because Congress burdens it with politically-driven costs. The same is true for some kinds of insurance.

Parts of the ACA such as the exchanges wisely seek to exploit some of the market's advantages in providing choice and efficiency. But other parts of the program -- including costly mandates for insurance benefits for which even subsidized consumers are unwilling to pay -- seem to ignore those advantages. The program's effectiveness requires striking the right balance between markets and mandates. The ACA's herky-jerky implementation suggests that Washington has not yet gotten it right.

Peter H. Schuck is a law professor at Yale Law School. His latest book, Why Government Fails So Often and How It Can Do Better (Princeton U.P.) will be published next month. Reported by Huffington Post 14 hours ago.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz Host Health Insurance Sign Up Event In Davie

$
0
0
In an effort to get Floridians signed up for health insurance before the Affordable Care Act's March 31st deadline, Democratic U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is hosting an enrollment event at the Institute of Public Safety at Broward College on Sunday. Reported by cbs4.com 12 hours ago.

South To Be Democrats' Toughest Battleground In Fight For Senate Control

$
0
0
BY BILL BARROW, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATLANTA (AP) — The South is where President Barack Obama and Democrats long have struggled, and it's where the party's toughest battleground will be this year in the fight for control of the U.S. Senate.

Three incumbents must face the consequences of having voted for Obama's health care law, but Republicans first must settle primaries in several states, including a challenge to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

All but one of the potentially competitive races is in a state Obama lost in 2012, and the president remains deeply unpopular among whites in the region. Republicans are optimistic they can achieve the six-seat gain needed to retake the Senate.

Democratic Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas are on the ballot for the first time since voting for the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The law's wobbly start and its image as a power-grab have the incumbents on the defensive, emphasizing local issues and avoiding unnecessary mention of the second-term president who leads their party.

Obama's Gallup job approval lingers in the low 40s, and is even lower in several states with pivotal Senate races. Republicans want to feed on that and follow the same road map that carried them to a House majority in 2010, Obama's first midterm election.

"Democrats hope this doesn't become a national election, but we don't think that's the case," said Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short.

Democrats want the Republican primaries to project divisions and extremism. With Congress more unpopular than the president, they seek to highlight those Republican Senate candidates who are already serving in the House.

In 2012, Democrats defied early predictions and expanded their Senate majority by winning in GOP-leaning Missouri and Indiana, where conservative candidates tripped over their own pronouncements on rape and other issues.

A look at Senate races across the South:

—Arkansas sets up as a proxy for the tussle between the White House and House Republicans. Pryor, whose father served as governor and U.S. senator, is the last remaining Democrat in the state's Capitol Hill delegation. His Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, is a young conservative favorite.

Cotton and Pryor avoided primaries. Cotton voted with GOP leaders in October to end the partial federal government shutdown, but Democrats say they can paint him as extreme. They're already pointing to his vote against the new farm bill.

Arkansas voters, who give Obama a 35 percent approval rating, have seen a barrage of ads reminding them that Pryor was "the last vote" on the health care bill.

—In Georgia, where Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is retiring, a May primary is almost certain to lead to a runoff.

Three congressmen — Jack Kingston and doctors Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun — each says his record proves his conservative bona fides.

Kingston, chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee, tells voters what he's cut in the federal budget.

Gingrey's slogan is "Repeal or go home," and he's banking on his opposition to the president's health law carrying the day.

Broun, who once declared evolutionary theory "lies straight from the pit of hell," says his colleagues are poseurs. He tried to prove his conservative credentials by holding a drawing for an AR-15 military style rifle.

Karen Handel, a former secretary of state and commission chairman in Georgia's most populous county, says she's got the right experience for the job, and without the blemish of serving in Congress.

Former Dollar General and Reebok CEO David Perdue, the cousin of former Gov. Sonny Perdue, says business experience should trump the lot of "career politicians," and he's said he's willing to finance his own race.

The Democratic favorite is Michelle Nunn, the daughter for former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn. Democrats are confident that she can pull in just enough Mitt Romney voters — rural and small-town whites fond of her father, and suburban white women in metropolitan Atlanta — for an upset.

—In Kentucky, McConnell finds himself criticized from the left and right. Wealthy businessman Matt Bevin may be a long shot in the Republican primary, but he's got enough organization and money to grab attention as he brands McConnell a capitulator to Obama.

