One in Five Alameda County Residents Now Relies on Food Bank Assistance

August 18, 2014, 6:08 am

≫ Next: State Insurance Official: 'No Question' That Health Care Discrimination Is Creeping Back

≪ Previous: Health Insurance Benefits - Can You Have It Your Way?

$

0

0

Alameda County Community Food Bank study reveals drastic measures residents are taking to make ends meet, such as “choosing between food and medicine” or “watering down food”

Oakland, Calif. (PRWEB) August 18, 2014

Hunger is on the rise in one of America’s wealthiest areas.

One-in-five Alameda County residents – more than 311,000 individuals annually – receives food assistance from Alameda County Community Food Bank, according to a major national survey released today. The quadrennial “Hunger in America” 2014 study commissioned by Feeding America, the national network of Food Banks, showed that the percent of Alameda County residents seeking assistance from food banks is outpacing that of all Americans – even while the nationwide percentage has increased. The study also revealed a number of measures Alameda County residents are forced to employ in order to feed themselves and their families.

While 1 in 7 total Americans now relies on Food Banks, hunger in Alameda County has become even more prevalent: rising presently to 1 in 5 residents, from 1 in 6 in 2010. Children and those over 50 years of age – our community’s most vulnerable age groups – account for nearly two-thirds of all Food Bank clients. Overall, food from Alameda County Community Food Bank is distributed to individuals 61,877 times in a typical week – and more than 3.2 million times annually.

In one of the study’s more shocking findings, 85 percent of Food Bank clients are food insecure – meaning they aren’t consistently able to access enough food for a healthy life. The study also found that two-thirds of client households (66 percent) have incomes that fall at- or below the federal poverty level, while 42 percent have annual incomes of $10,000 or less. The effects of such low-levels of income are amplified by the high cost of living in Alameda County, which is 32 percent higher than the national average.

“So often, we wonder how a story this tragic could describe one of the world’s most affluent countries,” said Suzan Bateson, executive director, Alameda County Community Food Bank. “But $15 billion in cuts to safety net programs, stagnant wages, economic recovery that hasn’t benefited low-income workers, and skyrocketing costs of living have created this new reality. We may have seen it coming, but it’s no less shocking – especially when we now see what people are forced to do to get by.”

Untenable Choices
The combination of high cost of living and fewer resources for low-income residents is forcing food bank clients to make difficult choices just to get by. The study sheds light on a number of purchasing tradeoffs Alameda County households make in order to pay for food or other critical expenses, including:·     More than half of client households (52 percent) chose between paying for food and paying for medicine/medical care in the past 12 months. 16 percent faced this choice every month.
·     Nearly half of client households (46 percent) chose between paying for food and paying rent/mortgage. One-in-five (21 percent) faced this choice every month.
·     More than half of client households chose between paying for food and paying for utilities. Nearly one-third (29 percent) faced this choice every month.

Furthermore, almost two-thirds of client households (63 percent) reported using coping strategies to ensure they had enough food to eat. Among the most notable tactics:·     Buying the cheapest food available, regardless of health (74 percent of clients who employed coping strategies).
·     Eating expired food (52 percent).
·     Buying food in dented or damaged packages (40 percent).
·     Watering down food or drinks to make them last longer (36 percent).

Claire, 46, and her husband – both clients of Alameda County Community Food Bank – admit to sometimes skipping meals so that their children, ages 6 and 10 won’t have to. Still, they regularly employ coping strategies to provide for their children: “Every little penny needs to be stretched. It has become second nature to shop the way I do. I look for buy-1-get-1-free deals, reduced price items, and always buy off-brand. I water down condensed milk, because regular milk is too expensive and doesn’t last long enough. My kids need milk no matter what.”

Food insecurity’s effect on health
The direct links between health and adequate nutrition cannot be overstated. Food insecurity is directly linked to chronic conditions, which account for 75 percent of U.S. health spending.

The Hunger in America study explored the prevalence of diet-related illness in client households, as well as household ability to cover medical expenses. Key findings include:·     Nearly one-in-five (18 percent) report at least one member of their household is in poor health
·     One-in-five households (21 percent) have a member with diabetes
·     39 percent of households have a member with high blood pressure
·     More than one-quarter of households (27 percent) have outstanding medical bills to pay, while one-third (33 percent) lack health insurance of any kind, including Medical

While these findings shed a particularly bleak picture of the health of food bank clients, it’s worth noting that Alameda County Community Food Bank clients are less likely than food bank clients nationally to report household members with diabetes (33 percent) or hypertension (58 percent).

Serving 20 percent of residents, Alameda County Community Food Bank recognizes it plays a significant role in the overall health of the county, and therefore has a long-standing commitment to providing the healthiest food options available. The Food Bank boasts one of the most aggressive nutrition policies among food banks nationwide, including becoming the first food bank in the nation to cease distribution of soda, and replacing distributed poundage with farm-fresh fruits and vegetables. The Food Bank also actively seeks partnerships to take a more proactive role in the health of our community, including leading the Morgan Stanley Healthy Oakland network, which launched July 2014.

Older residents seeking help in greater numbers
Among selected demographics, the Hunger in America study revealed an increase in Food Bank use by one of our community’s most vulnerable demographics: seniors and older Americans. According to the findings, residents over 50 years old now make up more than one-third (36 percent) of the Food Bank’s clients. The need is only expected to rise, given Alameda County’s senior population will grow significantly over the next decade and a half.

“The need among seniors here is enormous. So many of us are in a grey area where nobody sees our suffering,” says Jas, 59. She and her husband Ed, 61, live on a dwindling savings account and Ed’s minimum wage part-time job. Even after moving to ease skyrocketing cost of living, the couple is still forced to stretch every dollar. “I never buy cleaning supplies – I use baking soda and vinegar. I only shop at neighborhood markets, because grocery stores are out of our budget. We water down juice and soup. We cut the internet service from our home not long ago, because we couldn’t afford it anymore.”

Also of note: nearly one-quarter of households (23 percent) include grandparents who have a responsibility to care for grandchildren who live with them.

Ending Hunger in our Community
In 2013 the Food Bank implemented a 5-year strategic plan with the goal to provide 90 million meals annually by 2018 – enough for one meal every day for every food insecure resident of Alameda County. Many of the Hunger in America findings underscore how critical the tactics outlined in the Food Bank’s strategic plan are:·     Improving access to- and participation in CalFresh (Food Stamps): Despite an increase in CalFresh participation since the 2010 study (26 percent, up from 17 percent), participation in California and Alameda County still remains very low . Of those not receiving CalFresh, nearly half (45 percent) have never applied. The Food Bank’s CalFresh outreach department was the first of its kind nationally in 2003 and is a blueprint for programs nationwide. With expertise in five languages, the Food Bank’s CalFresh outreach department helped 3,500 households apply for benefits in FY14, generating $21 million in economic stimulus for Alameda County.

·     Creating systems change: A nationally recognized advocacy department leads the Food Bank’s commitment to effecting long-term solutions through policy and systems change. Legislative priorities for 2014 include supporting lifting the minimum wage and advocating for reinvestment of Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) to above poverty-level rates, both of which would make incredible steps in lifting many Alameda County residents to self-sufficiency.

