WellPoint Inc. is changing its named to Anthem Inc., the brand name it uses for a majority of its health-insurance products. WellPoint CEO Joseph R. Swedish said the Anthem brand name is more well-known among consumers, adding that "we're not going to swim upstream any longer," the Wall Street Journal reports. WellPoint Health Networks Inc. merged with Anthem Inc. in 2004, and the newly combined company took on the WellPoint Inc. name. WellPoint is the nation's second-largest insurer.
Reported by bizjournals 12 hours ago.
WellPoint changing its name to Anthem
↧
↧
Better Business Bureau Gives HealthMarkets®, Inc. 'A+' Review
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has assigned HealthMarkets, Inc. an "A+" review; HealthMarkets Insurance Agency received an "A" review from the BBB.
North Richland Hills, TX (PRWEB) August 13, 2014
HealthMarkets, Inc. announced that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) has assigned the company an “A+” review, the highest rating assigned by the not-for-profit agency that works to advance marketplace trust. HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, a subsidiary of HealthMarkets, Inc. and one of the nation’s largest insurance agencies, received an “A” review from the BBB.
“We believe strongly in the standards set by the Better Business Bureau to ensure an ethical, trustworthy marketplace and are highly honored to be distinguished with an A+ and A rating,” said Ken Fasola, president and CEO of HealthMarkets, Inc. “The trust consumers place in HealthMarkets is critical to the success of our business, and these ratings reflect our unwavering commitment to helping American families, small businesses and individuals understand their insurance options and select products for their unique needs.”
HealthMarkets, Inc., through its subsidiary companies, is focused on meeting the insurance needs of individuals, families and small businesses with a portfolio of products that includes life insurance, health insurance, supplemental insurance, long-term care insurance and certain Medicare plans.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is expanding access to health insurance to millions of Americans, and HealthMarkets, through its distribution subsidiary, stands at the ready to help consumers find the health plan that is right for them. Through HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, consumers are able to compare health insurance plans from more than 140 different insurance companies at HealthMarkets.com, by calling 800-827-9990 or meeting with one of more than 3,000 local, licensed health insurance agents across the country.
To view the A+ and A HealthMarkets reviews, visit bbb.org and search for “HealthMarkets.”
About HealthMarkets, Inc.
HealthMarkets, Inc. is a holding company focused on serving the insurance needs of individuals, families, and small business through its subsidiary insurance and distribution companies.
Our subsidiary insurance companies include The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company®, HealthMarkets Insurance CompanySM, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance CompanySM.
HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, our distribution subsidiary, is the d/b/a or assumed name of Insphere Insurance Solutions, Inc., which is a licensed insurance agency in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. HealthMarkets offers consumers a convenient shopping experience for Medicare, health insurance and other related insurance products. HealthMarkets represents over 140 nationally recognized insurance carriers and offers consumers the option of comparing health and Medicare plans online at HealthMarkets.com, over the phone at 800-827-9990 and face-to-face with over 3,000 dedicated local insurance agents across the country.
The administrative offices of HealthMarkets, Inc. and its subsidiary companies are located in North Richland Hills, Texas. For more information visit HealthMarketsInc.com.
Cautionary Statement Related to Forward-looking Statements
This news release may contain forward-looking statements regarding HealthMarkets, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”). These forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance, and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions which are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control. Such forward-looking statements can be identified by the words "anticipate,""believe,""estimate,""expect,""intend,""objective,""plan,""possible,""potential" and similar expressions. These statements are based on management’s current beliefs, expectations and assumptions, and actual results may vary materially from those included in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update them, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements made by us. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.
North Richland Hills, TX (PRWEB) August 13, 2014
HealthMarkets, Inc. announced that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) has assigned the company an “A+” review, the highest rating assigned by the not-for-profit agency that works to advance marketplace trust. HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, a subsidiary of HealthMarkets, Inc. and one of the nation’s largest insurance agencies, received an “A” review from the BBB.
“We believe strongly in the standards set by the Better Business Bureau to ensure an ethical, trustworthy marketplace and are highly honored to be distinguished with an A+ and A rating,” said Ken Fasola, president and CEO of HealthMarkets, Inc. “The trust consumers place in HealthMarkets is critical to the success of our business, and these ratings reflect our unwavering commitment to helping American families, small businesses and individuals understand their insurance options and select products for their unique needs.”
HealthMarkets, Inc., through its subsidiary companies, is focused on meeting the insurance needs of individuals, families and small businesses with a portfolio of products that includes life insurance, health insurance, supplemental insurance, long-term care insurance and certain Medicare plans.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is expanding access to health insurance to millions of Americans, and HealthMarkets, through its distribution subsidiary, stands at the ready to help consumers find the health plan that is right for them. Through HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, consumers are able to compare health insurance plans from more than 140 different insurance companies at HealthMarkets.com, by calling 800-827-9990 or meeting with one of more than 3,000 local, licensed health insurance agents across the country.
To view the A+ and A HealthMarkets reviews, visit bbb.org and search for “HealthMarkets.”
About HealthMarkets, Inc.
HealthMarkets, Inc. is a holding company focused on serving the insurance needs of individuals, families, and small business through its subsidiary insurance and distribution companies.
Our subsidiary insurance companies include The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company®, HealthMarkets Insurance CompanySM, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance CompanySM.
HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, our distribution subsidiary, is the d/b/a or assumed name of Insphere Insurance Solutions, Inc., which is a licensed insurance agency in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. HealthMarkets offers consumers a convenient shopping experience for Medicare, health insurance and other related insurance products. HealthMarkets represents over 140 nationally recognized insurance carriers and offers consumers the option of comparing health and Medicare plans online at HealthMarkets.com, over the phone at 800-827-9990 and face-to-face with over 3,000 dedicated local insurance agents across the country.
The administrative offices of HealthMarkets, Inc. and its subsidiary companies are located in North Richland Hills, Texas. For more information visit HealthMarketsInc.com.
Cautionary Statement Related to Forward-looking Statements
This news release may contain forward-looking statements regarding HealthMarkets, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”). These forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance, and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions which are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control. Such forward-looking statements can be identified by the words "anticipate,""believe,""estimate,""expect,""intend,""objective,""plan,""possible,""potential" and similar expressions. These statements are based on management’s current beliefs, expectations and assumptions, and actual results may vary materially from those included in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update them, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements made by us. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.
↧
Time for greater clarity in pet insurance, say Aquarium Software Inc.
California’s proposal for greater regulation of pet insurance welcomed by industry expert
New York, NY (PRWEB) August 13, 2014
Regulation of the pet insurance market could soon be tightened up in California, as new legislation awaits approval by the State Senate. The move has been welcomed by one Anglo-American pet technology expert, Aquarium Software Inc., who believes that greater clarity in insurers’ systems can only be a good thing.
California’s Department of Insurance received complaints from customers claiming that insurers were unexpectedly denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions or paying out considerably less than was seemingly due when a claim was made.
Mark Colonnese, VP Sales and Marketing for Aquarium Software Inc., explains that unclear systems can leave customers feeling confused: “Insurance is like any other product, and customers need to know exactly what they are getting for their money. Any ‘grey areas’ can ultimately knock public confidence in what is really an essential service for pet owners.”
