In today's roundup: Health insurance enrollment is way up under the Affordable Care Act, Columbus chefs shut out of the annual James Beard awards, Germain gets the keys to two Dayton auto dealerships, websites match college students with Sugar Daddys who agree to pay tuition, and Ohio ranks poorly in an annual well-being index. Obamacare ascendant The number of Ohioans getting health insurance under the Affordable Care Act jumped big this year. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports new numbers released…
Reported by bizjournals 17 hours ago.
Morning Roundup: Obamacare enrollment way up, Germain drives into new market, Ohio more miserable than Mississippi
↧
↧
Should Employers Be Required To Provide Health Insurance To Their Employees?
The Obamacare mandate for large employers kicks in this year and for smaller employers it kicks in next year. But an increasing number of economists – both on the right and the left -- are saying that mandated health insurance benefits at the work place are a bad idea. Are [...]
Reported by Forbes.com 16 hours ago.
↧
WellCare Hosts Welcome Room Grand Opening in Orlando’s Pine Hills Community
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. invites residents living in and around the Pine Hills community to the grand opening of its newly-opened, Orlando-area Welcome Room.
TAMPA, Fla. (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (NYSE: WCG), a leading provider of managed care services for government-sponsored health care programs, invites residents living in and around the Pine Hills community to the grand opening of its newly-opened, Orlando-area Welcome Room. WellCare’s Welcome Rooms are neighborhood health care information, education and sales centers that are open to the public and staffed by WellCare associates who can answer questions about Medicaid and Medicare. They offer a comfortable environment where visitors can ask questions about health plans, find out if they are eligible for extra benefits, get online to search for more information and enroll in a WellCare health plan.
The event, which takes place on Saturday, Feb. 21 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., will offer valuable community resource information from dozens of organizations, including the Center for Independent Living – Deaf Services, Heritage for the Blind, Early Learning Coalition, Healthy Start, and Safe Kids. It will also feature a ribbon cutting, children’s activities, entertainment and snacks. Local leaders including Orange County Commissioners Regina Hill and Robert Stuart, and West Orange Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, Stina D’Uva will be in attendance.
“Pine Hills and is one of the most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the Orlando area, making it critical for residents to have access to experts who can share health care information in a culturally sensitive manner that can help them make better informed health care decisions for themselves and their families,” said D’Uva. “We thank WellCare for its continued commitment to improving the health and quality of life for those who call Pine Hills home.”
“WellCare is proud to bring this brick and mortar location to the Pine Hills community to make it easier for people to access important health information right where they live and work,” said Gregg MacDonald, president, WellCare of Florida. “We look forward to extending our presence in this community to continue helping Pine Hills residents get access to the tools and services they need to live better, healthier lives.”
The Orlando WellCare Welcome Room is located at 6801 West Colonial Drive, Suite E, Orlando, FL 32818. Call 407-253-7601 for more information about the grand opening.
WellCare now operates 14 Welcome Rooms throughout Florida. They are located in Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Kissimmee, Melbourne, New Port Richey, Ocala, Orlando, Pensacola, Pinellas Park, Spring Hill, Tallahassee, Tampa, West Palm Beach and Winter Haven.
As of Dec. 31, 2014, WellCare serves approximately 720,000 Medicaid plan members, 67,000 Florida Healthy Kids members, 103,000 Medicare Advantage plan members and 62,000 Medicare Prescription Drug Plan in Florida. To learn more about how the company cares for Floridians, watch Moise’s story at http://youtu.be/DmbKu8U7Ea8.
About WellCare Health Plans, Inc.
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. provides managed care services targeted to government-sponsored health care programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, Prescription Drug Plans and the Health Insurance Marketplace. Headquartered in Tampa, Fla., WellCare offers a variety of health plans for families, children, and the aged, blind and disabled. The company serves approximately 4.1 million members nationwide as of Dec. 31, 2014. For more information about WellCare, please visit the company's website at http://www.wellcare.com or view the company’s videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/WellCareHealthPlan. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.
TAMPA, Fla. (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (NYSE: WCG), a leading provider of managed care services for government-sponsored health care programs, invites residents living in and around the Pine Hills community to the grand opening of its newly-opened, Orlando-area Welcome Room. WellCare’s Welcome Rooms are neighborhood health care information, education and sales centers that are open to the public and staffed by WellCare associates who can answer questions about Medicaid and Medicare. They offer a comfortable environment where visitors can ask questions about health plans, find out if they are eligible for extra benefits, get online to search for more information and enroll in a WellCare health plan.
The event, which takes place on Saturday, Feb. 21 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., will offer valuable community resource information from dozens of organizations, including the Center for Independent Living – Deaf Services, Heritage for the Blind, Early Learning Coalition, Healthy Start, and Safe Kids. It will also feature a ribbon cutting, children’s activities, entertainment and snacks. Local leaders including Orange County Commissioners Regina Hill and Robert Stuart, and West Orange Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, Stina D’Uva will be in attendance.
“Pine Hills and is one of the most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the Orlando area, making it critical for residents to have access to experts who can share health care information in a culturally sensitive manner that can help them make better informed health care decisions for themselves and their families,” said D’Uva. “We thank WellCare for its continued commitment to improving the health and quality of life for those who call Pine Hills home.”