Democrats back Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, a party financier's daughter who has gotten campaign advice and help from former President Bill Clinton. Like Nunn in Georgia, Grimes wants to win big among women. Like Bevin, she is going after McConnell as part of the problem in Washington, but she also says McConnell cares more about his national party post than about Kentucky.

McConnell has plenty of money to respond. He'd already spent $10 million by the end of 2013.

—In Louisiana, Landrieu is seeking a fourth term never having topped 52.1 percent of the vote. She won twice in Democratic presidential years. She won in 2002, a midterm year, by running as a centrist who could work with a Republican White House. This time, she has to run with Obama's negatives — a 40 percent approval rating in Louisiana, according to Gallup — without having him at the top of the ticket to excite Democrats, particularly black voters.

U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy has the backing of national Republican leaders and donors. But he once contributed to Landrieu and, as a state senator, he pushed a proposal similar to Obama's health insurance exchanges. At least two other Republicans will be on the all-party primary ballot. Unless one primary candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, the top two candidates go to a runoff in December. That second round of voting might be Cassidy's best shot at winning the Senate seat.

Landrieu defends her health care vote but has clamored for changes to the law. Democrats cite her influence as head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, saying her post is a boon for Louisiana's oil-and-gas industry and hammering Cassidy as a rubber stamp for House Republicans. Both she and Cassidy champion flood insurance relief for coastal residents.

—Mississippi hasn't seen Sen. Thad Cochran truly campaign in decades. That's changing with a challenge from state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who boasts endorsements from national conservative and tea party groups. Cochran backers answered with a super political action committee organized by Henry Barbour, the nephew of the former RNC chairman and Gov. Haley Barbour.

McDaniel wants to turn Cochran's greatest asset — his experience and what it's meant financially to Mississippi — into a liability by making the incumbent the face of the nation's $17 trillion debt. The Cochran team attacks McDaniel's legislative votes supporting bond debt for public projects. The comparison, McDaniel says, is intellectually dishonest. Henry Barbour counters that McDaniel casting Cochran as a "big-government liberal" is just as ludicrous.

Democrats recruited former U.S. Rep. Travis Childers and hope that move positions them for a surprise November victory if McDaniel defeats Cochran.

—North Carolina voters give Obama a 43 percent job approval rating, and some surveys put Hagan's even lower. It's tricky enough that she decided not to appear with Obama in January when he spoke at North Carolina State University.

Republicans have a free-for-all primary.

North Carolina's House speaker, Thom Tillis, who led a conservative resurgence in the Statehouse, is the national Republican favorite, but he must contend with several conservative challengers. If Tillis emerges, Democrats plan to use his legislative agenda — making it harder to vote, cutting public education financing and tightening abortion regulations — against him.

—In West Virginia, U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito avoided a bruising GOP primary, enabling her to build an organization and raise money for a race in an increasingly Republican state. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant will try to hold retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller's seat for Democrats.

—In Virginia, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner is the most popular politician, and Obama won the commonwealth twice. But in Ed Gillespie, a former national GOP chairman, Republicans found a candidate who can raise the money to compete.

___

Follow Bill Barrow on Twitter @BillBarrowAP Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

The Affordable Care Act According to Health Insurance Agents

$
0
0
How do things look so far from the insurers' perspective? The results are mixed.
 
 
 
  Reported by Motley Fool 6 hours ago.

Obamacare: Health insurance agents now the most popular people in town

$
0
0
Obamacare: Health insurance agents now the most popular people in town Not long ago, a chance meeting with an insurance agent might have led strangers to start running in the opposite direction -- or try to politely extricate themselves from the inevitable sales pitch. Yet as the March 31 deadline to enroll in a health care plan looms, health insurance agents have become some of the most popular peo Reported by San Jose Mercury News 5 hours ago.