The pet insurance market in the USA has huge potential for growth, in 2012 with just 1% of America’s pets insured the total bill for premiums came to $475 - $500million (North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) figures). “It is vital that the systems are put in place to maintain public trust if this fantastic industry is to realise its full potential,” said Mr Colonnese.
“To ensure that the customer is clear about their policy at every stage of their ‘journey’ insurers must have systems in place that accurately identify areas that could lead to exclusions in the future and then inform the customer,” added Colonnese.
“We have developed technology platforms for every aspect of pet insurance, including that vital first step explaining exactly what the details of the policy are. By providing clear and reliable information about the policy, specific to each case, customers should be left in no doubt about what their insurance covers them for.”
Aquarium Software Inc. provides software solutions to pet insurers on both sides of the Atlantic. They specialise in producing bespoke systems that are built around each client’s requirements “Each insurer has different ways of operating and a one size fits all approach simply does not live up to expectations. When it comes to identifying exclusions in policies each insurer will have different criteria and a bespoke software system can accommodate that, giving greater clarity to customers and ultimately improving the customer journey,” concluded Colonnese.
For further information contact Aquarium Software Inc, on +44 (0)161 927 5620 or visit
http://www.aquarium-software.com
ENDS
Notes for Editors
References
LA Times., July 15, 2014
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-pet-insurance-regulation-vs-competition-20140714-story.html
News 10., July 12, 2014
http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/sacramento/2014/07/12/california-bill-would-regulate-pet-insurance/12576855/
Sacremento Bee., Jul 11, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/11/6550856/pet-insurance-complaints-prompt.html
Photograph and caption
Pictured: Mark Colonnese, VP Sales & Marketing Director of Aquarium Software Inc.
Media enquiries
Jon Gardner, BeyondPR.
t: + 44 (0) 114 275 6996.
m: + 44 (0) 7930 697773
e: jon.gardner@beyondpr.co.uk
Ref: ECA254 – Time for greater clarity in pet insurance Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.
New York, NY (PRWEB) August 13, 2014
Regulation of the pet insurance market could soon be tightened up in California, as new legislation awaits approval by the State Senate. The move has been welcomed by one Anglo-American pet technology expert, Aquarium Software Inc., who believes that greater clarity in insurers’ systems can only be a good thing.
California’s Department of Insurance received complaints from customers claiming that insurers were unexpectedly denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions or paying out considerably less than was seemingly due when a claim was made.
Mark Colonnese, VP Sales and Marketing for Aquarium Software Inc., explains that unclear systems can leave customers feeling confused: “Insurance is like any other product, and customers need to know exactly what they are getting for their money. Any ‘grey areas’ can ultimately knock public confidence in what is really an essential service for pet owners.”
The pet insurance market in the USA has huge potential for growth, in 2012 with just 1% of America’s pets insured the total bill for premiums came to $475 - $500million (North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) figures). “It is vital that the systems are put in place to maintain public trust if this fantastic industry is to realise its full potential,” said Mr Colonnese.
“To ensure that the customer is clear about their policy at every stage of their ‘journey’ insurers must have systems in place that accurately identify areas that could lead to exclusions in the future and then inform the customer,” added Colonnese.
“We have developed technology platforms for every aspect of pet insurance, including that vital first step explaining exactly what the details of the policy are. By providing clear and reliable information about the policy, specific to each case, customers should be left in no doubt about what their insurance covers them for.”
Aquarium Software Inc. provides software solutions to pet insurers on both sides of the Atlantic. They specialise in producing bespoke systems that are built around each client’s requirements “Each insurer has different ways of operating and a one size fits all approach simply does not live up to expectations. When it comes to identifying exclusions in policies each insurer will have different criteria and a bespoke software system can accommodate that, giving greater clarity to customers and ultimately improving the customer journey,” concluded Colonnese.
For further information contact Aquarium Software Inc, on +44 (0)161 927 5620 or visit
http://www.aquarium-software.com
ENDS
Notes for Editors
References
LA Times., July 15, 2014
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-pet-insurance-regulation-vs-competition-20140714-story.html
News 10., July 12, 2014
http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/sacramento/2014/07/12/california-bill-would-regulate-pet-insurance/12576855/
Sacremento Bee., Jul 11, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/11/6550856/pet-insurance-complaints-prompt.html
Photograph and caption
Pictured: Mark Colonnese, VP Sales & Marketing Director of Aquarium Software Inc.
Media enquiries
Jon Gardner, BeyondPR.
t: + 44 (0) 114 275 6996.
m: + 44 (0) 7930 697773
e: jon.gardner@beyondpr.co.uk
Ref: ECA254 – Time for greater clarity in pet insurance Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.
↧
HealthCare.com Advises Consumers to Shop Around, Avoid Obamacare Health Insurance Cost Increases
Individuals who purchased state or federal health insurance coverage urged to research plan options and not automatically renew current policies.
Miami, Florida (PRWEB) August 13, 2014
State health insurance marketplaces are beginning to report 2015 pricing for Obamacare plans, and on average, consumers are in for a 2 to 23 percent premium hike next year, depending on their health insurance carrier and state of residence. HealthCare.com Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Smedsrud, says that annual price increases are just the beginning of higher health insurance costs, and consumers need to start shopping for new plans.
Those enrolled in a state or federal exchange will likely see the greatest increases, and many of those individuals have their coverage set to renew automatically.
“Automatic renewal of health insurance plans was established to make yearly enrollment easier,” said Smedsrud. “However, consumers should shop around. Every individual who enrolled in an Obamacare plan should pay particular attention to four areas – price, subsidy amount, networks and current plan design.”
In addition to premium increases, consumers will need to address potential subsidy changes. A premium hike may mean consumers are eligible for a larger subsidy - if their income remains static. Despite receiving more tax aid, healthcare consumers could pay more per month if their current health plan’s premium increases substantially. Individuals also need to be mindful if their income will increase in 2015. If there is an increase, their subsidy will need to adjusted, and the financial outcome might not be as favorable.
Another changing factor are physician and hospital networks. Network availability changes each year, and it’s important for individuals to check with the network they currently use to confirm if their preferred doctor will still be part of the same network in 2015.
Adjustments to plan benefit levels are another surprise most consumers will not be expecting. Deductibles, coinsurance and copays could increase within allowable limits on existing plans in 2015, making it harder for those with high deductible plans to hit their minimum limits and pay more out of pocket than they were required in 2014.
“Unlike car insurance that usually maintains the same benefit amounts year after year, Americans need to understand their Obamacare plan will continually change. If consumers keep the same plan for ease of renewal, they might pay substantially more in 2015 or miss out on better coverage for less money,” said Smedsrud. “HealthCare.com encourages consumers to begin shopping now and find out what other plans are on the market. A few hours of online shopping could save more than $1,000. Those that take the time to research options are more likely to enroll in a new health insurance plan during open enrollment that has minimal cost increases, and perhaps better coverage than the plan they have today. And, remember, because of health care reform, no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing medical condition,” said Smedsrud.
HealthCare.com will be unveiling its new website design and functionality by October 1, 2014.