“WellCare is proud to bring this brick and mortar location to the Pine Hills community to make it easier for people to access important health information right where they live and work,” said Gregg MacDonald, president, WellCare of Florida. “We look forward to extending our presence in this community to continue helping Pine Hills residents get access to the tools and services they need to live better, healthier lives.”
The Orlando WellCare Welcome Room is located at 6801 West Colonial Drive, Suite E, Orlando, FL 32818. Call 407-253-7601 for more information about the grand opening.
WellCare now operates 14 Welcome Rooms throughout Florida. They are located in Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Kissimmee, Melbourne, New Port Richey, Ocala, Orlando, Pensacola, Pinellas Park, Spring Hill, Tallahassee, Tampa, West Palm Beach and Winter Haven.
As of Dec. 31, 2014, WellCare serves approximately 720,000 Medicaid plan members, 67,000 Florida Healthy Kids members, 103,000 Medicare Advantage plan members and 62,000 Medicare Prescription Drug Plan in Florida. To learn more about how the company cares for Floridians, watch Moise’s story at http://youtu.be/DmbKu8U7Ea8.
About WellCare Health Plans, Inc.
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. provides managed care services targeted to government-sponsored health care programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, Prescription Drug Plans and the Health Insurance Marketplace. Headquartered in Tampa, Fla., WellCare offers a variety of health plans for families, children, and the aged, blind and disabled. The company serves approximately 4.1 million members nationwide as of Dec. 31, 2014. For more information about WellCare, please visit the company's website at http://www.wellcare.com or view the company’s videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/WellCareHealthPlan. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.
↧
Job Seekers Say ‘Show Me the Money’: Compensation Now Trumps Professional Development as Most Effective Recruiting and Retention Tool
According to the recent 'Harris Allied 2014 Tech Hiring and Retention Survey' conducted by executive search firm Harris Allied, respondents affirmed that a competitive compensation and benefits package is now their most important recruiting tool, up 4.4 percent since 2012.
NEW YORK (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
The demand for top technology talent is consistently ranked as the top HR priority for management, but the most effective tool for addressing those needs has changed in recent years. According to the "Harris Allied 2014 Tech Hiring and Retention Survey" conducted by Manhattan-based executive search firm Harris Allied, finding and hiring top talent, along with retention, have ranked as the two greatest concerns among survey respondents since the survey’s inception in 2012. What has changed, however, is the shift in focus from career growth and professional development to compensation and benefits as the most effective recruiting tool. In 2014, according to the survey, 28% of respondents affirmed that a competitive compensation and benefits package was their most important recruiting tool, versus 23.6% in 2012.
According to Kathy Harris, managing director of Harris Allied, “Post 2008, employees are more skeptical about annual bonuses and other forms of non-base salary compensation because many employers did not pay annual bonuses during the recession. As a result, employees now want to see more guaranteed compensation.”
“Whereas opportunities to grow and advance professionally used to entice prospective employees, especially the highest caliber employees, people are more interested now in cash compensation when considering a job change,” adds Harris.
The same can be said for employees who leave jobs because they are offered better compensation elsewhere. According to the survey, the majority of respondents (27.5%) said that they believed that people left their company because they were not offering a competitive enough compensation or benefits package.
Harris offers employers a few suggestions to help their job offers stand apart and reduce employee attrition given the renewed focus on compensation packages:· Make sure your salary and benefits are competitive. Position your total package, including base salary, bonus, equity, as well as retirement and health insurance benefits. In particular, talk about the cash aspect of your comp package and provide historical averages for your bonus structure to demonstrate a good track record.
· Be prepared to discuss your total compensation and benefits package earlier in the game. Don’t wait until you are ready to extend an offer to discuss your compensation plan with candidates. Make sure to talk about the standout features of your package, such as a defined benefit plan, an options pool, equity participation or restricted stock, for example.
· Think about other things that you offer, such as unlimited vacation time or a generous PTO plan, holiday week closures or the ability to work remotely.
· Discuss upfront why people leave or, better yet, don’t leave, your company. Have an elevator speech ready about why it’s great to work at your company and why people don’t leave the company to take a job elsewhere. If attrition is low or your summer interns clamor to come back after graduation, brag about it.
· Find ways to stretch your compensation budget. Large corporations may be less flexible in this regard because their compensation structures are so well defined. Smaller businesses can often be more nimble when competing for top talent. If your purse strings are tied, look at your bonus, restricted stock units (RSU) or options pool to create a compelling offer.
“Attrition can cost the average company with a few hundred employees millions of dollars each year in lost opportunities, increased expenses for consultants, and higher recruiting costs. Given this, employers need to see retention as a strategic initiative. Fight to keep your people, be generous with your bonus plan and always keep an eye on what others in your industry are doing,” Harris adds.
About the Survey
The "Harris Allied 2014 Tech Hiring and Retention Survey" was conducted in November 2014 among 193 executives ranging from C-level to middle-management executives within the information technology sector. Survey participants represent a mix of perspectives ranging from large industry leaders to small start-up companies in the United States, India, Israel and Germany. To see the complete findings of the 2014, 2013 and 2012 surveys, visit http://www.harrisallied.com/Research.html.