Columnist Suddenly Worried About The Uninsured, But Not Enough To Get It Right

$
0
0
It's been a while since we got to read a solid, hopelessly clueless op-ed inveighing against Obamacare, but The Washington Times' Joe Curl brings us a snow-day special. Seems that he noticed, some days back, that there were 46 million people in these United States who were uninsured. In 2009, researchers at the Harvard Medical School found that 45,000 people a year died because they lacked insurance, so it's nice that Curl finally noticed this! However, as it turns out, he saw another big number in the news more recently, and now he can haz confusion. Per Curl:
But last week came word that with just 15 days left for people to enroll for federal coverage, just 4.2 million had. The math is simple: That’s just 9 percent of the supposedly 46 million uninsured.
(Just a quick aside here: If "the word" on the 4.2 million enrollees arrived last Tuesday, that would have meant there were 20 days left to enroll. Also, that 4.2 million figure is the total from the first of March, so there were actually 30 whole days in which to increase enrollment. I know ... details.)
“It will be a larger number than that by the end of March,” Mr. Obama promised in an interview with WebMD. “At this point, enough people are signing up that the Affordable Care Act is going to work.”

Still, the obvious question is: We changed the $2.7 trillion health care system to sign up 4.2 million people?

The obvious answer is: No, calm down, that's not what we did. I'm actually just as concerned about who gets left on the outside-looking-in as far as being uninsured in the Obamacare era. Actually, I'm clearly more concerned, because I prefer to get this stuff right.

In the first place, that "46 million people are uninsured" number? That's an estimate according to the Census Bureau. According to the Congressional Budget Office's February 2014 baseline covering the "Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act," there were actually 57 million non-elderly uninsured people in the marketplace under prior law. These are both perfectly legitimate estimates, but since I'll be referring to CBO projections, I figure we'll use its higher number.

Secondly, that 4.2 million figure? That refers to "people who will enroll in the exchanges," not "people who will suddenly have health insurance and come off the rolls of the uninsured." Those who do participate in the exchanges aren't really participating in some radically altered "$2.7 trillion health care system." They're purchasing health insurance from the same old insurance companies from whom people have always purchased insurance -- albeit in a more just and equitable marketplace, with stronger regulations governing the types of policies they can purchase.

Now, that 4.2 million figure is much lower than the administration wants it to be. It is their hope that at some point this year, it will be much higher. From time to time, the administration has suggested that their end-of-March benchmark for success was 7 million exchange enrollees, and at other times, they've walked that back. Now, the administration is holding 6 million enrollees out as their goal, but it's fair to say that 7 million is the number the administration would like to hit if they had their druthers. In any event, the bottom line is that you can blame that disastrous first month the exchanges were open for depressing the enrollment, so the administration definitely owns any shortfall in the numbers.

Nevertheless, these figures also don't count people who buy direct from a health insurance company, even though almost all of those people are buying ACA-compliant plans. And anyone not in a "grandfathered" plan or one of those extended not-yet-canceled plans is in the same risk pool as the exchange enrollees. So when all is said and done, we're going to have a lot more people in ACA-compliant plans (i.e., the new market for individual insurance, broadly speaking) than the number of people who actually use an exchange to buy insurance.

Of course, with all this nitpicking over 6 million here and 7 million there ... that's still such a small number when we're talking about the uninsured population. Ahh, but remember: The health insurance exchanges aren't the only way the Affordable Care Act is supposed to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. Furthermore, no one ever promised that substantial reductions in the large number of uninsured were going to happen quite so rapidly. Check out the CBO's projections:

One of the things Curl is forgetting is that the Affordable Care Act is also reducing the ranks of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In fact, in the fully implemented law's first two years, the expansion of these programs is projected to have at least as significant an impact on reducing the pool of uninsured Americans as the exchanges themselves. By the time we get to 2016, however, the total number of uninsured drops by 25 million. As a percentage of the U.S. population, the law is projected to insure 89 percent of the population by 2017; 92 percent if you exclude "unauthorized immigrants" from the total U.S. population denominator. (There's not a lot of support for expanding Obamacare benefits to that population, anyway.)

There's also a hard-to-track number of people who are currently insured by dint of a rule that allows younger Americans to remain on their parents' insurance policies until they are 26 years old. Because it's hard to track, it's easy to tout a rosier number. I think that The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler has done the best spadework on this and provides the most conservative estimate:
First, an estimated 3.1 million Americans younger than 26 joined their parents’ plans because of a provision that took effect in September 2010. One big caveat about that Health and Human Services Department estimate is that it is about two years old -- and has never been updated.

The Fact Checker dug into the more recent reports and found that it was based on a single quarterly figure that was not sustained in later quarters. (That might be why the report was never updated.) However, the overall increase in the percentage of insured young adults suggests a gain of about 2.8 million from the third quarter of 2010 to the first half of 2013. Given quarterly fluctuations, a more conservative approach would be to use the average figure for 2010 as the base; that would reduce the increase to 2.2 million people. That is still substantial.