About HealthCare.com
HealthCare.com is a privately held technology company committed to improving what has historically been a very complicated process of purchasing healthcare. Our mission is to build the leading trusted service to help consumers manage, customize and save money on their healthcare needs. Our highly visible web and mobile applications enable consumers to easily research and compare accurate and relevant information from hundreds of health insurance carriers in a single comprehensive, fast and intuitive interface. Along the way, HealthCare.com provides recommendations using our proprietary algorithms and helps streamline the enrollment process. HealthCare.com’s tools and services are made available free of charge to consumers. For more information please visit http://www.healthcare.com. Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.
Miami, Florida (PRWEB) August 13, 2014
State health insurance marketplaces are beginning to report 2015 pricing for Obamacare plans, and on average, consumers are in for a 2 to 23 percent premium hike next year, depending on their health insurance carrier and state of residence. HealthCare.com Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Smedsrud, says that annual price increases are just the beginning of higher health insurance costs, and consumers need to start shopping for new plans.
Those enrolled in a state or federal exchange will likely see the greatest increases, and many of those individuals have their coverage set to renew automatically.
“Automatic renewal of health insurance plans was established to make yearly enrollment easier,” said Smedsrud. “However, consumers should shop around. Every individual who enrolled in an Obamacare plan should pay particular attention to four areas – price, subsidy amount, networks and current plan design.”
In addition to premium increases, consumers will need to address potential subsidy changes. A premium hike may mean consumers are eligible for a larger subsidy - if their income remains static. Despite receiving more tax aid, healthcare consumers could pay more per month if their current health plan’s premium increases substantially. Individuals also need to be mindful if their income will increase in 2015. If there is an increase, their subsidy will need to adjusted, and the financial outcome might not be as favorable.
Another changing factor are physician and hospital networks. Network availability changes each year, and it’s important for individuals to check with the network they currently use to confirm if their preferred doctor will still be part of the same network in 2015.
Adjustments to plan benefit levels are another surprise most consumers will not be expecting. Deductibles, coinsurance and copays could increase within allowable limits on existing plans in 2015, making it harder for those with high deductible plans to hit their minimum limits and pay more out of pocket than they were required in 2014.
“Unlike car insurance that usually maintains the same benefit amounts year after year, Americans need to understand their Obamacare plan will continually change. If consumers keep the same plan for ease of renewal, they might pay substantially more in 2015 or miss out on better coverage for less money,” said Smedsrud. “HealthCare.com encourages consumers to begin shopping now and find out what other plans are on the market. A few hours of online shopping could save more than $1,000. Those that take the time to research options are more likely to enroll in a new health insurance plan during open enrollment that has minimal cost increases, and perhaps better coverage than the plan they have today. And, remember, because of health care reform, no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing medical condition,” said Smedsrud.
HealthCare.com will be unveiling its new website design and functionality by October 1, 2014.
About HealthCare.com
HealthCare.com is a privately held technology company committed to improving what has historically been a very complicated process of purchasing healthcare. Our mission is to build the leading trusted service to help consumers manage, customize and save money on their healthcare needs. Our highly visible web and mobile applications enable consumers to easily research and compare accurate and relevant information from hundreds of health insurance carriers in a single comprehensive, fast and intuitive interface. Along the way, HealthCare.com provides recommendations using our proprietary algorithms and helps streamline the enrollment process. HealthCare.com’s tools and services are made available free of charge to consumers. For more information please visit http://www.healthcare.com. Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.
↧
Thousands Of Florida Residents At Risk Of Losing Health Insurance
Nearly 100,000 thousand people in Florida who signed up for insurance through the Affordable Health Care marketplace could lose their coverage next month unless they can prove they are U.S. citizens.
Reported by cbs4.com 12 hours ago.
↧
↧
State employees receive generous medical insurance
Arizona is one of many states where state workers enjoy so-called "platinum" health insurance benefits, according to a new study. The study from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the MacArthur Foundation found the vast majority of people employed by the state of Arizona are enrolled in a zero-deductible health plan, which is considered a "platinum" plan under the Affordable Care Act. The state plan covers approximately 94 percent of health costs whereas the average employer-provided insurance plan…
Reported by bizjournals 11 hours ago.
↧
Companies Predict Small 2015 Health Cost Rise -- With A Catch
Large employers expect their health care expenses to rise a modest amount next year, but they plan to continue requiring workers to pay a growing share of the cost of medical care, according to survey findings released Wednesday.
The cost of job-based health insurance at big companies will go up 5 percent in 2015, approximately the same as it did the year before, the National Business Group on Health found in a June survey of 136 companies that employ about 7.5 million people.
Companies will constrain their health spending by shifting costs onto employees. Employer health care costs would be increasing 6.5 percent absent mechanisms like higher deductibles and other tools that make patients responsible for more of the bills they receive for doctor visits, prescription drugs and the like. Company health plans also more commonly require workers to get prior approval for the most expensive drugs or to try cheaper therapies before costlier ones are allowed, the survey shows.
While the most common type of job-based health plan remains a PPO, or preferred provider organization, that carries a deductible that's usually below $1,000, higher-deductible plans are becoming more popular among large companies as a way of limiting their own health care expenses.
Forty-four percent of employers said that so-called consumer-directed health plans, or CDHPs -- mostly high-deductible insurance paired with tax-free health savings accounts -- are the most common chosen by workers. These plans have lower monthly premiums, but expose workers to higher upfront costs before insurance starts paying a share of their bills.
Next year, fewer workers will have a choice between low- and high-deductible plans. Under a strategy known as "full replacement," 32 percent of companies will offer only high-deductible options next year, compared with 22 percent this year, the highest share this decade, according to the National Business Group on Health.
Consumer-directed health plans, higher employee cost-sharing, programs to manage workers' chronic diseases and employee wellness programs are the most effective ways to control health care costs, companies reported.
** How Are Companies Trying To Save On Health Care? **Source: National Business Group on Health
The rise in national health care spending has slowed to historic lows in recent years, but employers face other cost pressures, according to the survey. Workers with especially high medical expenses and particularly expensive ailments, such as joint and back problems, were most commonly identified by employers as causes of increasing medical costs.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a small factor by comparison, the survey reveals.
** Why Are Company Health Care Costs Rising? **Source: National Business Group on Health
Starting next year, employers with at least 100 full-time workers will have to offer health benefits to at least 70 percent of them or face financial penalties under Obamcare's employer mandate, the full effects of which have been delayed until 2016. But nearly all large employers already provided health insurance to full-time workers before the ACA and will continue to do so next year, the survey shows. Just 2 percent of companies reported they wouldn't offer health insurance that fully complies with Obamacare, compared with 81 percent that said they would.
Employers also are looking ahead to 2018, when another Obamacare policy is due to take effect, and which will require them to make changes to their health benefits. Under the law's "Cadillac tax," expensive health benefit plans will face a 40 percent tax on their value above $10,200 for an individual plan and $27,500 for family coverage. As with their overall cost-cutting strategies, companies are taking steps to reduce the cost of these plans to avoid or minimize the tax by using mechanisms like higher cost-sharing and expanded wellness programs, the survey shows. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
The cost of job-based health insurance at big companies will go up 5 percent in 2015, approximately the same as it did the year before, the National Business Group on Health found in a June survey of 136 companies that employ about 7.5 million people.