About Harris Allied
Headquartered in New York City, Harris Allied provides premier executive search, technology and quant analyst placement services to the financial services, professional services, consumer goods, digital media and tech industries. The firm represents clients that are at a variety of growth stages: from tech start-ups to established industry leaders. Harris Allied’s unique understanding of the technical recruiting process and its nuances ensures that professionals properly brand themselves and prepare for successful interviews and that hiring managers achieve exceptional results. Harris Allied Research conducts industry research and shares data that helps their clients develop informed hiring strategies and efficiently attract and retain top talent. For more information, visit http://www.harrisallied.com. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.
NEW YORK (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
The demand for top technology talent is consistently ranked as the top HR priority for management, but the most effective tool for addressing those needs has changed in recent years. According to the "Harris Allied 2014 Tech Hiring and Retention Survey" conducted by Manhattan-based executive search firm Harris Allied, finding and hiring top talent, along with retention, have ranked as the two greatest concerns among survey respondents since the survey’s inception in 2012. What has changed, however, is the shift in focus from career growth and professional development to compensation and benefits as the most effective recruiting tool. In 2014, according to the survey, 28% of respondents affirmed that a competitive compensation and benefits package was their most important recruiting tool, versus 23.6% in 2012.
According to Kathy Harris, managing director of Harris Allied, “Post 2008, employees are more skeptical about annual bonuses and other forms of non-base salary compensation because many employers did not pay annual bonuses during the recession. As a result, employees now want to see more guaranteed compensation.”
“Whereas opportunities to grow and advance professionally used to entice prospective employees, especially the highest caliber employees, people are more interested now in cash compensation when considering a job change,” adds Harris.
The same can be said for employees who leave jobs because they are offered better compensation elsewhere. According to the survey, the majority of respondents (27.5%) said that they believed that people left their company because they were not offering a competitive enough compensation or benefits package.
Harris offers employers a few suggestions to help their job offers stand apart and reduce employee attrition given the renewed focus on compensation packages:· Make sure your salary and benefits are competitive. Position your total package, including base salary, bonus, equity, as well as retirement and health insurance benefits. In particular, talk about the cash aspect of your comp package and provide historical averages for your bonus structure to demonstrate a good track record.
· Be prepared to discuss your total compensation and benefits package earlier in the game. Don’t wait until you are ready to extend an offer to discuss your compensation plan with candidates. Make sure to talk about the standout features of your package, such as a defined benefit plan, an options pool, equity participation or restricted stock, for example.
· Think about other things that you offer, such as unlimited vacation time or a generous PTO plan, holiday week closures or the ability to work remotely.
· Discuss upfront why people leave or, better yet, don’t leave, your company. Have an elevator speech ready about why it’s great to work at your company and why people don’t leave the company to take a job elsewhere. If attrition is low or your summer interns clamor to come back after graduation, brag about it.
· Find ways to stretch your compensation budget. Large corporations may be less flexible in this regard because their compensation structures are so well defined. Smaller businesses can often be more nimble when competing for top talent. If your purse strings are tied, look at your bonus, restricted stock units (RSU) or options pool to create a compelling offer.
“Attrition can cost the average company with a few hundred employees millions of dollars each year in lost opportunities, increased expenses for consultants, and higher recruiting costs. Given this, employers need to see retention as a strategic initiative. Fight to keep your people, be generous with your bonus plan and always keep an eye on what others in your industry are doing,” Harris adds.
About the Survey
The "Harris Allied 2014 Tech Hiring and Retention Survey" was conducted in November 2014 among 193 executives ranging from C-level to middle-management executives within the information technology sector. Survey participants represent a mix of perspectives ranging from large industry leaders to small start-up companies in the United States, India, Israel and Germany. To see the complete findings of the 2014, 2013 and 2012 surveys, visit http://www.harrisallied.com/Research.html.
About Harris Allied
Headquartered in New York City, Harris Allied provides premier executive search, technology and quant analyst placement services to the financial services, professional services, consumer goods, digital media and tech industries. The firm represents clients that are at a variety of growth stages: from tech start-ups to established industry leaders. Harris Allied’s unique understanding of the technical recruiting process and its nuances ensures that professionals properly brand themselves and prepare for successful interviews and that hiring managers achieve exceptional results. Harris Allied Research conducts industry research and shares data that helps their clients develop informed hiring strategies and efficiently attract and retain top talent. For more information, visit http://www.harrisallied.com. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.
↧
Recipients of Obamacare Subsidies Could Face Tax Surprise
Filed under: Taxes, Health Insurance, Income Tax, IRS, Tax Laws*Joe Raedle/Getty Images*Most recipients of subsidies when signing up for health insurance via the Affordable Care Act took them as an advance premium tax credit.
By Kira Brecht
If you made more money than expected last year, April 15 could be payback time for the Affordable Care Act subsidies you received to help offset the cost of your monthly health insurance premium.
As many as 6.6 million Americans signed up for health insurance since November 2014 through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. According to TurboTax, approximately 80 percent of people who qualify for a subsidy take it in the form of an advance premium tax credit, which directly lowers the cost of their monthly health insurance premium payments. The amount of the tax credit was paid directly to the insurance company by the government.
In the worst-case scenario, someone is not eligible for the credit, or their income is over the income-based guidelines, and they have to repay the entire credit.
There is a catch, however. The premium subsidy amount is based on your projected income and family size for the year. If you ended up earning more money than expected or had a change in your family in 2014, such as a new baby, your final tax credit could be different. You could be responsible for paying back some or all of the subsidies received.