Finally, via Gallup, here's an overview of what's been happening to the uninsured population in recent months:
The percentage of Americans without health insurance continues to fall, measuring 15.9% so far in 2014 compared with 17.1% in the fourth quarter of 2013.

...

The uninsured rate has been declining since the fourth quarter of 2013, after hitting an all-time high of 18.0% in the third quarter. The uninsured rate for the first quarter of 2014 so far includes a 16.2% reading for January and 15.6% for February.

The uninsured rate for almost every major demographic group has dropped in 2014 so far. The percentage of uninsured Americans with an annual household income of less than $36,000 has dropped the most -- by 2.8 percentage points -- to 27.9% since the fourth quarter of 2013, while the percentage of uninsured blacks has fallen 2.6 points to 18.3%. Hispanics remain the subgroup most likely to lack health insurance, with an uninsured rate of 37.9%.

The percentage of uninsured has declined across all age groups this year, except for those aged 65 and older. The uninsured rate for that group has likely remained stable because most Americans aged 65 and older have Medicare. The uninsured rate among 26- to 34-year-olds and 35- to 64-year-olds continues to decline -- now at 26.6% and 16.3%, respectively.

Which is pretty good, all told. But it still leaves a lot of people uninsured. Thanks to a study conducted by the Urban Institute at Wake Forest University, we know something about who these people are: Some of those people reside in states not expanding Medicaid, some are undocumented immigrants (who aren't even allowed to use the exchanges to buy insurance with their own money), and others -- perhaps the people the Obama administration should be most concerned about -- still find insurance unaffordable even with the subsidies that are available through the exchanges.

What's to be done to help that still substantial population? That's actually a much better question than "We changed the $2.7 trillion health care system to sign up 4.2 million people?" But then, that's the sort of thing you ask when your concern for the uninsured population of the United States didn't begin yesterday. Because one of the answers is that a number of people who would get coverage through expanded Medicaid aren't getting it because their governors hate both Obamacare and their own constituents.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?] Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.

FREE Health Insurance Enrollment Assistance in Carlsbad

$
0
0
FREE Health Insurance Enrollment Assistance in Carlsbad Patch Carlsbad, CA --

When: March 18, 2014
Time: 6:00 PM-10:00 PM
Location: Carlsbad Library Learning Center, 3368 Eureka Place

Uninsured? We're here for you.

North County Health Services (NCHS) will provide FREE Health Care Reform Enrollment application assistance from *3 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, March 18 at the Carlsbad Library Learning Center.*

For the best ass Reported by Patch 5 hours ago.

Silly Responses to the Obamacare Hardship Exemption Story

$
0
0
The biggest Obamacare story last week was belated attention given to a little noticed hardship exemption that seems broad enough to allow almost anyone to claim exemption from the law's individual mandate. Rather than report on the exemption itself and the fact that it's existence was kept off the HealthCare.gov website, many left wing sites tried to spin the story as much ado about nothing.

First, it's worth noting that a couple of left-leaning sites handled the story fairly.  Talking Points Memo wrote a straight-forward story highlighting the existence of a broad 14th exemption which required no documentation. TPM even quoted Tim Jost, a supporter of the law, saying "It is hard to imagine what they were thinking when the threw the door open this wide."

Similarly, Brian Beutler at Salon wrote a story about the exemption which, despite some pot shots at the GOP, admits that a) the exemption really is a wide open door to almost anyone and b) the administration has kept it quiet (though Beutler didn't spell out the fact that the 14th exemption had been left off HealthCare.gov for months until it became an issue in the news last week).

Compares those stories to this piece at the Huffington Post. Author Jason Linkins seizes on the first part of a Wall Street Journal editorial and pronounces it old news. He writes "the notion that any of this has somehow escaped the attention of the media is straight nonsense." He then offers a list of stories that reported on the 2-year extension of a previous 1-year fix for cancelled policies. He then suggests that maybe the "individual mandate extension itself" is the thing the WSJ thinks wasn't covered by the media. Once again, he offers a list of stories about the hardship exemption from back in December. Reporters from National Journal and TPM pile on to this exercise in missing the point.

At the end of his 2,000 word takedown, Linkins still has not mentioned the 14th exemption which was right there at the core of the WSJ editorial. From the editorial's 6th paragraph [emphasis added]:



This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person's belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that "you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance," which only requires "documentation if possible."