Companies will constrain their health spending by shifting costs onto employees. Employer health care costs would be increasing 6.5 percent absent mechanisms like higher deductibles and other tools that make patients responsible for more of the bills they receive for doctor visits, prescription drugs and the like. Company health plans also more commonly require workers to get prior approval for the most expensive drugs or to try cheaper therapies before costlier ones are allowed, the survey shows.
While the most common type of job-based health plan remains a PPO, or preferred provider organization, that carries a deductible that's usually below $1,000, higher-deductible plans are becoming more popular among large companies as a way of limiting their own health care expenses.
Forty-four percent of employers said that so-called consumer-directed health plans, or CDHPs -- mostly high-deductible insurance paired with tax-free health savings accounts -- are the most common chosen by workers. These plans have lower monthly premiums, but expose workers to higher upfront costs before insurance starts paying a share of their bills.
Next year, fewer workers will have a choice between low- and high-deductible plans. Under a strategy known as "full replacement," 32 percent of companies will offer only high-deductible options next year, compared with 22 percent this year, the highest share this decade, according to the National Business Group on Health.
Consumer-directed health plans, higher employee cost-sharing, programs to manage workers' chronic diseases and employee wellness programs are the most effective ways to control health care costs, companies reported.
** How Are Companies Trying To Save On Health Care? **Source: National Business Group on Health
The rise in national health care spending has slowed to historic lows in recent years, but employers face other cost pressures, according to the survey. Workers with especially high medical expenses and particularly expensive ailments, such as joint and back problems, were most commonly identified by employers as causes of increasing medical costs.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a small factor by comparison, the survey reveals.
** Why Are Company Health Care Costs Rising? **Source: National Business Group on Health
Starting next year, employers with at least 100 full-time workers will have to offer health benefits to at least 70 percent of them or face financial penalties under Obamcare's employer mandate, the full effects of which have been delayed until 2016. But nearly all large employers already provided health insurance to full-time workers before the ACA and will continue to do so next year, the survey shows. Just 2 percent of companies reported they wouldn't offer health insurance that fully complies with Obamacare, compared with 81 percent that said they would.
Employers also are looking ahead to 2018, when another Obamacare policy is due to take effect, and which will require them to make changes to their health benefits. Under the law's "Cadillac tax," expensive health benefit plans will face a 40 percent tax on their value above $10,200 for an individual plan and $27,500 for family coverage. As with their overall cost-cutting strategies, companies are taking steps to reduce the cost of these plans to avoid or minimize the tax by using mechanisms like higher cost-sharing and expanded wellness programs, the survey shows. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
Buyer's Remorse
Turns out many of the newly insured are obtaining health insurance for the first time in their lives. They don’t understand deductibles and copayments and they don’t understand why they should have to pay premiums when they are healthy – especially when they used to get care for free. This may [...]
Reported by Forbes.com 9 hours ago.
↧
4 Keys to Appealing a Rejected Insurance Claim
4 important steps for building a successful appeal of a denied health insurance claim
Reported by ABCNews.com 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
Sincere, but Ideological: Judges Can Be Partisan, Even if Not Consciously Biased
It is honorable no doubt to defend federal judges against the charge that they are merely "partisan hacks." But there is no doubt that lawyers expect party ideology to affect those judges' rulings and that they are wise to do so.
That's why, after a three-Democrat Fourth Circuit panel rebuffed one challenge to the availability of certain subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, the losers did not ask the entire, majority-Democratic Fourth Circuit to reconsider the panel decision en banc. They asked immediately for Supreme Court review.
It's also why, when two Republican-appointed and one Democrat-appointed D.C. Circuit judges handed the Government a 2-1 defeat on the same question, the Justice Department did ask the full D.C. Circuit - also with a Democratic majority - to reconsider the matter. No rush to the Supreme Court there.
A common defense against the charge of partisan taint is that what divides judges is not politics, but neutral jurisprudence. Specifically, an obvious rift among the judges who recently gave different readings to the Affordable Care Act lies in their respective allegiance to very different schools of statutory interpretation. Lawyers typically call the approaches textualism and purposivism. Non-lawyers might prefer the terms literalism and pragmatism.
Thus, the two Republican-appointed textualist judges on the D.C. Circuit ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that the IRS could not legally subsidize the purchase of health insurance plans obtained through the federal exchange. That's primarily because one section of the ACA allows subsidies only for plans purchased on an "exchange established by the State," and these judges purportedly could find no reason to disregard the plain meaning of this one bit of text.
In contrast, the purposivist Democrat-appointed Fourth Circuit judges (like the Democrat-appointed dissenter in the D.C. Circuit) held that the ACA ought to be read in light of the Act's manifest overall purpose to provide affordable health care to as many Americans as possible. Notwithstanding the specific provision on which the textualists relied, the ACA elsewhere mentions state exchanges in ways that clearly are intended to refer to exchanges run either by the states or by the federal government on their behalf. These judges held that the IRS was entitled to offer subsidies on both.
The problem with a neutral jurisprudential explanation of these different outcomes, however, is that it imagines judges come to their jurisprudential leanings behind a veil of ignorance. That is, judges supposedly develop their interpretive philosophy without any notion as to the results one approach or another might produce in controversial cases.
Yet research on which I consulted about a decade ago (here and here) suggests that the opposite is true. What we found in a quasi-experimental setting suggests that judges may well choose their interpretive methods based, consciously or not, on whether they expect a given method to produce results that tilt in a more liberal or a more conservative direction.
*In other words, judges may sincerely follow their jurisprudence, but their choice of jurisprudence may itself be ideologically tainted.*
For example, a politically conservative judge might find textualism attractive because it would anchor readings of the Constitution in social understandings from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Reading old words as long-dead authors expected them to be applied could easily prevent modern readings that would otherwise extend the authority of contemporary political actors to address national problems through new government initiatives that conservatives oppose.
Likewise, in reading statutes, hewing to the most literal version of statutory text will often prevent the executive branch from accomplishing Congress's general purposes in as robust a way as possible. Statutory language may be carelessly drafted or simply not account for unanticipated cases. In the case of the ACA, its wording glitch directly reflects the unusual procedural labyrinth it traveled on the way to enactment.
A purposivist, willing to read either the Constitution or statutes in light of their drafters' general aims, is more likely - on average - to ratify the Government's expansive reading of a text to solve problems in practical ways that square with a larger sense of the drafters' goals. This is likely to be appealing to liberals. As modernists, liberals are more avowedly pragmatic in their legal judgments.
With regard to the D.C. Circuit opinion in Halbig, I don't doubt that the Republican judges who ruled against the administration were sincere in their subjective belief that they were merely following the dictates of sound interpretive practice. What I doubt is that they would be textualists if they were not politically conservative. And, in the specific context of Halbig, I doubt that they would have found their jurisprudence so constraining if they were not comfortable with the negative implications for ACA implementation, the regret expressed in their opinion notwithstanding.
My view of this is shaped by what I take to be the relative strengths of the contending arguments. Such evaluations are partly subjective, and - perhaps because I applaud the aims of the Affordable Care Act - I do not give sufficient weight to the textualists' position. But I don't think the merits of the contending arguments are even close.