·     Increasing access to healthy food options: The food we distribute impacts the health of those we serve. According to the study, the top food items desired by clients that they aren’t receiving by their food program are fresh fruits and vegetables (46 percent), meat and similar protein items (38 percent) and dairy products like milk or yogurt (28 percent). The Food Bank is committed to increasing food distribution by 5.5 percent annually with a priority on high nutrient value food. Every year, the Food Bank is committed to ensuring at least 50 percent of all food distributed is farm-fresh produce.

“Hunger is not just empty cupboards in a neighbor’s home,” adds Bateson. “It’s a shared community problem. From programs that are no longer meeting needs, to the widening performance gap of children sitting in the same classroom, Alameda County’s rising food insecurity threatens to further disrupt the everyday functions of a healthy and stable community. This problem affects each and every one of us – and solving it is critical to our shared prosperity. We’re excited to partner with our community to end hunger in Alameda County. ”

###

About Alameda County Community Food Bank
Since 1985, Alameda County Community Food Bank has been at the forefront of hunger relief efforts in the Bay Area. Last year, the Food Bank distributed the equivalent of 23 million meals. More than half of the food distributed was farm-fresh produce. The Food Bank serves 1 in 5 Alameda County residents by distributing food through a network of 240 food pantries, soup kitchens, and other community organizations, as well as direct-distribution programs including Children’s Backpack and Mobile Pantry. For seven consecutive years, Alameda County Community Food Bank has received Charity Navigator’s top rating — Four Stars — ranking the organization among the top 2 percent of charities nationwide. Learn more at http://www.accfb.org.

About Feeding America
Feeding America is a nationwide network of 200 food banks that leads the fight against hunger in the United States. Together, we provide food to more than 37 million people through food pantries and meal programs in communities throughout America. Feeding America also supports programs that improve food security among the people we serve; educates the public about the problem of hunger; and advocates for legislation that protects people from going hungry. Individuals, charities, businesses and government all have a role in ending hunger. Donate. Volunteer. Advocate. Educate. Together we can solve hunger. Visit http://www.feedingamerica.org. Find us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/FeedingAmerica or follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/FeedingAmerica.

About Hunger in America 2014
Hunger in America 2014 was conducted using rigorous academic research standards and was peer reviewed by a technical advisory team including researchers from American University, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and the Urban Institute. Nationally, confidential responses were collected on electronic tablets by 6,000 trained volunteer data collectors.
The study was funded by The Howard G. Buffett Foundation. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.

---

State Insurance Official: 'No Question' That Health Care Discrimination Is Creeping Back

August 18, 2014, 6:46 am

≫ Next: United States: HIPAA Developments Signal Need To Assess Current Security Rule Compliance - Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C.

≪ Previous: One in Five Alameda County Residents Now Relies on Food Bank Assistance

$

0

0

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ending insurance discrimination against the sick was a central goal of the nation's health care overhaul, but leading patient groups say that promise is being undermined by new barriers from insurers.

The insurance industry responds that critics are confusing legitimate cost-control with bias. Some state regulators, however, say there's reason to be concerned about policies that shift costs to patients and narrow their choices of hospitals and doctors. With open enrollment for 2015 three months away, the Obama administration is being pressed to enforce the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination provisions. Some regulations have been issued; others are pending after more than four years.

More than 300 patient advocacy groups recently wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell to complain about some insurer tactics that "are highly discriminatory against patients with chronic health conditions and may ... violate the (law's) nondiscrimination provisions."

Among the groups were the AIDS Institute, the American Lung Association, Easter Seals, the Epilepsy Foundation, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Kidney Foundation and United Cerebral Palsy. All supported the law.

Coverage of expensive drugs tops their concerns.

The advocates also say they are disappointed by how difficult it's proved for consumers to get a full picture of plans sold on the new insurance exchanges. Digging is often required to learn crucial details such as drugs covered, exact copayments and which doctors and hospitals are in the network.

Washington state's insurance commissioner, Mike Kreidler, said "there is no question" that discrimination is creeping back. "The question is whether we are catching it or not," added Kreidler, a Democrat.

Kansas' commissioner, Sandy Praeger, a Republican, said the jury is out on whether some insurers are back to shunning the sick. Nonetheless, Praeger said the administration needs to take a strong stand.

"They ought to make it very clear that if there is any kind of discrimination against people with chronic conditions, there will be enforcement action," Praeger said. "The whole goal here was to use the private insurance market to create a system that provides health insurance for all Americans."

The Obama administration turned down interview requests.

An HHS spokeswoman said the department is preparing a formal response to the advocates and stressed that today's level of consumer protection is far superior to what existed before President Barack Obama's law, when an insurance company could use any existing medical condition to deny coverage.

The law also takes away some of the motivation insurers have for chasing healthy patients. Those attracting a healthy population must pay into a pool that will reimburse plans with a higher share of patients with health problems. But that backstop is under attack from congressional Republicans as an insurer "bailout."

Compounding the uncertainty is that Washington and the states now share responsibility for policing health plans sold to individuals.

Although the federal government is running insurance markets in 36 states, state regulators are still in charge of consumer protection. A few states refuse to enforce any aspect of the law.

Kreidler said the federal government should establish a basic level of protection that states can build on. "We're kind of piecemealing it right now," he said.

Much of the concern is about coverage for prescription drugs. Also worrisome are the narrow networks of hospitals and doctors that insurers are using to keep premiums down. Healthy people generally shop for lower premiums, while people with health problems look for access to specialists and the best hospitals.

Before Obama's overhaul, insurance plans sold on the individual market could exclude prescription coverage. Now the debate is over what's fair to charge patients.

Some plans are requiring patients to pay 30 percent or more for drugs that go for several thousand dollars a month. HIV drugs, certain cancer medications, and multiple sclerosis drugs are among them.

Although the law sets an overall annual limit on what patients are required to pay, the initial medication cost can be a shock.

California resident Charis Hill has ankylosing spondylitis, a painful, progressive form of spinal arthritis. To manage it, she relies on an expensive medication called Enbrel. When she tried to fill her prescription the pharmacy wanted $2,000, more than she could afford.

"Insurance companies are basically singling out certain conditions by placing some medications on high-cost tiers," said Hill. That "is pretty blatant discrimination in my mind."

Hill, a biking advocate from the Sacramento area, has been able to get her medication through the manufacturer's patient assistance program.

The insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans says there's no discrimination because patients have many options on the insurance exchanges. Gold and platinum plans feature lower cost-sharing, but have higher premiums. Standard silver plans generally require patients to pay a greater share of medical bills, but some have fairly robust drug coverage.

"There are plans on the exchanges that are right for people who have these health conditions," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the group.

For 2015, the administration says it will identify plans that require unusually high patient cost-sharing in states where Washington is running the exchange. Insurers may get an opportunity to make changes. Regulators will collect and analyze data on insurers' networks.

"People who have high cost health conditions are still having a problem accessing care," said law professor Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University in Virginia. "We are in the early stages of trying to figure out what the problems are, and to what extent they are based on insurance company discrimination, or inherent in the structure of the program."