Again, TPM got it. Salon got it. But HuffPost managed to miss it entirely. It's fitting that Media Matters links this to support it's own effort at spin.

The Washington Post did a better but only marginally. This piece by Jason Millman frames a story that, as noted above, began with a WSJ editorial about an exemption created by HHS as a "GOP" effort to undercut the mandate. Millman writes "Behind these renewed attacks are the GOP's hatred of the mandate." Hatred? Putting aside that the GOP didn't start this, isn't that a bit loaded?

Despite several references to a GOP strategy in Millman's story, there is not a single quote from any member of the GOP. However, Millman does have space for a quote from an HHS spokesman offering a weak rebuttal of the claim which amounts to, not everyone who seeks an exemption will get one. Yes, I think we all knew that. The question is how anyone can be excluded when the language of the exemption is so broad and the requirement for documentation is nil. [I've contacted HHS to ask them whether having trouble with the website, as many people did, would qualify someone for an exemption. They have yet to respond.]

Here are the first two graphs of the Post story. One frames the argument as part of a GOP "war" rather than a HHS created (and downplayed) fact. The other immediately rebuts the claim. Note the weasel word "essentially" in the first sentence:



In the latest war over Obamacare, the GOP is essentially trying to encourage Americans everywhere to seek an exemption from the individual mandate, the health law provision that requires everyone to get insurance by March 31 or face a penalty.

The Obama administration says exemptions to the mandate are much more limited than the GOP and opponents of the law would have you believe.



Again, this became a story because of an editorial in the WSJ which highlighted a mostly unnoticed exemption that even supporters of the law will admit is big enough to drive nearly everyone in the market through. The fact that it was left off the list of exemptions on Healthcare.gov suggests it was intentionally downplayed. But the gist of the story at the Post is GOP "war" and "hatred" versus cool HHS rebuttal.

 
 
 
  Reported by Breitbart 6 hours ago.

Last-Minute Surge: Five Million Now Signed Up for Obamacare

$
0
0
Five million people have now signed up for health insurance on the state and federal online exchanges, the Obama administration said Monday — a number that suggests a big-last minute surge to get coverage.The new figures suggest a final push by the White House to get people to enroll is working.
 
 
 
  Reported by msnbc.com 6 hours ago.

Feds: Obamacare Enrollment Tops 5 Million

$
0
0
The U.S. administration said on Monday that more than 5 million people have now enrolled in private health insurance under the program known as Obamacare, since open enrollment began on Oct. 1. The tally is an increase of at least 800,000 enrollees since March 1, with... Reported by Newsmax 6 hours ago.

Report: Obamacare Spurs Little Health Insurance Competition

$
0
0
A snapshot of Obamacare enrollment in seven states suggests the law hasn't significantly increased competition in health insurance markets, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported.In California, for example, four big insurers have largely carved up the state's market. The... Reported by Newsmax 6 hours ago.

Health care sign-ups hit 5M mark

$
0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says more than 5 million people have signed up for private health insurance under the new health care law. March 31 is the last day to enroll for a taxpayer-subsidized health plan through the new online markets, or exchanges. Reported by SeattlePI.com 6 hours ago.

CDPHP Launches Personalized Approach to Fitness

$
0
0
Sign up for a chance to win a FitBit One.

Albany, NY (PRWEB) March 17, 2014

Fitness is not a “one size fits all” approach, and CDPHP does not plan to treat it that way. That’s why the health plan is launching Your Challenge, Your Way, a program that has the tools and resources to set a goal – and reach it.

Your Challenge, Your Way is an eight-week program with a choice of three goals to pursue:·     Walk your first 5K
·     Run your first 5K
·     Run your fastest 5K

After choosing a challenge, participants will receive weekly tips, tools, and personalized motivation. This is the perfect opportunity for runners and walkers gearing up for the CDPHP Workforce Team Challenge, the largest annual road race between Utica and New York City.

Each week, five lucky participants will win a FitBit® One™, a fitness tracking device that measures steps walked, calories burned, stairs climbed, and even sleep quality, to help further track their success.

Sign up for Your Challenge, Your Way today at http://www.cdphp.com/challenge.

· Please note that members of A Team L.L.C., CDPHP® Medicaid Select, Family Health Plus, or Child Health Plus are not eligible to enter. You must be 18 or older to participate.