"If somebody was between jobs or underemployed and qualified for a subsidy, but ended up getting a better paying job and never notified the marketplace, when they file their return, they will get a nasty surprise," says Steve Ribble, founder of Tampa, Florida-based Guardian Accounting Group. "They could end up owing money for the subsidies they received that they didn't qualify for due to their income level."
"In the worst-case scenario, someone is not eligible for the credit, or their income is over the income-based guidelines, and they have to repay the entire credit," says Alison Flores, a principal tax research analyst at The Tax Institute at H&R Block.
There are plenty of life changes that could have triggered a change to your subsidy levels, including changing jobs, getting married, getting divorced or having a baby.
*Who will be affected?* A narrow segment of the population. It is estimated that 80 percent of those buying insurance through an exchange qualified for a health care premium subsidy. "But for those individuals, it has a big tax impact," Flores says.
"The estimated average subsidy is $5,548, which would cover 67 percent of the cost of the average family plan," says Debra Hammer, senior communications manager for ACA with TurboTax (INTU).
*More boxes, more papers.* Even for those Americans with employer-provided health insurance, the 2014 tax filing year is the first year in which taxes and health care coverage intersect. All Americans will need to report their health care status on their 2014 returns. There is a penalty for those who don't have insurance in 2014, totaling $95 a person or 1 percent of your household income.
And if you purchased coverage through the Marketplace, there will be more forms. By early February, expect to receive Form 1095-A, the Health Insurance Marketplace Statement. This form details information you will need when completing Form 8962, which will calculate the amount of your premium tax credit and reconcile it with the advance payments you received.
"There will be more forms, more boxes and more than likely, increased fees you will have to pay to get your taxes done, as accountants and CPAs will charge more for the additional time to fill out the paperwork," Ribble says.
*Doing the numbers.* There could be a silver lining to the added paperwork, however. Some people may have paid too much and will be owed a tax refund.
"The actual premium tax credit for the year will differ from the advance credit amount if your family size and household income as estimated at the time of enrollment are different from the family size and household income you report on your return. If your actual credit on your return is less than your advance credit payments, the difference will be subtracted from your refund or added to your balance due. If your actual credit is more than your advance credit payments, the difference will be added to your refund or subtracted from your balance due," Hammer says.
The government is already trying to sidestep some of the problems surrounding the health care insurance and tax issues, providing limited relief by waiving some penalty fees.
"The IRS just announced that it will provide relief to those who received an excess advanced premium tax credit due to underestimated income or changes in household size that caused them to owe a tax liability that they could not pay," Hammer says. "Those who are impacted will receive relief from the failure-to-pay penalty and underpayment of estimated taxes, but they have to file their 2014 taxes and include the excess advance payment in order to get relief."
*Pick up the phone.* If you are receiving a health insurance subsidy, it is important to be proactive. Many people may not be aware that they need to notify the marketplace about changes in their life. "My perception is that this is very new for people. Things happen and you don't think about your health insurance," Flores says.
"Anytime people have a change -- get married, get divorced, have a child, get a new job -- they should report it to the marketplace," Hammer says.
*Where to get help.* Taxpayers can consult healthcare.gov or irs.gov, or seek assistance from tax preparers. You can also check out TurboTax's guide to health care and taxes for free tools, including subsidy tools and an exemption check.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 16 hours ago.
↧
↧
5 Simple Ways to Save on Your Health Care Costs
Filed under: Health Care, Personal Finance, Health Insurance, How to Save Money, Financial Education*Andy Dean Photography/Shutterstock*
By John Schmoll
Mention the term health care and you're likely to get a variety of responses. Regardless of your political leanings, one thing is for certain -- health care is an expensive necessity in today's economic climate.
According to Statistic Brain, we spend about $10,000 per person on health care costs every year. The good news is that there are ways to reduce those costs if we are purposeful about it. Cutting costs becomes even more important considering smart spending now, on preventative measures, for example, can cut costs down the road, too. Here are some ideas for keeping your own health care costs down:
*1. Take Advantage of Tax Savings*
One of the best ways to save on health care costs comes in the form of a flexible spending account or a health savings account. Both are tax-advantaged accounts that allow you to put aside funds for health care needs. In many cases, your employer may offer matching funds, up to a certain amount. Ultimately, using either the FSA or HSA should reduce your taxes and help you think more like a consumer when it comes to your health care spending.
*2. Try Cheaper Facilities*
Many people don't realize that a fair number of doctors operate at several facilities. The fee to see your doctor will stay the same regardless of where you see him, but the charge assessed by the facility can vary quite a bit. If that's not an option for you, consider other ways to see a doctor. Many grocery stores offer in-store clinics manned by a doctor or nurse. Assuming you're needing to see a doctor for something relatively common, this method can be a great way to save money.
*3. Get a Prescription for Over-the-Counter Drugs*
One drawback to the FSA or HSA is that you can no longer use the funds to purchase over-the-counter drugs. A way around this is to get a prescription from your doctor for medicines that you regularly use, like pain relievers and allergy medication. Just remember to ask for the prescription to be similar to what you're currently taking to avoid any negative impacts.
*4. Get Free Money*
With the advent of more high-deductible health plans, more employers are offering incentives to employees that can result in free money for you. This varies by employer, of course, but usually is in the form of taking a health care assessment in exchange for a certain amount to be put in your HSA.