In the current dispute, the textualist position seems vaporous. As Yale law professor Abbe Gluck has so thoroughly documented, the argument based on a single section of the ACA ignores everything in the statute that points the other way. It ignores the actual process by which the language was drafted. It ignores compelling evidence that key actors evaluating the statute as it moved through Congress - including the Congressional Budget Office - assumed the Act would allow subsidies on both the federal and state exchanges. Even the Justices on the Supreme Court who would have held the ACA unconstitutional in 2012 read it to permit subsidies via both state and federal exchanges. And, just as damning, textualism can offer no plausible account of why Congress would have permitted subsidies on state exchanges only.
On the other hand, all the evidence that textualists ignore points easily to the purposivists' conclusion. You honestly don't have to be a fan of the ACA to uphold federal exchange subsidies. You need only acknowledge that the statute is ambiguous and allow the IRS to respect the overwhelming evidence that resolves the ambiguity in light of what Congress quite obviously expected. This is an utterly conventional administrative law argument.
In Halbig, it was inevitable that the struggle, against so much contrary evidence, to insist that a literal reading of a single clause ties judges' hands to a result having no obvious purpose would be seen as ideologically driven. This may well be unfair to the judges' conscious intentions. It would not be unfair to their judgment. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
That's why, after a three-Democrat Fourth Circuit panel rebuffed one challenge to the availability of certain subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, the losers did not ask the entire, majority-Democratic Fourth Circuit to reconsider the panel decision en banc. They asked immediately for Supreme Court review.
It's also why, when two Republican-appointed and one Democrat-appointed D.C. Circuit judges handed the Government a 2-1 defeat on the same question, the Justice Department did ask the full D.C. Circuit - also with a Democratic majority - to reconsider the matter. No rush to the Supreme Court there.
A common defense against the charge of partisan taint is that what divides judges is not politics, but neutral jurisprudence. Specifically, an obvious rift among the judges who recently gave different readings to the Affordable Care Act lies in their respective allegiance to very different schools of statutory interpretation. Lawyers typically call the approaches textualism and purposivism. Non-lawyers might prefer the terms literalism and pragmatism.
Thus, the two Republican-appointed textualist judges on the D.C. Circuit ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that the IRS could not legally subsidize the purchase of health insurance plans obtained through the federal exchange. That's primarily because one section of the ACA allows subsidies only for plans purchased on an "exchange established by the State," and these judges purportedly could find no reason to disregard the plain meaning of this one bit of text.
In contrast, the purposivist Democrat-appointed Fourth Circuit judges (like the Democrat-appointed dissenter in the D.C. Circuit) held that the ACA ought to be read in light of the Act's manifest overall purpose to provide affordable health care to as many Americans as possible. Notwithstanding the specific provision on which the textualists relied, the ACA elsewhere mentions state exchanges in ways that clearly are intended to refer to exchanges run either by the states or by the federal government on their behalf. These judges held that the IRS was entitled to offer subsidies on both.
The problem with a neutral jurisprudential explanation of these different outcomes, however, is that it imagines judges come to their jurisprudential leanings behind a veil of ignorance. That is, judges supposedly develop their interpretive philosophy without any notion as to the results one approach or another might produce in controversial cases.
Yet research on which I consulted about a decade ago (here and here) suggests that the opposite is true. What we found in a quasi-experimental setting suggests that judges may well choose their interpretive methods based, consciously or not, on whether they expect a given method to produce results that tilt in a more liberal or a more conservative direction.
*In other words, judges may sincerely follow their jurisprudence, but their choice of jurisprudence may itself be ideologically tainted.*
For example, a politically conservative judge might find textualism attractive because it would anchor readings of the Constitution in social understandings from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Reading old words as long-dead authors expected them to be applied could easily prevent modern readings that would otherwise extend the authority of contemporary political actors to address national problems through new government initiatives that conservatives oppose.
Likewise, in reading statutes, hewing to the most literal version of statutory text will often prevent the executive branch from accomplishing Congress's general purposes in as robust a way as possible. Statutory language may be carelessly drafted or simply not account for unanticipated cases. In the case of the ACA, its wording glitch directly reflects the unusual procedural labyrinth it traveled on the way to enactment.
A purposivist, willing to read either the Constitution or statutes in light of their drafters' general aims, is more likely - on average - to ratify the Government's expansive reading of a text to solve problems in practical ways that square with a larger sense of the drafters' goals. This is likely to be appealing to liberals. As modernists, liberals are more avowedly pragmatic in their legal judgments.
With regard to the D.C. Circuit opinion in Halbig, I don't doubt that the Republican judges who ruled against the administration were sincere in their subjective belief that they were merely following the dictates of sound interpretive practice. What I doubt is that they would be textualists if they were not politically conservative. And, in the specific context of Halbig, I doubt that they would have found their jurisprudence so constraining if they were not comfortable with the negative implications for ACA implementation, the regret expressed in their opinion notwithstanding.
My view of this is shaped by what I take to be the relative strengths of the contending arguments. Such evaluations are partly subjective, and - perhaps because I applaud the aims of the Affordable Care Act - I do not give sufficient weight to the textualists' position. But I don't think the merits of the contending arguments are even close.
In the current dispute, the textualist position seems vaporous. As Yale law professor Abbe Gluck has so thoroughly documented, the argument based on a single section of the ACA ignores everything in the statute that points the other way. It ignores the actual process by which the language was drafted. It ignores compelling evidence that key actors evaluating the statute as it moved through Congress - including the Congressional Budget Office - assumed the Act would allow subsidies on both the federal and state exchanges. Even the Justices on the Supreme Court who would have held the ACA unconstitutional in 2012 read it to permit subsidies via both state and federal exchanges. And, just as damning, textualism can offer no plausible account of why Congress would have permitted subsidies on state exchanges only.
On the other hand, all the evidence that textualists ignore points easily to the purposivists' conclusion. You honestly don't have to be a fan of the ACA to uphold federal exchange subsidies. You need only acknowledge that the statute is ambiguous and allow the IRS to respect the overwhelming evidence that resolves the ambiguity in light of what Congress quite obviously expected. This is an utterly conventional administrative law argument.
In Halbig, it was inevitable that the struggle, against so much contrary evidence, to insist that a literal reading of a single clause ties judges' hands to a result having no obvious purpose would be seen as ideologically driven. This may well be unfair to the judges' conscious intentions. It would not be unfair to their judgment. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
Wellpoint is changing its name
WellPoint Inc. is changing its corporate name to Anthem Inc. The Indianapolis-based health insurance company is the parent of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Kentucky, and the company uses variations of that name elsewhere. It has about 1,139 employees here in Louisville, which gave it the No. 23 ranking on our July list of the area's major employers. In a news release, the company said the change will allow Wellpoint (NYSE: WLP) to create better alignment between its corporate and product…
Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.
↧
12K in N.C. could lose Obamacare coverage for lack of citizenship paperwork
Some 12,300 people in North Carolina are in danger of losing their Affordable Care Act health insurance because they have not submitted citizenship or immigration paperwork, according to the Obama administration. This applies to individuals who purchased health insurance through the federally run online marketplaces where private insurers, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, sold private health insurance to consumers. Those who bought through the marketplace could shop for appreciably…
Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.