About CDPHP
Established in 1984, CDPHP is a physician-founded, member-focused and community-based not-for-profit health plan that offers high-quality affordable health insurance plans to members in 24 counties throughout New York. CDPHP is also on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Pinterest. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.

More Than 5 Million People Have Now Enrolled In Obamacare

$
0
0
More Than 5 Million People Have Now Enrolled In Obamacare WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. administration said on Monday that more than 5 million people have now enrolled in private health insurance under the program known as Obamacare, since open enrollment began on October 1.

The tally is an increase of at least 800,000 enrollees since March 1, with volume rising as the six-month enrollment period approaches its deadline on March 31. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that enrollment could total 6 million, but private estimates have suggested a lower turnout.

The announcement, in a government blog posted by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, did not say how many new enrollees are the younger adults that President Barack Obamaneeds to make his new health insurance marketplaces a success.

But Tavenner said the pace of enrollment has been at its highest since late December, when there was a rush of interest from people who wanted coverage beginning January 1.

She said the federal website HealthCare.gov had 1 million online visitors over the weekend and more than 4 million visitors last week. A federal call center set up to take applications over the telephone had more than 198,000 calls last Thursday.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Chris Reese)

Join the conversation about this story »

 
 
 
  Reported by Business Insider 6 hours ago.

HUFFPOLLSTER: How To Make Your March Madness Picks The Data-Driven Way

$
0
0
The new FiveThirtyEight is here. So is HuffPost's March Madness Predict-o-Tron! And the Ukraine Administrative Adjustment Act never really existed, but that doesn't stop some people from opining on it. This is HuffPollster for Monday, March 17, 2014.

*FIVETHIRTYEIGHT RELAUNCHES* - Nate Silver: "FiveThirtyEight is a data journalism organization. Let me explain what we mean by that, and why we think the intersection of data and journalism is so important….By no means do we think that everything can be broken down into a formula or equation. On the contrary, one of our roles will be to critique incautious uses of statistics when they arise elsewhere in news coverage. At other times, we’ll explore ways that consumers can use data to their advantage and level the playing field against corporations and governments….*It’s time for us to start making the news a little nerdier*." [538]

*Elections for governor 'increasingly nationalized'* - The FiveThirtyEight launch includes a new analysis from Georgetown's Dan Hopkins: "From Colorado to Florida, voters are likely to see them as Democrats and Republicans first, and as individual candidates a distant second. In recent years, gubernatorial elections have become increasingly nationalized, *to the point where voting patterns in these races bear a striking resemblance to those in presidential races*. If we look at all sitting governors, just 15 of the 50 lead states that were won by the other party in the last presidential election. That means just 30 percent of states split their votes. As recently as 1995, the figure was 44 percent, as Republicans were still competitive throughout the northeast." [538]

*Plus a just published backlog* of features from their regular contributors, including....

-*Harry Enten* on the conservative politics of Arizona. [538]

-*Carl Bialik* on how polls in Crimea didn't point to overwhelming support for independence from Ukraine. [538]

*'NO, THE ODDS OF PICKING A PERFECT BRACKET AREN'T 1 IN 9.2 QUINTILLION'...* - Reuben Fischer-Baum: "Thanks to the Warren Buffett-backed Billion Dollar Bracket, more than ever before, outlets are reporting that the odds of picking a perfect bracket are "1 in 9.2 quintillion"...As most of these articles mention (after they've had their fun with this enormous number), 9.2 quintillion is 2^63, which means 1 in 9.2 quintillion are the odds of picking a correct bracket if you flip a coin for 64 games. *Nobody actually picks brackets this way; even very casual fans incorporate relative seeding*. For all practical purposes, 1 in 9.2 quintillion is a terrible estimate of how hard it is to pick a perfect bracket." [Deadspin]

*...but we can make filling out your bracket more fun* - Our HuffPost Data colleagues have devised an innovative data driven way to help you fill out a March Madness bracket: *HuffPost’s Predict-o-Tron* determines each team’s chances of advancing through the 2014 Men’s NCAA basketball tournament with a probabilistic model based on the importance you give to any one of 23 different attributes -- everything from hoops stats (like defensive efficiency and strength of schedule) to the schools tuition and graduation rate. Try it by moving sliders that determine the relative weight given to each variable and see how your model would have performed over the past four tournaments. [HuffPost]