___

AP Business Writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

___

Online:

Letter to health secretary: http://tinyurl.com/kknjbuf Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.

United States: HIPAA Developments Signal Need To Assess Current Security Rule Compliance - Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C.

August 18, 2014, 8:35 am

≫ Next: Poland Pharmaceutical Industry Worth $15 Billion by 2020 Says a New Report Available at MarketOptimizer.org

≪ Previous: State Insurance Official: 'No Question' That Health Care Discrimination Is Creeping Back

$

0

0

Recent enforcement actions by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights underscore a continued focus on compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its implementing regulations, particularly the Security Rule. Reported by Mondaq 14 hours ago.

Poland Pharmaceutical Industry Worth $15 Billion by 2020 Says a New Report Available at MarketOptimizer.org

August 18, 2014, 10:34 am

≫ Next: Ethics Board: Father of Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato may continue as city's insurance broker

≪ Previous: United States: HIPAA Developments Signal Need To Assess Current Security Rule Compliance - Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C.

$

0

0

MarketOptimizer.org adds “CountryFocus Healthcare, Regulatory and Reimbursement Landscape – Poland” to its store. The pharmaceutical market had decreased from $8.8 billion in 2011 to $7.1 billion in 2012.

Dallas, Texas (PRWEB) August 18, 2014

Factors such as the growing elderly population, increasing availability of affordable medicines, and transparent regulatory guidelines will provide the necessary impetus for the growth of the Polish pharmaceutical market, but a decrease in mark-up prices and the country’s stringent drug reimbursement budget will hinder growth

The pharmaceutical industry plays a key role in Poland’s healthcare system and economy. It was valued at $8.6 billion in 2013 and is projected to reach $15 billion in 2020 at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 8.3% (AESGP, 2014). The pharmaceutical market had decreased from $8.8 billion in 2011 to $7.1 billion in 2012 due to the implementation of the new Reimbursement Act by Poland government in 2012, but has since partially recovered. According to the new act, the prices of the reimbursed drugs were decreased and the profit margins for wholesalers and retailers were also reduced, which impacted the pharmaceutical market negatively. The highest mark-up possible for reimbursed medicines was reduced from 9.78% in 2011 to 7% in 2012 and then to 6% in 2013. The VAT on pharmaceuticals and medical devices was 8% (ISPOR, 2013; EC, 2014). In 2013, the pharmaceutical market recovered and reached $8.6 billion due to an increase in demand for and consumption of pharmaceuticals (ISPOR, 2013).

Complete Report Details @ http://www.marketoptimizer.org/countryfocus-healthcare-regulatory-and-reimbursement-landscape-poland.html .

Generic drugs have a dominant position in the pharmaceutical market. In 2012, the share of generic drugs was 66% of the pharmaceutical market, which increased from 62.2% of the total pharmaceutical market in 2011.

The prices of pharmaceuticals are lower in Poland than in other European Union (EU) member countries. These low prices enhance the affordability of pharmaceuticals, boosting the pharmaceutical market.

The cap on the reimbursement budget for drugs was decreased from 21% in 2010 to 17% in 2011 of the National Health Fund (Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia, NFZ), so patients now have to pay more for their treatment. The NFZ administers funding and contracts providers to provide healthcare services, both for prophylaxis and therapy. The majority of resources are allotted to in-patient treatment, followed by reimbursement of medications, out-patient general care and specialized out-patient care. The value of the NFZ’s total drugs reimbursement decreased from PLN8.8 billion ($3 billion) in 2011 to PLN6.9 billion ($2.1 billion) in 2012. The decrease in the reimbursement budget would negatively affect the overall pharmaceutical market.

In Poland, the government has taken steps to increase R&D expenditure. In 2013, the expenditure on research in healthcare has been estimated at $633.5m, from $300.8m in 2008. The healthcare R&D increased at a CAGR of 22.6% over the 2008-2013 period (CSO, 2014c).

Order a Purchase Copy @ http://www.marketoptimizer.org/contacts/purchase?rname=9632 .
(Report Price: Single User License – US$1995 and Corporate User License – US$5985)

The major multi-national pharmaceutical companies in Poland are Sanofi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Roche. Polpharma is the major local player in Poland. In Poland, imports of pharmaceuticals accounted for $4.9 billion of the total pharmaceutical market in 2013.

The medical device market was worth $2.2 billion in 2013 and is projected to reach $2.8 billion by 2020, at a projected CAGR of 3.6%. In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) (20.3%), ophthalmic devices (18.3%), and cardiovascular devices (13.4%) were the major segments in the medical device market in 2013. With a rapidly growing elderly population and awareness of chronic diseases rising, the medical care and diagnostic markets are expected to see strong growth in the future.

Poland’s regulatory authorities provide a transparent and efficient regulatory system which facilitates the approval of pharmaceutical products and medical devices, positively influencing the market’s growth prospects

The main regulatory authority for pharmaceutical products is the Office for the Registration of Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocidal Products (Urząd Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (URPL)), which works under the guidance of the Ministry of Health (MoH). Obtaining Marketing Authorization (MA) for a new drug requires the execution of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and satisfactory compliance reviews for safety, efficacy and quality by the URPL and the MoH. It takes the URPL 210 days from the date of application to approve a new drug, and authorization is valid for five years (MPI, 2009).

The healthcare system in Poland is financed mainly by health insurance contributions from state and local government budgets. The percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health was estimated at 6.7% in 2013 (World Bank, 2014i).

Explore more reports on Healthcare industry at http://www.marketoptimizer.org/category/life-sciences/healthcare.

About Us:
MarketOptimizer.org is an online database of market research reports offer in-depth analysis of over 5000 market segments. The library has syndicated reports by leading market research publishers across the globe and also offer customized market research reports for multiple industries. Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.

Ethics Board: Father of Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato may continue as city's insurance broker

August 18, 2014, 10:45 am

≫ Next: Large U.S. Hospital Group Claims 4.5 Million Patients' Personal Data Stolen in Chinese Cyber Attack

≪ Previous: Poland Pharmaceutical Industry Worth $15 Billion by 2020 Says a New Report Available at MarketOptimizer.org

$

0

0

The state ethics board has cleared the way for Kenner's health insurance broker to continue doing business with the city while the owner's son, Dominick Impastato, serves as a city council member. Impastato was elected to represent the city's 5th district... Reported by nola.com 11 hours ago.

Large U.S. Hospital Group Claims 4.5 Million Patients' Personal Data Stolen in Chinese Cyber Attack

August 18, 2014, 11:44 am

≫ Next: Legal wrangling pays off: Seattle Children's, Premera make nice ... for now

≪ Previous: Ethics Board: Father of Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato may continue as city's insurance broker

$

0

0

One of the largest U.S. hospital groups claims it was a victim of a cyber attack that originated in China and led to the theft of personal information of 4.5 million U.S. patients in April and June.

According to Reuters, Community Health Systems, Inc., a Fortune 500 company based in Franklin, Tennessee, said in a regulatory filing Monday that the stolen information included names, addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers, and Social Security numbers of patients who had been referred for or received services from doctors affiliated with the hospital group within the last five years.