Some employers also offer free or low-cost weight loss or smoking cessation programs. These programs help your employer save on their costs plus giving you the chance to get in better health.
*5. Get a Cash Discount*
If you've dealt with health insurance much, then you know what a hassle it can be. It can be the same, if not worse, for a doctor's office. Help reduce the hassle by offering to pay cash -- for a discount off your insurance's agreed-upon rate. Not every doctor will offer this but it is well worth asking for, especially if you've not met your deductible yet for the year. If this isn't an option, consider asking for a discount for paying for the entire bill all at once. Again, this may not always work, but can be well worth a simple request.
Health care costs can get out of hand, but with a little creative thinking, there are ways to save money without sacrificing care.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 16 hours ago.
↧
Your Tab's Fattening Up at Your Favorite Casual Restaurants
Filed under: Company News, Inflation, Restaurants, Consumer Issues, Spending*Jeni Marie/Flickr*The Cheesecake Factory is considering a larger price increase than its normal 2 percent.
The restaurant industry is starting to bounce back, but escalating costs across a variety of line items are forcing some chains to consider larger than usual price hikes later this year.
One of the meatier morsels in Cheesecake Factory's (CAKE) quarterly report last week was that it was considering a larger menu price increase than its historical average of 2 percent.
"Looking forward to the second half of the year, while we're always trying to balance capturing guest traffic and offsetting cost pressures, protecting our margins is certainly a priority and we would consider taking more pricing than normal or more than what we have done historically later in the year in light of the cost headwinds, particularly labor wage rates," Cheesecake Factory CFO Doug Benn said during its earnings call.
Higher group medical claims find health insurance expenses moving higher at Cheesecake Factory, but the chain is bracing the market to see it as the new normal.
"We see other restaurant operators that look like they are willing to take a little more price than what they normally have," Benn conceded. "We believe restaurant companies including us will have to consider more pricing in this cost environment as the pace of the economy accelerates."
*Restaurants Are Doing Well, Thank You*
This is shaping up to be a great year for the restaurant industry. The country's improving employment rate finds more people with less time to cook meals at home as well as more of the means to eat out. The drop in gasoline prices is also putting more disposable income in folks' pockets, so they can now afford to hit eateries more often.
The National Restaurant Association sees a record $709.2 billion in industry sales this year, up 3.8 percent from 2014. There will be a total of 14 million jobs in the industry this year, up 3.2 percent from a year earlier. That's the good news. The bad news is that the association also sees costs moving higher this year. Between costs related to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the potential increase of minimum wages, labor costs are on the rise. Somebody has to pay for these developments, and they were just seated in a booth by the window.
Some companies didn't wait until 2015. Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG) kicked in with its first substantial menu price increase in three years in May of last year. Its move was in response to a sharp uptick in costs.
There could be some relief on that front this year. Wholesale food prices may have climbed 25 percent over the past five years, but the association sees pork and dairy prices stabilizing in 2015.
*Chili's, Ruby Tuesday See the Same Thing*
Chili's parent Brinker International (EAT) saw commodity prices spike in its latest quarter, fueled by larger-than-anticipated upticks in the prices of burger meat, avocados and cheese. Even an industry laggard -- Ruby Tuesday (RT) -- finds itself having to pass on the growing costs of doing business to its consumers.
Ruby Tuesday recently updated its guidance on food inflation. It sees food costs climbing 2 percent to 2.5 percent, up from an earlier outlook that was slightly lower.
"We want to make sure that we maintain our value and propositions," Ruby Tuesday CFO Jill Golder said in its most recent earnings call. "We don't expect to price at the same level that you've probably seen some of the competitors [pricing at], but perhaps some incremental pricing in the 1 percent range."
In other words, Ruby Tuesday sees the competition jacking up their prices. It's going for a more modest uptick, but it's still an increase. So, yes, don't be surprised if your tab at the end of the meal is larger than you remembered. You're not alone. Everyone will be paying more.
Motley Fool contributor Rick Munarriz owns shares of The Cheesecake Factory. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Chipotle Mexican Grill. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. Hungry for some good stocks? To read about our favorite high-yielding dividend stocks for any investor, check out our free report.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 16 hours ago.
↧
Attention Solicitor General: Two More Powerful Arguments Against King v Burwell
Commentary on the pending case to destroy subsidies for citizens who purchase insurance on the federal exchanges have all, amazingly, neglected the economic value of the insurance in their calculations of harm.
The government appears to be mounting a case that these plaintiffs are not harmed by the subsidies. But, there is a much more powerful case: that the value of insurance needs to be included in the calculations of economic harm. By that measure, all claims fail.
I, and others, have previously written about the absurdity of the anti-Obamacare litigation (King v Burwell) from the perspective of the entire law, the basis upon which real courts interpret statutes. The evidence that the Roberts Court is a real court and not just another political branch, however, is far from convincing.
Commentary on the case is disturbing because it appears to accept as a given two key premises: i) that plaintiffs' "ideology" precludes measuring their "injury" by their least costly alternative; and, ii) that the literal language of the challenged section itself justifies plaintiffs' case placing the burden on the government to overcome it.
Both premises are false. The Solicitor General should state so emphatically in his oral arguments.