↧
A Look At The Typical State Employee Health Plan: Full Breakdown By State
According to a new report by the Pew Trust, states in the US collectively spent $31 billion to insure 2.7 million employee households in 2013, an uptick in spending from 2011 and 2012 after adjusting for inflation. The average per-employee per-month premium for employees’ and dependents’ coverage was $963. States paid $808 (84 percent) of the total on average, and employees covered the remaining $155 (16 percent). However, this average masks sharp differences across the states, due to factors such as plan richness, average household size, provider price and physician practice patterns, as well as the age and health status of enrollees.Some of the key findings:
· *Insutring Households*: $31 billion was spent on state employee health plans by states in 2013
· *Premiums:* 3/1 was the ratio between the highest and lowest per-employee state health plan premium in 2013
· *Actuarial Value:* 92 percent was the average percentage of costs covered by state health plans in 2013
· *Deductibles:* 76 percent of state employees enrolled in plans with an annual deductible of less than $500 in 2013
· *Early Retirees:* 29 states enroll pre-65 retirees in health plans at the same premium rate as active employees
From the report:
*In 2012, $865 billion was spent in the United States to insure 169 million people through employer-sponsored health insurance, which represented 31 percent of all health care spending. *Public and private employers contributed $630 billion, or 73 percent, toward this total; employees picked up the difference. Employer-sponsored insurance is a vital element of the American health care landscape, and an important component of employee compensation. It helps provide people with access to affordable care, protects workers and their families from unaffordable medical costs, and serves as a critical funding source for virtually every medical institution.
The cost of health insurance has become a leading budget driver for employers of all sizes and in all sectors. *From 1992 to 2012, the average cost of insuring each employee and dependent doubled, after adjusting for inflation.* This increase has led many employers—including states—to review the benefits they provide, benchmark their offerings to comparable employers, and seek ways to control costs.
Health insurance costs have become a significant portion of states’ overall health care spending, second only to Medicaid. Nevertheless, little has been known about how states’ employee health plans and costs compare with one another and with those of large, private sector employers.
To provide policymakers and other stakeholders with information on state employee health care expenditures, as well as the factors underlying this spending, researchers from the State Health Care Spending Project—a collaboration between The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation—worked with actuaries from Milliman Inc. to produce a first-of-its kind analysis of the costs and characteristics of state employee health plans.* Although meaningful state-to-state comparisons are complicated by a number of factors, including who is covered (i.e., the number, age, and health of enrollees) and differences in health plan benefit design, this analysis offers a nationwide benchmark against which states can be compared.
There is much more in the full report (link), but for those pressed for time here is the full breakdown of the average health plan by each state, showing plan premiums as well as average employer and employee contributions. Reported by Zero Hedge 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
Will You Be Able to Retire?
Aside from the question of whether your spouse is ready for you to be around all day, making the decision to retire requires an enormous amount of financial preparation. How do you know if you're ready?
*First: Know your expenses *
Knowing what you spend money on and how much you actually need is critical for retirement planning. If you haven't already, take the time to do an expense analysis. You can use this easy Expense Analysis Worksheet that I created for my clients. Alternatively, you can search the internet for the countless online or software tools that link directly to your bank account, like Mint or Quicken. By understanding where your money is going, you'll be able to assess how much you need to live comfortably and where you have opportunities to save.
*Plan for changes in your retirement expenses *
Remember that in retirement you'll have a lot more time, so your expenses might look a bit different. Maybe you'll want to spend more money on traveling or eating out, or maybe you'll decide that you don't really need that second car -- these changes should be planned for and included in your budget.
*Consider downsizing *
You might find that there are a lot of things you don't really want or need in retirement. I talk to many people who consider downsizing for the transition, usually to a smaller condo or townhouse.
The thought of downsizing can be a bit painful, especially if your five-bedroom house is full of memories, but consider asking yourself if you really still need all that space once the kids move out. In addition to the potential financial benefits (especially if you have significant equity in your home), there's also the day-to-day matter of upkeep and convenience.
A smaller condo could give you the freedom to travel more, or at least remove the headache of cleaning all those bedrooms, maintaining the lawn, paying taxes for schools you no longer use, and the list goes on -- you get my point.
*Healthcare cost changes*
Unexpected healthcare expenses can torpedo even a well-thought out retirement savings plan, so don't let them take you by surprise.
It's important that you understand how much you'll be spending on health insurance and what you'll get in return once you leave the workplace. Take the time to research your options and see how much they'll cost.
Don't forget that you may want to factor in any other potential insurance plans. Will you be taking on a new long-term care policy or dropping your disability coverage? The cost of these decisions will vary depending on your age and health, so take the time to get a real understanding of the different options.
Also, try to build some breathing room into your retirement budget for any unplanned medical expenses, or any additional unexpected costs for that matter. If you don't use those funds, great -- you can save them for later. If you do, though, you'll be glad you were prepared.
Want to know more about health care savings? Take a look at my article on HSAs.
*Next: Understand your income sources *
Where will your income come from in retirement? Are you counting on a combination of Social Security, annuities, pensions, and distributions from your retirement savings? Or do you have savings you can convert into an investment account or income stream? Do you plan to work part-time for a while? Think about all the different sources of income you might be receiving and what you can expect from each.
Remember that if you retire before age 59 1/2 and you want to draw down from your retirement savings, you'll most likely encounter a 10 percent penalty, unless you meet one of the exceptions.
Finally, don't forget to factor in any income tax payments, including taxes due on distributions from your retirement accounts. Don't let this take you by surprise!
*You might need to take some risk*
Once you've isolated how much money you'll need to live on and where it's going to come from, you need to figure out if you'll have to use a portion of your investment accounts to help meet your needs. Perhaps you have sufficient income from Social Security, a pension, or any annuities, but if it isn't enough you might need to turn to your retirement accounts or other non-qualified savings/investments.
If you do, you might be asking if you should set up the account as an income-generating portfolio that provides dividend or interest income, a growth portfolio that appreciates and provides capital gains, or a combination of both.
It's currently very difficult to get significant income from a very low-risk portfolio. In order to generate enough, you might have to take more risk than you initially expected -- meaning that you might want to keep growth-oriented investments in your account. Every situation is unique, but you may want to consider a portfolio that combines growth, dividend, and income-producing investments, which balance risk-taking with your specific income needs.
Keeping risk in your portfolio means that it's also critical to think about what will happen if the market declines. You might have to dip into your principal account balance in these situations, which can be scary if you never expected to do so. Can your portfolio survive this situation? Will it make it harder for you to stay comfortable in retirement?
Unfortunately, we just don't know how the market will perform in a given year, and the stakes are a lot higher in retirement than when you're 30 with a steady job. When you invest to achieve higher returns, you also have to be cognizant of possible negative returns and be sure to plan accordingly.
*Don't forget about inflation *
Finally, don't forget about inflation, both in your income and expenses. The cost of goods and services that you need will likely be much higher in years to come. While overall inflation has been very low for the past few years, it still adds up when you're thinking in terms of decades. Add to this the uncertainty of healthcare costs in the future, and you'll want to be sure to put in some padding.
What would happen to your savings if you had to increase your withdrawals a little bit over time? What if inflation rises but your portfolio doesn't match the pace? While the stock market tends to outperform over the long run, you don't want to have to look at S&P 500 returns every day to get peace of mind about your decision to retire.
Take the time to investigate all of these questions, whether on your own or with an advisor, so that you're truly prepared for retirement. As always, you can always feel free to reach out to us. Preparing appropriately is half the battle: After all, the point of retirement is to relax and enjoy a stress-free life. After working, raising kids, and sacrificing all those years, you deserve it!