The company’s filing said patients’ credit card numbers and medical information were not stolen, though the hackers did steal types of personal data still covered by the U.S. government’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Community Health Systems (CHS) spokeswoman Tomi Galin said her company’s belief that the attack originated from China is based on information from federal law enforcement and forensic experts with FireEye Inc unit Mandiant that “the methods and techniques” used by the hackers were consistent with a particular group of hackers who operate in China.

In its regulatory filing, CHS said filing investigators observed that the unnamed Chinese group believed to be behind the cyber attack typically searches for valuable intellectual property--such as medical device and equipment development data--rather than the personal information that was stolen from CHS.

As Reuters notes, in May, a U.S. grand jury indicted five Chinese military officers on charges that they hacked into U.S. companies for valuable manufacturing secrets. The Chinese government, however, denied the charges.

CHS, which has 206 hospitals in 29 states and is considered to be the largest nonurban provider of healthcare services in the United States in terms of its number of acute care facilities, states it has removed the malware from its systems and is now notifying patients and regulatory agencies as it is required to do so by law.

The company’s website was unable to be accessed at the time of publication. Reported by Breitbart 10 hours ago.

Legal wrangling pays off: Seattle Children's, Premera make nice ... for now

August 18, 2014, 12:08 pm

≫ Next: Unicon Extends Central Authentication Service (CAS) to Meet Identity and Access Management (IAM) Needs of Altegra Health

≪ Previous: Large U.S. Hospital Group Claims 4.5 Million Patients' Personal Data Stolen in Chinese Cyber Attack

$

0

0

Seattle Children’s Hospital will be included in the Premera Blue Cross health insurance networks for 2014 and 2015 as a result of an agreement that ends a lengthy legal dispute. In a joint announcement, Premera and Children’s said both sides have reached an agreement that will include Children’s in Premera’s Heritage Signature and LifeWise Connect, along with Heritage Prime, a network available to employers with 51 or more employees. “We’re very pleased to move forward with an agreement… Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.

Unicon Extends Central Authentication Service (CAS) to Meet Identity and Access Management (IAM) Needs of Altegra Health

August 18, 2014, 1:06 pm

≫ Next: Auto Insurance Quotes for Texas Motorists Now Delivered Through New State System at Insurance Website

≪ Previous: Legal wrangling pays off: Seattle Children's, Premera make nice ... for now

$

0

0

Healthcare Company Implements IAM Open Source Solution to Solve Business Challenges

Gilbert, AZ (PRWEB) August 18, 2014

Unicon, Inc., a leading IT consulting, services, and support provider specializing in open source, today announced that it has extended the Central Authentication Service (CAS) to solve some of Altegra Health’s key IT business challenges. Altegra Health, a service-oriented healthcare technology company, needed to offer their institutional clients a web single sign-on solution that would support various authentication protocols. Clients needed a simple way to access Altegra Health’s cloud applications and resources using their own existing authentication layer. CAS, an Apereo project, is a flexible open source solution that Unicon extended to meet this need. CAS provides convenient web single sign-on for the enterprise and was already successfully in use at Altegra Health, so the company decided on extending CAS for the solution for their cloud services.

Unicon extended CAS for Altegra Health with new features including multi-tenancy with different policies for each client, and multi-protocol support for a number of standards including SAML, OAuth, and OpenID, and two-factor authentication for greater security.

“CAS is a critical part of our identity and access management infrastructure,” said Joseph Laudadio, Senior Director for Medicare & Strategic Applications, Altegra Health. “The Unicon team helped us extend CAS to meet many important needs which will allow us to meet our clients’ identity and access management requirements without custom integrations for each client.”

Another challenge Altegra Health needed addressed was that their clients required stronger security than a simple username and password combination. Unicon implemented support for two-factor authentication to meet this need, completely configurable to use different specific solutions including Duo Security and YubiKey. Two–factor authentication enhances the security of the IT infrastructure by better ensuring that only authorized individuals are actually accessing system logins.

CAS provides an open source alternative to traditional proprietary solutions, permitting Altegra Health to reap the advantages of open source software. These advantages include reduced cost (due to lack of licensing fees) and increased flexibility (such as the ability to make the changes described). CAS is built on open standards and integrates effectively with many applications and systems. Altegra Health’s CAS deployment is an innovative open source solution that promotes secure cloud services adoption.

To learn more about how Altegra Health solved their IT business challenges with CAS, attend the webinar on August 21, at 11:00 a.m. PST. Read more and register at http://www.unicon.net/altegra-webinar.

About Altegra Health
Altegra Health is a leading provider of technology-enabled, end-to-end payment solutions that enhance quality, strengthen compliance, and optimize financial performance for healthcare organizations. As a quality, care and revenue management solutions partner, Altegra Health empowers Medicare Advantage, Managed Medicaid, and Health Insurance Marketplace/Exchange health plans to integrate key areas of financial performance and continuity of care while improving the quality of life of the individuals they serve. For more information, visit AltegraHealth.com.

About Unicon
Unicon, Inc. is a leading provider of IT consulting, services, and support for education technology and works with institutions and organizations to find solutions to meet business challenges. Unicon specializes in using open source technologies to deliver flexible and cost-effective systems in the areas of identity and access management, student success, mobile computing, learning management systems, portals, online video, calendaring, email, and collaboration. Unicon is a Commercial Affiliate of the Apereo Foundation; an InCommon Affiliate and Participant; an Industry Member of Internet2; an Affiliate Member of IMS Global Learning Consortium; an Advanced Consulting Partner in the Amazon Web Services Partner Network; an Organization Member of the Drupal Association; a Solution Partner of Kaltura; a Services Partner of Liferay; and a reseller of Zimbra. For more information, visit: http://www.unicon.net.

# # #
Unicon is a Registered Trademark of Unicon, Inc. All other product or service names are the property of their respective owners. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.

---

Auto Insurance Quotes for Texas Motorists Now Delivered Through New State System at Insurance Website

August 18, 2014, 4:06 pm

≫ Next: Employers bracing for penalties under the Affordable Care Act

≪ Previous: Unicon Extends Central Authentication Service (CAS) to Meet Identity and Access Management (IAM) Needs of Altegra Health

$

0

0

Auto insurance quotes are now supplied to Texas motorists who use the Quotes Pros website at http://quotespros.com/auto-insurance.html. This new consumer state search tool is now accessible.

Midland, TX (PRWEB) August 18, 2014

Texas drivers will now have a faster method to compare different prices for vehicle insurance plans using the Internet this year. The Quotes Pros company is now using its auto insurance quotes system to deliver state costs for coverage plans to owners of cars at http://quotespros.com/auto-insurance.html.

The display and delivery of price data this year is changing the way the most drivers are finding out about insurer price drops. The Quotes Pros system is now designed to work statewide in Texas and in other states to introduce the ways to save money when buying different coverage plans from insurers.

"Drivers in Dallas, Houston, Midland, San Antonio and Austin can use our database to compare or to review provider rates for insurance in and around these cities," said a QuotesPros.com source.

The special rates that are prepared for motorists come direct from known insurers that provide the rates information to consumers. The issuance of state minimum pricing is one of the benefits of the rates system although more advanced coverage plans can be priced at the touch of a button.