*And yes, it's easy to 'overfit'* - Drew Linzer: "Fun with overfitting the @HuffPostData #predictotron bracket: got a "model" with an 81% Avg. success rate, picks Zona [link]" [@DrewLinzer]

*Overfitting?* - It means as the number of variables in the model gets large, the past predictive accuracy can become, in effect, "*too good to be true*." The model "fits" the past data well but is a poor predictor of the future. Still, the Predict-o-Tron lets you build your own model using as many or as few variables as you like..and it's fun, so we hope you'll click through and give it a try. [HuffPost]

*SCOTT BROWN TRAILS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE* - HuffPollster: "Former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who announced last week he was forming an exploratory committee to run for the Senate in New Hampshire, starts his bid as the underdog. An automated Rasmussen poll released Monday finds incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) leading Brown, 50 to 41, among likely voters. Another poll from the American Research Group puts her up 50 to 38 among registered voters. *Half of the dozen surveys taken on the matchup so far have found Shaheen leading by 10 points or more.* With one exception -- a January poll that found the race tied -- all put her ahead. HuffPost Pollster's tracking model gives her a lead of just over 9 points….New Hampshire features two candidates already well known to voters. In a recent Suffolk University poll, 75 percent of voters had an opinion of Brown, and nearly 90 percent had an opinion of Shaheen. By comparison, just over half had an opinion of former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), another possible rival to Shaheen, with 24 percent saying they'd never heard of him. As FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten notes, Shaheen's favorable ratings aren't exactly those of a vulnerable incumbent, while Brown's aren't those of a well-liked challenger. Rasmussen gives her a net 17-point favorable rating, compared to -2 for Brown; Suffolk puts her at +16 and Brown at -10." [HuffPost]
*A GOOD REASON TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT POLLING ON UKRAINE* - Emily Swanson: " Nearly a quarter of Americans know what we should do about the Ukraine Administrative Adjustment Act of 2005, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds. That's not a good thing, because the Ukraine Administrative Adjustment Act doesn't exist….The new survey highlights a key problem with surveys of public opinion on issues that Americans aren't fully engaged in: Some people will answer questions about complex matters they don't fully understand -- or even those, like the aforementioned Ukraine Administrative Adjustment Act, that don't exist at all….This phenomenon isn't unique to polls on Ukraine. Whenever Americans aren't fully engaged in following a story, some will still try to answer questions they don't completely understand. That means *anyone attempting to read U.S. public opinion on Ukraine right now should interpret survey results with caution.*" [HuffPost]

*'NEW WORLD' OF TV VIEWING HABITS* - Dan Balz: "The survey, presented by Robert Blizzard of the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies and Julie Hootkin of the Democratic firm Global Strategy Group, concluded that the country has reached “a tipping point” in the competition for viewers between traditional live television and other forms of viewing content...This is the third such survey in the past four years. *For the first time, fewer than half (48 percent) of all voters say that live TV is their primary source for watching video content*. The second-most-preferred form for viewing is through recorded programming, but a majority said they skip 100 percent of the ads when they watch. Live TV isn’t going away; it’s just not as dominant as it once was. Seventy percent of those surveyed said they had watched live television in the previous week. But fully *30 percent said that, other than live sporting events, they had watched no live television in the previous week*. For younger voters, it’s closer to 40 percent." [WaPost]

*NOT EVERYONE AMUSED BY OBAMA'S COMEDY SKETCH* - Emily Swanson: "President Barack Obama's appearance on "Between Two Ferns," the online comedy show hosted by Zach Galifianakis, was viewed by about a quarter of the young Americans the White House was targeting, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds. But *older Americans were even more likely to have seen the video -- and they're not happy about it*….About a third of Americans overall said that they saw the video, and a total of 59 percent said they had at least heard about it. But 48 percent of Americans age 65 and older saw it, compared to only 25 percent of Americans age 18-29….Americans age 65 and up were also most likely to give the video negative reviews. Forty-nine percent of respondents in that group said they disapproved of the appearance, while only 25 percent said they approved. Older Americans were also far more likely to see the show as a waste of time than as an effective way to reach young Americans, 53 percent to 24 percent." [HuffPost]

*HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL!* - You can receive this daily update every weekday via email! Just enter your email address at the bottom of this article or in the box on the upper right corner of the Pollster page, and click "sign up." That's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