*1. Ideology is No Legal Basis for Plaintiff to Choose More Costly Alternatives.*
Much has been made recently about, shall we say kindly, the "unusual" plaintiffs.
But, even if plaintiffs were not so "unusual", and they would indeed be subject to penalties, their claims of economic damages fail on their face.
The named plaintiff, for example, is David King, 64. [Spoiler alert: Mr. King is a Vietnam Veteran. He probably qualifies for medical care at the VA, in which instance he would have no standing, but that is not the point of this article].
It is not clear how the Act, as interpreted by the agency, injures him. He would receive subsidies of over $273/month to receive health insurance. That insurance has an actuarial benefit of $648/month. His out of pocket expenses are less than the actuarial value of the health care. What is the economic injury?
The response seems to be that Mr. King hates the president and hates the Affordable Care Act, and would not purchase coverage no matter what.
That may be, but that is his problem. It carries no legal weight as a basis for asserting economic damage when a less harmful, indeed economically beneficial, alternative is available to him.
I don't like the stop sign at the corner of my street. I can ignore the sign and pay $50 fines, or I can stop. I am not aware that I can get a traffic court judge to waive my fines because I hate the mayor, or do not believe in stop signs.
If no subsidies were available Mr. King would pay more for his insurance (i.e., he would be harmed by a favorable outcome to his own case, and that would disqualify him as an interested party under the "case or controversy" requirement of the US Constitution).
Or, if there were no subsidies available, he claims, he would not purchase insurance at all and would not pay a penalty if he did not. No money out, but also no insurance. Assuming he remains healthy, or he gets sick but cost-shifts to the rest of us, his net economic harm is zero.
In order to assess whether he is indeed injured by the subsidies, however, , the Court must consider only the minimum "economic harm" Mr. King suffers with the subsidies. If he would choose to subject himself to a greater harm, for whatever reason, that cannot be considered by the Court.
The Solicitor General should answer every hypothetical raised by Justice Scalia (e.g., "suppose he doesn't want to purchase insurance, the Act allows that choice") with the response that once plaintiff decides to take an alternative that is more expensive to him, he cannot claim that additional cost as harm of the Act.
So, what is Mr. King's minimum economic harm from the subsidies? One choice costs him $275/month and purchases health insurance worth $648/month. That cannot be assessed as an economic harm. *Indeed, an economist would assess it as a net economic benefit.* It may be an ideological injury, but the Court cannot take cognizance of that.
The other choice is not to purchase insurance at all. With subsidies available, he may be subject to a penalty. But, that penalty purchases him no insurance, and so an economist would assess that choice as more costly to him.
Here, then, are the economic calculations under different assumptions of Mr. King's actions with and without the subsidies:
i. With subsidies, and his choice not to purchase insurance, he pays a penalty.
ii. With subsidies, and his choice to purchase insurance, he has a net economic gain (actuarial value of the insurance MINUS his out of pocket premium costs).
iii. Without subsidies, and his choice not to purchase insurance, he has zero out of pocket expenses, and his economic gain/loss is zero.
iv. Without subsidies, and his choice to purchase insurance, his premium expenses and the actuarial value of the insurance are (arguably, if the insurance company is not bilking him) the same. His economic gain/loss is again zero.
The only basis upon which he can claim economic harm from the subsidies, compared to no subsidies, is either ignoring the actuarial value of the insurance in (ii) above, or the Court improperly indulging his choice for the more economically harmful alternative in (i) above.
The Court must consider the least costly alternative to determine whether Mr. King is harmed. Clearly, it would be to purchase subsidized insurance that provides him a net economic benefit. That does not mean the Court can, or should, order King to purchase insurance. It does mean that the Court must assess King's economic damages based upon his least harmful alternative--in this case, a net benefit.
The Government may be preparing to argue that Mr. King would owe no penalty because his subsidized insurance would cost more than the penalty. A more powerful argument is that he suffers no economic harm, unless he chooses to inflict it upon himself.
*2. The Absence of "Only", "Solely", "Exclusively".* Although depicted quite differently in the press, the challenged text never uses a limiting adverb such as these. Never, not once.
Congress knows how to make such a provision crystal clear, and has shown that in many other statutes in which it wants to limit the scope of a provision, it adds these or similar adverbs. There are likely thousands of such provisions.
Here are just two examples:
Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt organizations as follows:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. [emphasis added]
Section 271(e) of the "Hatch-Waxman" drug act, provides an exemption against infringement for companies testing patented drugs so long as the activities are:
Solely for the purposes reasonably related to FDA approval.[emphasis added]
So, Congress knows, and has known, how to make its intent known that the requirements of a law are to be narrowly interpreted by including the limiting adverbs. The IRS provision was crafted in 1951; the generic drug provision in 1984, strongly suggesting that Congress has institutional memory for this art of writing laws.
The contested language in the Affordable Care Act that subsidies were available to those enrolled on exchanges established by the states contained no such limiting adverb, suggesting Congress had no such intent. As the rest of law was clearly intended to be broad in scope reforming the health care market, the absence of such limiting adverbs speaks louder than the language itself.
But, there is more.
In 1959 the IRS interpreted the 501(c)4 provision that said, on its face, "exclusively" for the promotion of social welfare, to mean "primarily", i.e., 51%. This interpretation of a provision, even when the limiting adverb is used, has survived for more than half a century. It is the origin of dark money, because qualifying entities can maintain donor anonymity, and all one has had to do to qualify is to argue that 51% of the activities, not "exclusively", just "primarily", are for promoting social welfare.