"The reach of our system is now national and drivers use their own state zip codes to find out the types of cost savings that are available for coverage plans," the source included.

The Quotes Pros company is expected to help the public with finding different price data for other coverage plans using the search solutions available. The automobile policies that can be selected are now in addition to the life, health, renters and motorcycle plans of coverage priced at http://quotespros.com/health-insurance.html.

About QuotesPros.com

The QuotesPros.com company uses a database of insurer costs to introduce price data to United States citizens online. The company gives full access to this data and updates the content that the public can review daily. The QuotesPros.com company has built its database to function as a useful way to explore the markdowns and direct discounts that can be found for different insurer policies that are offered to consumers. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.

Employers bracing for penalties under the Affordable Care Act

August 18, 2014, 4:59 pm

≫ Next: Want to raise a kid? Do you have $245,340?

≪ Previous: Auto Insurance Quotes for Texas Motorists Now Delivered Through New State System at Insurance Website

$

0

0

Attorneys call it giving a law teeth -- think the fines and fees. For the Affordable Care Act, employers have yet to be bitten. But the pain is likely coming next year, when the 2010 federal health law's teeth finally arrive in the form of $2,000 penalties per employee in some cases. The impact is game-changing for businesses. Called the employer mandate, it's what prompts most companies to provide health insurance to full-time workers. Otherwise, they face the penalties. President Barack Obama,… Reported by bizjournals 5 hours ago.

Want to raise a kid? Do you have $245,340?

August 18, 2014, 4:32 pm

≫ Next: Feds Won't Reveal Records on Obamacare Website Security

≪ Previous: Employers bracing for penalties under the Affordable Care Act

$

0

0

A middle-income family with two parents and one child could expect to spend $245,340 to raise a second child born in 2013 through age 17, according to an annual report published Monday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Actual costs vary widely depending on income, family size, location, education, child care and whether you dress your kid like Suri Cruise or Oliver Twist. If you plan on putting your kid in full-time day care or private school, expect to spend more. California's costsChild care costs vary widely depending on location and type of care, but in California, the average cost of full-time infant care in 2012 was $11,461 in a center or $7,446 in a family home. The report does not include indirect costs, such as forgone wages if one parent stays home to raise a child. Expenditures on housing outpaced inflation, largely because people are buying larger homes with more bedrooms and more baths. Spending on child care, education and health care also grew as a percentage of total kid spending and in real terms as more moms entered the workforce and parents had to foot a growing share of health insurance premiums and co-payments. [...] despite the rise of designer clothing for tots, globalization - and the cheap imports it allows - reduced the cost of apparel for most families, the report says. Reported by SFGate 6 hours ago.

Feds Won't Reveal Records on Obamacare Website Security

August 19, 2014, 3:41 am

≫ Next: No Title

≪ Previous: Want to raise a kid? Do you have $245,340?

$

0

0

Filed under: Identity Theft, U.S. Government, Security, Health Insurance, Financial Education

*Jon Elswick/AP*

By JACK GILLUM

WASHINGTON -- After promising not to withhold government information over "speculative or abstract fears," the Obama administration has concluded it won't publicly disclose federal records that could shed light on the security of the government's health care website because doing so could "potentially" allow hackers to break in.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services denied a request by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act for documents about the kinds of security software and computer systems behind the federally funded HealthCare.gov. The AP requested the records late last year amid concerns that Republicans raised about the security of the website, which had technical glitches that prevented millions of people from signing up for insurance under President Barack Obama's health care law.

In denying access to the documents, including what's known as a site security plan, Medicare told the AP that disclosing them could violate health-privacy laws because it might give hackers enough information to break into the service."We concluded that releasing this information would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers' private information," CMS spokesman Aaron Albright said in a statement.

The AP is asking the government to reconsider. Obama instructed federal agencies in 2009 to not keep information confidential "merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears." Yet the government, in its denial of the AP request, speculates that disclosing the records could possibly, but not assuredly or even probably, give hackers the keys they need to intrude.

Even when the government concludes that records can't be fully released, Attorney General Eric Holder has directed agencies to consider whether parts of the files can be revealed with sensitive passages censored. CMS told the AP it will not release any parts of any of the records.

The government's decision highlights problems as it grapples with a 2011 Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed a provision under open records law that protected an agency's internal practices. Federal agencies have tried to use other, more creative routes to keep information censored.

In addition to citing potential health-privacy violations, the government cited exemptions intended to protect personal privacy and law-enforcement records, although the agency did not explain what files about the health care website had been compiled for law-enforcement purposes. Some open-government advocates were skeptical.

*'Far-Fetched Privacy Claims'*

"Here you have an example of an agency resorting to a far-fetched privacy claim in an unprecedented attempt to bridge this legal gap and, in the process, making it even worse by going overboard in withholding such records in their entireties," said Dan Metcalfe, a former director of the Justice Department's office of information and privacy who's now at American University's law school.

Keeping details about lockdown practices confidential is generally derided by information technology experts as "security through obscurity." Disclosing some types of information could help hackers formulate break-in strategies, but other facts, such as numbers of break-ins or descriptions of how systems store personal data, are commonly shared in the private sector. "Security practices aren't private information," said David Kennedy, an industry consultant who testified before Congress last year about HealthCare.gov's security.

Last year, the AP found that CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner took the unusual step of signing the operational security certificate for HealthCare.gov herself, even as her agency's security professionals balked. That memo said incomplete testing created uncertainties that posed a potentially high security risk for the website. It called for a six-month "mitigation" program, including ongoing monitoring and testing. The site has since passed a full security test.

Government cyber-security experts were also worried that state computers linking to a federal system that verifies the personal information of insurance applicants were vulnerable to attack. About a week before the launch of HealthCare.gov, a federal review found significant differences in states' readiness. The administration says the concerns about state systems have been addressed.

-Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 19 hours ago.

No Title

August 19, 2014, 4:18 am

≫ Next: Pets Best Announces Leadership Change

≪ Previous: Feds Won't Reveal Records on Obamacare Website Security

$

0

0

More than 200,000 Floridians may be eligible to sign up for health insurance under President Obama's Affordable Care Act soon even though enrollment doesn't officially start until November. Reported by WEAR ABC 3 18 hours ago.

Pets Best Announces Leadership Change

August 19, 2014, 7:13 am

≫ Next: Should Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato's father continue serving as city's insurance broker?

≪ Previous: No Title

$

0

0

Founder and President Dr. Jack Stephens to step down from day-to-day operations, with former COO Chris L. Middleton selected to serve as president

Boise, Idaho (PRWEB) August 19, 2014

Dr. Jack Stephens, founder and president of Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC, announced today he plans to retire from his day-to-day responsibilities with the nationwide pet insurance agency in an effort to pursue his passion for travel and spend additional time with his family. Chris L. Middleton, who previously served as the chief operating officer of Pets Best, will now serve as the company’s president, bringing decades of valuable leadership experience to the position.