*MONDAY'S 'OUTLIERS'* - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-A Denno (D)/ Lambert, Edwards & Associates poll finds Democrat Mark Schauer gaining on Gov. Rick Snyder (R). [Detroit News]

-Americans are much more likely to be satisfied with the health care system if they have health insurance. [Gallup]

-Republicans are three times more likely than Democrats to consider "global warming" exaggerated. [Gallup]

-Andrew Kohut sees no end to economic pessimism. [Pew Research]

-Eric Uslaner fingers economic pessimism as the reason Millennials are less trusting of others. [WaPost's MonkeyCage]

-Americans still care about hard news, a new survey finds. [AP]

-Too good to be true: obesity researchers suspect a small sample size explains an apparent drop in obesity rates among preschoolers. [Reuters]

-Most Iowans support medical marijuana. [Quinnipiac]

-Rob Ford's approval rating is still comparable to President Obama's. [Business Insider]

-Andrew Gelman pens an ode to findings which do not replicate. [Monkey Cage]

-Nearly half of Americans say they've been pinched for not wearing green on St. Patrick's Day. [YouGov]

Loading... Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Defiant Americans: A Third of Uninsured Refuse to Buy Obamacare

$
0
0
A third of Americans currently uninsured still have no intention of buying health coverage even though they are required to do so by the Affordable Care Act, according to Bankrate's latest Health Insurance Pulse survey. Thirty-four percent contacted by telephone said they... Reported by Newsmax 6 hours ago.

Health Insurance Innovations misses by $0.01, beats on revenue

$
0
0
Reported by SeekingAlpha 6 hours ago.

One-Third Of 'Obamacare-Prospects' Intend To Stay Uninsured

$
0
0
Despite spending over half-a-billion dollars on increasingly mind-blowing promotions for Obamacare, a new survey released today shows that* even the website apparently fixed, over one-third of Americans without insurance say they plan to stay that way*, even after being told that the new law requires them to get covered or pay a penalty. As CBS notes, some 46% of those surveyed also were unaware of the March 31 deadline for being insured as it seems "*low-income, young families may have been overlooked.* They're probably not spending a lot of time watching television, they never read a newspaper and if they listen to radio it's probably music in the car." 41% cited insurance as still too expensive with, oddly, *39% of middle-aged men preferring to stay uninsured*.

 

 

As Bloomberg notes, the headline number above hides some other notable highlights (or lowlights)...



*Gender matters. *When the pollsters asked the uninsured whether they planned to stay that way, despite the individual mandate, 37 percent of men said yes, compared with 29 percent of women. Further confirmation, if anyone needed it, that men are statistically more likely to be morons.

 

*There's no correlation with education. *You might have thought people with more years of school would be better attuned to the risks -- physical, emotional, familial, financial, professional -- of going without health insurance. But the survey found that one-third of every group, from high school dropouts to people with graduate degrees, say they'll remain uninsured.

 

*The decision to stay uninsured isn't about party *(though reasons for staying uninsured very much are). Among the uninsured, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say they'll stay that way -- but only slightly, 29 percent to 22 percent. The big difference was for uninsured independents, 41 percent of whom said they won't get insurance.

 

*It's not the young who worry most about cost. *A little more than one-third of those 18 to 29 said they would stay uninsured because coverage is too expensive. For those 50 to 64, 39 percent cited cost; for the 30 to 49 group, the share was almost half.

 

*But the young really do think they're invincible. *Almost one-third of those 18 to 29 who said they won't get insurance said it's because they don't need it. Just 6 percent of those 30 to 49 said they same, and 11 percent of those 50 to 64.



As Bloomberg concludes,



*The Barack Obama administration is doing a terrible job of publicizing the law's subsidies.* The people most likely to say they won't get insurance because it's too expensive were those earning $30,000 to $50,000 a year -- those who probably stand to benefit the most from financial assistance. Sure enough, *one-third of respondents in that category didn't know about the subsidies.*



CBS notes on health insurance resercher's comments that *"low-income, young families may have been overlooked. They're probably not spending a lot of time watching television, they never read a newspaper and if they listen to radio it's probably music in the car,"* she is quoted as saying. "In communities of color, people might hear about [Obamacare] in church, but for people who are not attached to a church, I don't know how they get the information." Reported by Zero Hedge 6 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images