Written by Bradford Pine with Anna B. Wroblewska. Learn more about the Bradford Pine Wealth Group here. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
*First: Know your expenses *
Knowing what you spend money on and how much you actually need is critical for retirement planning. If you haven't already, take the time to do an expense analysis. You can use this easy Expense Analysis Worksheet that I created for my clients. Alternatively, you can search the internet for the countless online or software tools that link directly to your bank account, like Mint or Quicken. By understanding where your money is going, you'll be able to assess how much you need to live comfortably and where you have opportunities to save.
*Plan for changes in your retirement expenses *
Remember that in retirement you'll have a lot more time, so your expenses might look a bit different. Maybe you'll want to spend more money on traveling or eating out, or maybe you'll decide that you don't really need that second car -- these changes should be planned for and included in your budget.
*Consider downsizing *
You might find that there are a lot of things you don't really want or need in retirement. I talk to many people who consider downsizing for the transition, usually to a smaller condo or townhouse.
The thought of downsizing can be a bit painful, especially if your five-bedroom house is full of memories, but consider asking yourself if you really still need all that space once the kids move out. In addition to the potential financial benefits (especially if you have significant equity in your home), there's also the day-to-day matter of upkeep and convenience.
A smaller condo could give you the freedom to travel more, or at least remove the headache of cleaning all those bedrooms, maintaining the lawn, paying taxes for schools you no longer use, and the list goes on -- you get my point.
*Healthcare cost changes*
Unexpected healthcare expenses can torpedo even a well-thought out retirement savings plan, so don't let them take you by surprise.
It's important that you understand how much you'll be spending on health insurance and what you'll get in return once you leave the workplace. Take the time to research your options and see how much they'll cost.
Don't forget that you may want to factor in any other potential insurance plans. Will you be taking on a new long-term care policy or dropping your disability coverage? The cost of these decisions will vary depending on your age and health, so take the time to get a real understanding of the different options.
Also, try to build some breathing room into your retirement budget for any unplanned medical expenses, or any additional unexpected costs for that matter. If you don't use those funds, great -- you can save them for later. If you do, though, you'll be glad you were prepared.
Want to know more about health care savings? Take a look at my article on HSAs.
*Next: Understand your income sources *
Where will your income come from in retirement? Are you counting on a combination of Social Security, annuities, pensions, and distributions from your retirement savings? Or do you have savings you can convert into an investment account or income stream? Do you plan to work part-time for a while? Think about all the different sources of income you might be receiving and what you can expect from each.
Remember that if you retire before age 59 1/2 and you want to draw down from your retirement savings, you'll most likely encounter a 10 percent penalty, unless you meet one of the exceptions.
Finally, don't forget to factor in any income tax payments, including taxes due on distributions from your retirement accounts. Don't let this take you by surprise!
*You might need to take some risk*
Once you've isolated how much money you'll need to live on and where it's going to come from, you need to figure out if you'll have to use a portion of your investment accounts to help meet your needs. Perhaps you have sufficient income from Social Security, a pension, or any annuities, but if it isn't enough you might need to turn to your retirement accounts or other non-qualified savings/investments.
If you do, you might be asking if you should set up the account as an income-generating portfolio that provides dividend or interest income, a growth portfolio that appreciates and provides capital gains, or a combination of both.
It's currently very difficult to get significant income from a very low-risk portfolio. In order to generate enough, you might have to take more risk than you initially expected -- meaning that you might want to keep growth-oriented investments in your account. Every situation is unique, but you may want to consider a portfolio that combines growth, dividend, and income-producing investments, which balance risk-taking with your specific income needs.
Keeping risk in your portfolio means that it's also critical to think about what will happen if the market declines. You might have to dip into your principal account balance in these situations, which can be scary if you never expected to do so. Can your portfolio survive this situation? Will it make it harder for you to stay comfortable in retirement?
Unfortunately, we just don't know how the market will perform in a given year, and the stakes are a lot higher in retirement than when you're 30 with a steady job. When you invest to achieve higher returns, you also have to be cognizant of possible negative returns and be sure to plan accordingly.
*Don't forget about inflation *
Finally, don't forget about inflation, both in your income and expenses. The cost of goods and services that you need will likely be much higher in years to come. While overall inflation has been very low for the past few years, it still adds up when you're thinking in terms of decades. Add to this the uncertainty of healthcare costs in the future, and you'll want to be sure to put in some padding.
What would happen to your savings if you had to increase your withdrawals a little bit over time? What if inflation rises but your portfolio doesn't match the pace? While the stock market tends to outperform over the long run, you don't want to have to look at S&P 500 returns every day to get peace of mind about your decision to retire.
Take the time to investigate all of these questions, whether on your own or with an advisor, so that you're truly prepared for retirement. As always, you can always feel free to reach out to us. Preparing appropriately is half the battle: After all, the point of retirement is to relax and enjoy a stress-free life. After working, raising kids, and sacrificing all those years, you deserve it!
Written by Bradford Pine with Anna B. Wroblewska. Learn more about the Bradford Pine Wealth Group here. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
↧
Froedtert, Ministry escalate hospital insurance battle with Network Health deal
As the battle of health-care-system-affiliated insurance plans continues to escalate, Froedtert Health and Ministry Health Care announced they agreed to pursue co-ownership of Network Health, a Menasha-based health insurance plan. The agreement will augment Integrated Health Network, a Brookfield accountable care organization led by Wauwatosa-based Froedtert that includes Ministry Health Care. Ministry’s headquarters is in Milwaukee but the organization’s hospitals are elsewhere in Wisconsin. Network…
Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.
↧
Colorado's health marketplace competitive, low-priced, study says
Colorado's health insurance marketplace is "very competitive" and offers relatively low premiums, especially in its urban markets, according to a recent analysis by a health policy research
Reported by Denver Post 2 hours ago.
↧
Health insurance giant WellPoint renames itself Anthem
Health insurance giant WellPoint is changing its corporate name to Anthem, the well-known brand it uses in California and other states.
Reported by San Jose Mercury News 44 minutes ago.
↧
↧
Debt Consolidation USA Discuss Ways to Deal With Medical Debt
Debt Consolidation USA shares in a recent article published last August 13, 2014 how American consumers can deal with medical debt. The article explains how medical debt has turned other people away from pursuing the proper medical assistance even from taking the right medication.
Dallas, TX (PRWEB) August 14, 2014
The article starts off from by sharing that there are about 80 million American adults who have either delayed or skipped entirely their prescription medicines and medical treatment because of price consideration. There are even 28% of adult consumers who skipped doses of prescription medicine for a chronic condition because they were just too expensive. There are also around 41% of adults already with medical debt having repayment problems.
It is not right to have to put off proper medical care and even buying medicines because they are expensive. A person should never have to compromise health for the sake of money. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly but society has kept consumers who do not have money or are buried in debt to forego this right. It also does not help that prices of prescription drugs are 35% to 55% higher in the US compared to other nations.
The article shares some tips in dealing with medical debt.One of which is that consumers must face the problem. Not dealing with it will not make it go away. It is better to understand the situation rather than letting debt accumulate because of non-payment. It is also important to pay attention to the explanation of benefits or EOB. This lets the consumer know the items covered in the health insurance.