Dr. Stephens, who co-founded the Boise, Idaho-based company in 2005 with CEO Greg McDonald, will remain actively involved in guiding Pets Best’s direction as a member of the executive committee, a member of the board of directors and a significant shareholder. Dr. Stephens will also continue to represent Pets Best as a member of the North American Pet Health Insurance Association, a group of pet health insurance industry leaders that he co-founded.

A dedicated veterinarian, Dr. Stephens has remained a prominent figure in his field since he founded the U.S. pet insurance industry in 1981. He went on to present the nation’s first pet insurance policy to famous television dog Lassie in 1982. He founded the industry with the vision of reducing incidents of pet owners euthanizing their animals for economic reasons.

“I take tremendous pride in my work during the past 33 years to promote the valuable benefits of pet insurance, but I am ready to take a step back in order to travel and enjoy more time with my family,” Dr. Stephens said. “I have complete confidence in Chris’ commitment to Pets Best and to advancing our mission of helping pets receive the best care without financial constraints.”

Middleton has worked at Pets Best for more than four years. Initially serving as marketing director, he worked his way up through the company, filling the roles of vice president of marketing and chief operating officer in recent years. As chief operating officer, his duties included overseeing marketing, sales, customer care, information technology and operations. In addition, Middleton was tasked with achieving growth, hitting financial targets and developing product strategies.

Prior to joining Pets Best, Middleton spent 18 years in the technology field at Hewlett-Packard, a Fortune 500 company. During his years with the company, he focused on sales and business development, as well as digital marketing, analytics, and program development and management. A devoted dog owner, the Boise native earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Oregon and is a certified public accountant.

“In my new role as president, I look forward to continuing our company’s efforts to serve as a leader and innovator in the pet insurance industry,” Middleton said. “Dr. Stephens built the foundation for our industry, and we will continue to implement his vision as we seek to help a growing number of pet owners afford the finest veterinary care for their four-legged family members.”

Pets Best is a nationwide pet insurance agency for dogs and cats, selling insurance plans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The company has introduced a variety of pet insurance plans covering a wide range of accidents and illnesses for dogs and cats, including a Feline Illness Plan covering the diagnosis and treatment of feline illnesses, and a Cancer Only Plan covering the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. In 2013, the company expanded its BestBenefit accident and illness plans to cover hereditary and congenital conditions. Pets Best offers reimbursement options ranging from 70 to 100 percent.

In 2012, pet owners filed claims on behalf of nearly 50 percent of all pets insured through Pets Best. Of those, Pets Best received an average of 4.75 claims per pet. Pets Best also offers the fastest client reimbursement time in the industry, with claims processed in two to five business days. The industry average was 7.4 days in 2013, according to the North American Pet Health Insurance Association.

About Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC
Dr. Jack L. Stephens, founder and director of Pets Best, founded pet insurance in the U.S. in 1981 with a mission to end euthanasia when pet owners couldn’t afford veterinary treatment. Dr. Stephens went on to present the first U.S. pet insurance policy to famous television dog Lassie. Pets Best provides coverage for dogs and cats. Dr. Stephens leads the Pets Best team with his passion for quality pet care and his expert veterinary knowledge. He is always available to answer questions regarding veterinary medicine, pet health and pet insurance. The Pets Best team is a group of pet lovers who strive to deliver quality customer service and value. Visit http://www.petsbest.com for more information.

Pet insurance coverage offered and administered by Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC is underwritten by Independence American Insurance Company, a Delaware insurance company. Independence American Insurance Company is a member of The IHC Group, an organization of insurance carriers and marketing and administrative affiliates that has been providing life, health, disability, medical stop-loss and specialty insurance solutions to groups and individuals for over 30 years. For information on The IHC Group, visit: http://www.ihcgroup.com. Additional insurance services administered by Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC are underwritten by Prime Insurance Company. Some existing business is underwritten by Aetna Insurance Company of Connecticut. Each insurer has sole financial responsibility for its own products.

Pets Best is a proud member of the North America Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA).

### Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.

Should Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato's father continue serving as city's insurance broker?

August 19, 2014, 7:28 am

≫ Next: New York Times Slams 'Overzealous Prosecution' Of Rick Perry

≪ Previous: Pets Best Announces Leadership Change

$

0

0

The state Ethics Board concluded last month that Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato's father may continue serving as the city's health insurance broker without violating state laws. The conclusion is based in part on timing: Impastato took his seat in July,... Reported by nola.com 15 hours ago.

---

New York Times Slams 'Overzealous Prosecution' Of Rick Perry

August 19, 2014, 8:32 am

≫ Next: Why Do We Put Up with Washington's Cynical Misinformation Game?

≪ Previous: Should Kenner City Councilman Dominick Impastato's father continue serving as city's insurance broker?

$

0

0

The left-leaning editorial board of the New York Times, no fan of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), nevertheless wrote an editorial strongly backing him in his legal fight after he was indicted for allegedly abusing his office.

In the article, published online Monday night, the editorial board called Perry "one of the least thoughtful" politicians out there, but noted "bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony."

"Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution," the paper wrote.

Perry was indicted by a grand jury on two felony counts last Friday. A special prosecutor has accused him of abusing his power to try and coerce a resignation from a district attorney whose office runs a state-level public integrity unit. Perry said he ultimately vetoed the public integrity unit's funding because the district attorney was arrested for drunken driving and was featured in a highly embarrassing video of some of her behavior.

The Times insisted the funding veto threat was "ill-advised"— but probably not illegal.

"Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far," the editorial board wrote. "Texas voters should be more furious at Mr. Perry for refusing to expand Medicaid, and for all the favors he has done for big donors, than for a budget veto."

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 14 hours ago.

Why Do We Put Up with Washington's Cynical Misinformation Game?

August 19, 2014, 11:11 am

≫ Next: Why the Courts Won't Kill Obamacare

≪ Previous: New York Times Slams 'Overzealous Prosecution' Of Rick Perry

$

0

0

In most of our country's major institutions, we have little tolerance for cheating and lying. Whether it's the court system, schools, businesses, even our sports teams, we impose stiff sanctions against those who deceive us to gain some advantage.

If convicted of lying on the witness stand, you'll pay a fine and possibly wind up in jail. If caught cheating on a test, you'll probably fail the course or worse. At the University of Virginia, a breach of the school's honor code "has but a single penalty: immediate expulsion from the university."

In 2009, Bank of America agreed to pay a $33 million fine after the SEC accused it of lying. Just last month, a federal judge ordered that same bank to pay a $1.27 billion fine after a jury found it liable for bad loans that were part of a "fraudulent and reckless" mortgage-lending program.

Some of our most famous athletes have been stripped of their medals and banned for life from participating on sports teams for doping and lying about it.

Our religions condemn such deception. In Proverbs we are told that "a lying tongue" and "a false witness who pours out lies" are among the seven things that the Lord hates and considers detestable.

Yet there is one arena in which misleading the public not only is abided but is the norm: politics. In fact, much of what constitutes political discourse in this country is now built on a foundation of dishonesty. One of the most effective--and perfectly legal--ways to win votes and influence public policy these days is to pour millions of dollars into deception-based campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion.