Lest one thinks this is an anomaly, an agency run amok, the courts themselves have interpreted Section 271 (e) of the Hatch-Waxman Act very broadly, despite the use of "solely", because the purpose of the statute was to provide a "safe harbor" for generic producers to have a cheaper version of the same drug available on the day the owner's patent expires.
So, with respect to legal language embodied in laws, we have learned:
i) When Congress wants to limit a provision, especially in a law that speaks otherwise in its intent and scope, it knows how to do it, and has done it over decades, by using limiting adverbs: "solely", "exclusively", "only"; but,
ii) In the contested language of the Affordable Care Act, no such words were used; and,iii) Even when the limiting adverbs are used, both agencies and courts have interpreted provisions in light of the law's broader context, indeed, largely ignoring the limiting adverbs if necessary.
The Solicitor General would do well to make this point at oral argument.
King v Burwell fails because plaintiffs can show no economic harm from the subsidies unless , best case for them, they decide to inflict it upon themselves rather than choosing a better alternative, odious though they may consider that to be. The Courts cannot take cognizance of an individual's ideological beliefs in assessing economic harm from choices offered him.
The textual challenge fails on its face, as Congress made no attempt to indicate its intent to limit subsidies to states by including, as it has in other statutes, limiting adverbs such as "solely", "only", exclusively"; and, there is plenty of precedent for agencies and the courts themselves to interpret language in the context of the law's intent and scope, even when such intent is expressed by Congress.
Of course, all of this is premised on the most tenuous of assumptions: that the Roberts Court is a real court, and not a third chamber of a Republican legislature.
Moreover, if SCOTUS deems choice based upon ideology to be legally cognizable as harm, the floodgates to lawsuits from all sides will be thrown wide open. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
The government appears to be mounting a case that these plaintiffs are not harmed by the subsidies. But, there is a much more powerful case: that the value of insurance needs to be included in the calculations of economic harm. By that measure, all claims fail.
I, and others, have previously written about the absurdity of the anti-Obamacare litigation (King v Burwell) from the perspective of the entire law, the basis upon which real courts interpret statutes. The evidence that the Roberts Court is a real court and not just another political branch, however, is far from convincing.
Commentary on the case is disturbing because it appears to accept as a given two key premises: i) that plaintiffs' "ideology" precludes measuring their "injury" by their least costly alternative; and, ii) that the literal language of the challenged section itself justifies plaintiffs' case placing the burden on the government to overcome it.
Both premises are false. The Solicitor General should state so emphatically in his oral arguments.
*1. Ideology is No Legal Basis for Plaintiff to Choose More Costly Alternatives.*
Much has been made recently about, shall we say kindly, the "unusual" plaintiffs.
But, even if plaintiffs were not so "unusual", and they would indeed be subject to penalties, their claims of economic damages fail on their face.
The named plaintiff, for example, is David King, 64. [Spoiler alert: Mr. King is a Vietnam Veteran. He probably qualifies for medical care at the VA, in which instance he would have no standing, but that is not the point of this article].
It is not clear how the Act, as interpreted by the agency, injures him. He would receive subsidies of over $273/month to receive health insurance. That insurance has an actuarial benefit of $648/month. His out of pocket expenses are less than the actuarial value of the health care. What is the economic injury?
The response seems to be that Mr. King hates the president and hates the Affordable Care Act, and would not purchase coverage no matter what.
That may be, but that is his problem. It carries no legal weight as a basis for asserting economic damage when a less harmful, indeed economically beneficial, alternative is available to him.
I don't like the stop sign at the corner of my street. I can ignore the sign and pay $50 fines, or I can stop. I am not aware that I can get a traffic court judge to waive my fines because I hate the mayor, or do not believe in stop signs.
If no subsidies were available Mr. King would pay more for his insurance (i.e., he would be harmed by a favorable outcome to his own case, and that would disqualify him as an interested party under the "case or controversy" requirement of the US Constitution).
Or, if there were no subsidies available, he claims, he would not purchase insurance at all and would not pay a penalty if he did not. No money out, but also no insurance. Assuming he remains healthy, or he gets sick but cost-shifts to the rest of us, his net economic harm is zero.
In order to assess whether he is indeed injured by the subsidies, however, , the Court must consider only the minimum "economic harm" Mr. King suffers with the subsidies. If he would choose to subject himself to a greater harm, for whatever reason, that cannot be considered by the Court.
The Solicitor General should answer every hypothetical raised by Justice Scalia (e.g., "suppose he doesn't want to purchase insurance, the Act allows that choice") with the response that once plaintiff decides to take an alternative that is more expensive to him, he cannot claim that additional cost as harm of the Act.
So, what is Mr. King's minimum economic harm from the subsidies? One choice costs him $275/month and purchases health insurance worth $648/month. That cannot be assessed as an economic harm. *Indeed, an economist would assess it as a net economic benefit.* It may be an ideological injury, but the Court cannot take cognizance of that.
The other choice is not to purchase insurance at all. With subsidies available, he may be subject to a penalty. But, that penalty purchases him no insurance, and so an economist would assess that choice as more costly to him.