Double checking costs that should be covered by the insurance is another way consumers can manage medical debt. It is best to understand the items that can be paid by the insurance to know how much out of pocket expenses to raise. Once the medical bill comes in, the articles also shares that consumers need to carefully check every line item to see if everything reflected on the statement was part of the treatment.
Managing medical debt does not stop at understanding the benefits and checking the billing statement for treatment received. The article points out the importance of making payments to settle or lower down the debt amount. To read the rest of the article, click on this link: http://www.debtconsolidationusa.com/medicalbills/7-tips-dealing-medical-debt.html. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
Dallas, TX (PRWEB) August 14, 2014
The article starts off from by sharing that there are about 80 million American adults who have either delayed or skipped entirely their prescription medicines and medical treatment because of price consideration. There are even 28% of adult consumers who skipped doses of prescription medicine for a chronic condition because they were just too expensive. There are also around 41% of adults already with medical debt having repayment problems.
It is not right to have to put off proper medical care and even buying medicines because they are expensive. A person should never have to compromise health for the sake of money. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly but society has kept consumers who do not have money or are buried in debt to forego this right. It also does not help that prices of prescription drugs are 35% to 55% higher in the US compared to other nations.
The article shares some tips in dealing with medical debt.One of which is that consumers must face the problem. Not dealing with it will not make it go away. It is better to understand the situation rather than letting debt accumulate because of non-payment. It is also important to pay attention to the explanation of benefits or EOB. This lets the consumer know the items covered in the health insurance.
Double checking costs that should be covered by the insurance is another way consumers can manage medical debt. It is best to understand the items that can be paid by the insurance to know how much out of pocket expenses to raise. Once the medical bill comes in, the articles also shares that consumers need to carefully check every line item to see if everything reflected on the statement was part of the treatment.
Managing medical debt does not stop at understanding the benefits and checking the billing statement for treatment received. The article points out the importance of making payments to settle or lower down the debt amount. To read the rest of the article, click on this link: http://www.debtconsolidationusa.com/medicalbills/7-tips-dealing-medical-debt.html. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
↧
New Website Offers Easy Way to Obtain Quotes for Affordable Long Term Care Insurance
A radio campaign is promoting the launch of a new website making it easy to obtain free quotes for affordable Long Term Care Insurance. The site, http://www.radioltc.com, allows consumers to get their quotes without having numerous insurance agents calling them.
Chicago, IL (PRWEB) August 14, 2014
A radio campaign is promoting the launch of a new website which will offer an easy way to obtain quotes for affordable Long Term Care Insurance.
http://www.radioltc.com allows consumers throughout the country to quickly discover the costs for Long Term Care Insurance and learn more about their options. All this without having numerous insurance agents calling them.
“Some internet sites give a consumer’s request to four, five, six or more insurance agents. This means if more information is required to provide the quote, the consumer has all these people calling them. In addition, many of these ‘insurance agents’ are not specialists in this area,” said Matt McCann, a nationally recognized specialist in Long Term Health Care planning.
McCann said only one person will contact the consumer if additional information is required to obtain the quote. His firm, McCann Insurance Services, represents all the top insurance companies that offer Long Term Health Care Solutions.
Long Term Care Insurance has become a popular way for people to protect their 401k’s and future retirement savings and assets. This type of insurance is very affordable if designed and shopped appropriately by a specialist.
“Many people are unaware that health insurance and Medicare (health insurance for those 65 and older) don’t pay for most Long Term Care services. This places the burden of caregiving to the family or the family’s back pocket. Developing a plan for Long Term Care is essential to everyone’s retirement planning,” McCann explained.
The website, http://www.radioltc.com, will ask for only a few pieces of information so free quotes on affordable Long Term Care Insurance can be obtained by the consumer.
McCann says understanding the government can only provide for those who have no assets makes this even more important to have a plan in place long before retirement.
“Affordable Long Term Care Insurance is the answer for many Americans who want to address the physical, emotional and financial burdens that a Long Term Care event can create on a family,” he said.
The American Association for Long Term Care Insurance (AALTCI.org) says that consumers should work with an experienced and knowledgeable professional who has at least 100 clients although 500 or more is better according to the trade group. McCann, and the specialists that work with him, have thousands of clients they have assisted over the years. McCann himself has 16+ years of experience in the industry assisting clients throughout the nation.
McCann says a quick visit to http://www.radioltc.com will be a fast, easy, secure and educated way to take the first step in learning options and obtaining FREE quotes from all the top insurance companies who offer affordable Long Term Care insurance plans.
Premiums are based on the age and health of the person at the time of application. McCann explained most people who start looking into Long Term Health Care planning are ages 40-70, although even younger consumers are starting to look at this as a smart way to plan. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
Chicago, IL (PRWEB) August 14, 2014
A radio campaign is promoting the launch of a new website which will offer an easy way to obtain quotes for affordable Long Term Care Insurance.
http://www.radioltc.com allows consumers throughout the country to quickly discover the costs for Long Term Care Insurance and learn more about their options. All this without having numerous insurance agents calling them.
“Some internet sites give a consumer’s request to four, five, six or more insurance agents. This means if more information is required to provide the quote, the consumer has all these people calling them. In addition, many of these ‘insurance agents’ are not specialists in this area,” said Matt McCann, a nationally recognized specialist in Long Term Health Care planning.
McCann said only one person will contact the consumer if additional information is required to obtain the quote. His firm, McCann Insurance Services, represents all the top insurance companies that offer Long Term Health Care Solutions.
Long Term Care Insurance has become a popular way for people to protect their 401k’s and future retirement savings and assets. This type of insurance is very affordable if designed and shopped appropriately by a specialist.
“Many people are unaware that health insurance and Medicare (health insurance for those 65 and older) don’t pay for most Long Term Care services. This places the burden of caregiving to the family or the family’s back pocket. Developing a plan for Long Term Care is essential to everyone’s retirement planning,” McCann explained.
The website, http://www.radioltc.com, will ask for only a few pieces of information so free quotes on affordable Long Term Care Insurance can be obtained by the consumer.
McCann says understanding the government can only provide for those who have no assets makes this even more important to have a plan in place long before retirement.
“Affordable Long Term Care Insurance is the answer for many Americans who want to address the physical, emotional and financial burdens that a Long Term Care event can create on a family,” he said.
The American Association for Long Term Care Insurance (AALTCI.org) says that consumers should work with an experienced and knowledgeable professional who has at least 100 clients although 500 or more is better according to the trade group. McCann, and the specialists that work with him, have thousands of clients they have assisted over the years. McCann himself has 16+ years of experience in the industry assisting clients throughout the nation.
McCann says a quick visit to http://www.radioltc.com will be a fast, easy, secure and educated way to take the first step in learning options and obtaining FREE quotes from all the top insurance companies who offer affordable Long Term Care insurance plans.
Premiums are based on the age and health of the person at the time of application. McCann explained most people who start looking into Long Term Health Care planning are ages 40-70, although even younger consumers are starting to look at this as a smart way to plan. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
↧
No, Really -- Employer Health Insurance Is Better than Government Care
No, Really -- Employer Health Insurance Is Better than Government Care
Reported by ajc.com 15 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