The most recent evidence: a National Journal article about a new tactic used by the National Republican Congressional Committee to attack Democratic candidates. Earlier this year, the NRCC created several fake Democratic candidate websites. The organization's latest effort is a brand new set of deceptive websites, this time designed to look like local news sources.

The NRCC has created about two dozen "faux news sites," the National Journal reported, all of which feature articles that "begin in the impartial voice of a political fact-checking site, hoping to lure in readers." After a few such paragraphs, the articles "gradually morph into more biting language."

With no hint of irony, the NRCC's communications director was quoted as saying, "This is a new and effective way to disseminate information to voters who are interested in learning the truth about these Democratic candidates." To the organization's credit, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page noting that the NRCC paid for the site.

Late last month, The New York Times disclosed another deception-based scheme designed to influence voters. America's Health Insurance Plans, the big lobbying and PR group for health insurers, secretly funneled $1.593 million to its longtime ally, the National Federation of Independent Business, to pay for a TV ad targeting Democratic senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. The ad blames Pryor for making it harder for small businesses to make a profit as a result of his vote for "Obamacare."

The ad didn't mention that the funds to pay for it came from health insurers or that the spot was part of a continuing effort by AHIP to get Congress to eliminate a fee that was imposed on insurers to help offset the cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, another organization insurers can rely on to shape the health care reform debate, says Wendell Potter. Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons. The Times connected the dots after reviewing tax records filed by AHIP and the NFIB. An AHIP spokesman acknowledged to the newspaper that his organization had indeed provided the money for the ad.

The relationship between AHIP and the NFIB goes way back. When I worked in the insurance industry, I attended many meetings in Washington with NFIB staff during which we planned a campaign to make sure Congress did not pass a Patient's Bill of Rights. Insurers worried that a provision of the bill holding insurers more accountable would lead to profit-threatening lawsuits against them. The big for-profit insurance companies contributed the lion's share of the funding for the campaign, which included the operation of a front group called the Health Benefits Coalition. Not wanting to be too publicly associated with the campaign, we enlisted an NFIB executive as a spokesman for the group.

Another organization insurers frequently call upon to front for them is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As the National Journal reported in 2012, AHIP funneled more than $100 million to the Chamber to finance it's campaign to shape the health care reform debate in 2009 and 2010. As with the Times' disclosure of the AHIP-NFIB alliance, the AHIP-Chamber of Commerce relationship was discovered only after a couple of reporters checked tax filings.

That's the way the game is played in Washington -- by Democrats as well as by Republicans and by special interests of all types -- where ethical principles that apply elsewhere are blatantly flouted. And where the consequence of getting caught in a lie or deception is rarely more severe than a bad PR day. Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

Why the Courts Won't Kill Obamacare

August 19, 2014, 11:25 am

≫ Next: Zane Benefits Announces a New Resource on Compliance

≪ Previous: Why Do We Put Up with Washington's Cynical Misinformation Game?

$

0

0

Resistance to the Affordable Care Act is now running on fossil fuel -- the rejectionism of judges appointed by Republican presidents long-gone.

Last month, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that the nearly 5 million Americans who get subsidized health insurance from federally-run markets known as "insurance exchanges" received these subsidies unlawfully. Judges chosen by the two Presidents George Bush made up a majority of the three-person panel; a judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter dissented. Hours later, another three-judge panel (from the neighboring 4th Circuit Court of Appeals) found the same subsidies lawful. All three members of this panel were picked by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

If you're one of these nearly 5 million Americans, don't worry. Expect the D.C. Circuit -- comprised of seven judges named by Democrats and four by Republicans -- to reverse last month's ruling, after reaching rare agreement to rehear the case en banc (as a full court). And expect years to pass before the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this issue -- if it ever does.

I doubt it will: The ACA is becoming embedded in the fabric of American expectations, and the Supreme Court avoids quixotic quests. More on this in a moment, but, first, some basics about what the dueling court rulings do and don't mean:

To start, it's wishful thinking by ACA opponents (and overstatement by the law's defenders) to say the ACA "will crumble" if people aren't permitted to obtain subsidized coverage from federal insurance exchanges.

That's not to say it wouldn't be tragic: I have trouble wrapping my mind around the cruelty of a legal campaign to deny millions of Americans the sense of safety that comes with knowing that serious illness won't bring on financial catastrophe.

It's likely, moreover, that loss of subsidies would lead to an unraveling of the federally-run exchanges. By making coverage affordable, subsidies trigger a legal obligation to buy it (the so-called "individual mandate"); this, in turn, pulls healthier people into the insurance marketplace, further reducing the price of coverage for everyone, even the sickest. And the presence of these healthy people in the pool of medical risk makes it workable for the ACA to require that health plans sold on exchanges be available to all at prices that don't vary with people's expected health.

So barring Americans from accessing subsidies via federally-run exchanges would set off a classic insurance-market "downward spiral" by nullifying the individual mandate for millions of people (for whom unsubsidized premiums would exceed eight percent of income, the ACA's affordability ceiling for imposing the mandate). Healthier consumers would flee the federal exchanges ("adverse selection," in economics lingo), leaving the plans these exchanges sell with sicker patients. This would, in turn, push premiums higher, driving away additional, relatively-healthy patients, hiking premiums further -- the oft-noted "death spiral" that insurance exchanges were meant to avert.

But the unraveling of the federal exchanges wouldn't mean the "crumbling" of the ACA. In the 36 states that haven't formed their own exchanges, pressure to do so would mount. State exchanges would keep offering the subsidies (available to families of four making up to $95,000 per year), and many Americans who harbor deep suspicion of the ACA would come to see the safety these subsidies provide.

The politics are inexorable. The Congressional Budget Office projected last April that exchange enrollment will quadruple over the next three years, to 25 million people in 2017, three-fourths of whom will receive subsidies (assuming their availability on both federal and state exchanges). Most of them will gain coverage (and subsidies) through federal exchanges. That's a formidable constituency to cross by wrecking the federal exchanges. State governors and legislators, even those with Tea Party sympathies, would face strong pressure to step into the breach by creating state exchanges.

Add to this the likely pressure from hospitals and insurers, two industries with huge clout in state politics. They'd face large revenue losses if the federal exchanges collapse, and they'd be motivated to use their clout to undo these losses by demanding the startup of state exchanges.

It's a classic American story -- a new social safety-net program seen through a glass darkly -- until people come to know and rely upon it. Distrust and ideological objections beset both Social Security (in the 1930s) and Medicare (in the 1960s), but each eventually became part of the fabric of American life.

Opponents of publicly-supported medical coverage for all understand this. Twenty years ago, Republican guru Bill Kristol warned party leaders (who were planning to strike a deal with President Clinton on health care reform) that anything short of "unqualified political defeat" for the Clinton health reforms would court disaster for Republicans. The Clinton plan, he wrote in a December 1993 memo, would addict Americans to a "new government dependency," establish Democrats as "generous protector(s) of middle-class interests," and thus "strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

Congressional Republicans embraced this logic, crushed the Clinton reforms, and retook the House of Representatives months later (in 1994) for the first time in 40 years. The same logic animated their fierce opposition to the ACA's passage. They failed this second time around but didn't quit. "Repeal" became a campaign slogan. Hiccups in the law's implementation (e.g. the initial failures of www.healthcare.gov, the website for federal exchanges ) became proof of its unworkability. And Tea-Party-friendly state officials refused to expand Medicaid to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line, though the federal government would have covered virtually the full cost.

The legal campaign against the ACA is an adjunct to this attack. It's at times been grounded in libertarian principle -- e.g. my Georgetown Law colleague Randy Barnett's argument that the federal constitutional power to "regulate commerce" doesn't authorize the individual mandate. But much of this campaign is ill-concealed politics.

The D.C. Circuit's decision last month to bar access to subsidies via federal insurance exchanges is a case in point. To reach the issue, the majority needed to find that the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) permitted the plaintiffs to sue. This posed no small challenge since the Act permits suits only when there is "no other adequate remedy in a court." The plaintiffs (who objected to tax penalties they'd have to pay if subsidies became available via the federal exchanges) could have paid the penalties, then sued for a refund. So to allow the plaintiffs' case to go forward, the majority needed to say that suing for a refund wasn't an "adequate remedy."

The majority did so through shameless inconsistency. The APA's provision for lawsuits to challenge government action, it said, deserves "hospitable interpretation" -- only "clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent" could justify finding that a suit for a refund was "adequate." Since those who enacted the APA in 1946 didn't speak to the Affordable Care Act's tax penalties, there wasn't "contrary legislative intent"; thus the D.C. Circuit could consider the plaintiffs' claim.

Shrewd lawyering: in President Truman's time, Congress failed to predict Obamacare. But when the majority turned to the merits, its interpretive stance went from "hospitable" to absurdist. Drafting glitches are common in complex statutes, and the two Republican judges found one. When a state fails to meet the ACA deadline for creating an exchange, the Act instructs the federal government to "establish and operate such Exchange within the State." But the Act offers subsidies for health plans "enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State."

A "hospitable" interpretation would have treated federally and state operated exchanges as equivalent for subsidy purposes, so as to avoid bringing down the federal exchanges. But, of course, bringing down these exchanges was the judges' goal.

The politics here is raw. It requires absurdism of a different sort to say that the choice between "hospitable interpretation" and judicial take-down of a messy statute isn't driven by ideology or partisan allegiance. I'm reminded of an old standby from high school physics: all the air molecules in a room could coincidently make their way to one side, doubling the pressure in one half of the room while leaving a vacuum in the other. It never happens, because this accident is too improbable; ditto for the claim that judges' political leanings and verdicts on the ACA correlate by coincidence.

But judicial take-down of the ACA will fail. The process that Republicans averted two decades ago is underway -- and irreversible: The ACA is becoming part of American expectations. Already, 12 million more people are insured because of the ACA; this number will rise to nearly 20 million next year and to 25 million in 2016, according to the CBO. Financial and political pressure is mounting on recalcitrant states to accept federal funds for expanding Medicaid, which would cover millions more. Tracking polls haven't yet shown an uptick in the ACA's favorability ratings, but this will happen as millions of Americans (and their friends and loved ones) discover the security their new coverage provides.

Principled legal arguments can sail against political winds, but the barely-veiled politics practiced by the federal bench's ACA rejectionists can't and won't. The rejectionists' ranks are thinning: Since President Clinton took office, Democratic presidents have made two-thirds of 986 judicial appointments (Clinton, 379; Bush, 328; Obama - 279). Their audacity will wane. The judicial fossil fuel that's powering resistance to the ACA's historic expansion of medical coverage is running low.

ACA dead-enders will stay at it, fighting Medicaid expansion and filing creative, hopeless lawsuits. They'll stop Medicaid expansion in some states, denying coverage to millions of the most needy. But the ACA will survive. In health care policy, the arc of history has taken a decisive turn toward human decency.

I write regularly on subjects at the interface between law, culture, politics and your health. Follow me on Twitter: @greggbloche Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

Zane Benefits Announces a New Resource on Compliance

August 19, 2014, 1:05 pm

≫ Next: Obamacare Risk Corridors Could Cost Taxpayers: NCPA Study Unlimited Compensation Rule for Insurer’s Needs Change

≪ Previous: Why the Courts Won't Kill Obamacare

$

0

0

Guide Helps Businesses and Health Insurance Professionals Understand How to Reimburse Individual Health Insurance in a Compliant Way

Park City, Utah (PRWEB) August 19, 2014

Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published a new guide on compliance and reimbursing individual health insurance.

According to Zane Benefits, small businesses want to offer employee health benefits but the cost of traditional group health insurance is unsustainable. Additionally, there are new advantages to individual health insurance such as choice, portability, guaranteed-issue, and lower costs.

The new guide helps small businesses set up and administer a compliant and tax-preferred premium reimbursement program.

Click here to read the full article.

--

About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.

Obamacare Risk Corridors Could Cost Taxpayers: NCPA Study Unlimited Compensation Rule for Insurer’s Needs Change

August 19, 2014, 1:54 pm

≫ Next: California's health-care safety net under stress, new report says

≪ Previous: Zane Benefits Announces a New Resource on Compliance

$

0

0

Obamacare leaves taxpayers responsible for health insurers' costs.

Dallas, Texas (PRWEB) August 19, 2014

Two provisions in the Affordable Care Act designed to protect insurance companies from unanticipated losses -- reinsurance and risk corridors -- threaten to force taxpayers to cover those losses through 2016, according to a new study from John R. Graham, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

“Taxpayers are on the hook to bail out health insurers which lose money in Obamacare’s health-insurance exchanges,” says Graham. “The law does not even limit taxpayers’ exposure, and no government agency has a credible estimate of how much taxpayers’ money is at risk.”

The Affordable Care Act imposes a number of requirements and restrictions on insurance companies, who stand to lose money if they enroll too many expensive people in their health plans. As such, the ACA established three mechanisms to backstop insurers' risks: risk adjustment, reinsurance and risk corridors.·     The first, risk adjustment, consists of transfers of money from insurers which enroll unexpectedly healthy people to those which enroll unexpectedly sick people. Taxpayers are not at risk.
·     The second, reinsurance, also protects insurers which enroll unexpectedly sick people. Taxpayers’ costs are limited to $25 billion over three years.
·     The third, risk corridors, also last three years. However, instead of protecting insurers against the medical claims of unexpectedly sick people, it protects their profit and loss statements. The statute puts no limit on taxpayers’ liability, and if the Administration refuses to submit to appropriations to fund the risk corridors, it can put unlimited taxpayers’ funds at risk.

“Right now, health insurers are pricing their offerings for Obamacare’s second year based on the Obama Administration’s assurances that taxpayers will prevent them from losing money. Removing this guarantee is necessary to ensure that health insurers bear all the business risk of participating in Obamacare,” explained Graham.

Full text: Risky Business: Will Taxpayers Bail Out Health Insurers?

John R Graham is an experienced, Washington D.C.-based health economist available for interviews or background on national health care policy issues. Video of some of his previous interviews here: http://youtu.be/FVH0t8pYkdk.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. We bring together the best and brightest minds to tackle the country's most difficult public policy problems — in health care, taxes, retirement, education, energy and the environment. Visit our website today for more information. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.