Here, then, are the economic calculations under different assumptions of Mr. King's actions with and without the subsidies:
i. With subsidies, and his choice not to purchase insurance, he pays a penalty.
ii. With subsidies, and his choice to purchase insurance, he has a net economic gain (actuarial value of the insurance MINUS his out of pocket premium costs).
iii. Without subsidies, and his choice not to purchase insurance, he has zero out of pocket expenses, and his economic gain/loss is zero.
iv. Without subsidies, and his choice to purchase insurance, his premium expenses and the actuarial value of the insurance are (arguably, if the insurance company is not bilking him) the same. His economic gain/loss is again zero.
The only basis upon which he can claim economic harm from the subsidies, compared to no subsidies, is either ignoring the actuarial value of the insurance in (ii) above, or the Court improperly indulging his choice for the more economically harmful alternative in (i) above.
The Court must consider the least costly alternative to determine whether Mr. King is harmed. Clearly, it would be to purchase subsidized insurance that provides him a net economic benefit. That does not mean the Court can, or should, order King to purchase insurance. It does mean that the Court must assess King's economic damages based upon his least harmful alternative--in this case, a net benefit.
The Government may be preparing to argue that Mr. King would owe no penalty because his subsidized insurance would cost more than the penalty. A more powerful argument is that he suffers no economic harm, unless he chooses to inflict it upon himself.
*2. The Absence of "Only", "Solely", "Exclusively".* Although depicted quite differently in the press, the challenged text never uses a limiting adverb such as these. Never, not once.
Congress knows how to make such a provision crystal clear, and has shown that in many other statutes in which it wants to limit the scope of a provision, it adds these or similar adverbs. There are likely thousands of such provisions.
Here are just two examples:
Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt organizations as follows:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. [emphasis added]
Section 271(e) of the "Hatch-Waxman" drug act, provides an exemption against infringement for companies testing patented drugs so long as the activities are:
Solely for the purposes reasonably related to FDA approval.[emphasis added]
So, Congress knows, and has known, how to make its intent known that the requirements of a law are to be narrowly interpreted by including the limiting adverbs. The IRS provision was crafted in 1951; the generic drug provision in 1984, strongly suggesting that Congress has institutional memory for this art of writing laws.
The contested language in the Affordable Care Act that subsidies were available to those enrolled on exchanges established by the states contained no such limiting adverb, suggesting Congress had no such intent. As the rest of law was clearly intended to be broad in scope reforming the health care market, the absence of such limiting adverbs speaks louder than the language itself.
But, there is more.
In 1959 the IRS interpreted the 501(c)4 provision that said, on its face, "exclusively" for the promotion of social welfare, to mean "primarily", i.e., 51%. This interpretation of a provision, even when the limiting adverb is used, has survived for more than half a century. It is the origin of dark money, because qualifying entities can maintain donor anonymity, and all one has had to do to qualify is to argue that 51% of the activities, not "exclusively", just "primarily", are for promoting social welfare.
Lest one thinks this is an anomaly, an agency run amok, the courts themselves have interpreted Section 271 (e) of the Hatch-Waxman Act very broadly, despite the use of "solely", because the purpose of the statute was to provide a "safe harbor" for generic producers to have a cheaper version of the same drug available on the day the owner's patent expires.
So, with respect to legal language embodied in laws, we have learned:
i) When Congress wants to limit a provision, especially in a law that speaks otherwise in its intent and scope, it knows how to do it, and has done it over decades, by using limiting adverbs: "solely", "exclusively", "only"; but,
ii) In the contested language of the Affordable Care Act, no such words were used; and,iii) Even when the limiting adverbs are used, both agencies and courts have interpreted provisions in light of the law's broader context, indeed, largely ignoring the limiting adverbs if necessary.
The Solicitor General would do well to make this point at oral argument.
King v Burwell fails because plaintiffs can show no economic harm from the subsidies unless , best case for them, they decide to inflict it upon themselves rather than choosing a better alternative, odious though they may consider that to be. The Courts cannot take cognizance of an individual's ideological beliefs in assessing economic harm from choices offered him.
The textual challenge fails on its face, as Congress made no attempt to indicate its intent to limit subsidies to states by including, as it has in other statutes, limiting adverbs such as "solely", "only", exclusively"; and, there is plenty of precedent for agencies and the courts themselves to interpret language in the context of the law's intent and scope, even when such intent is expressed by Congress.
Of course, all of this is premised on the most tenuous of assumptions: that the Roberts Court is a real court, and not a third chamber of a Republican legislature.
Moreover, if SCOTUS deems choice based upon ideology to be legally cognizable as harm, the floodgates to lawsuits from all sides will be thrown wide open. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
↧
Kids Get Hurt By Anthem Security Breach
Filed under: Identity Theft, Consumer Issues, Ripoffs & Scams, Internet FraudWhen hackers broke into systems of Anthem, a major health insurance company, earlier this month in a "very sophisticated" cyberattack, an estimated 80 million people suddenly became victims. The compromised information included names, birthdates, email address, employment details, Social Security numbers, incomes and street addresses, as The Associated Press reported.
Over the weeks, the implications of the action have continued to grow. As "Today" noted, the victims include tens of millions of children who are listed on their parents' insurance, putting the young people at a real risk of identity theft.
Criminals will use those stolen Social Security numbers to open accounts, get medical treatment, commit tax fraud, you name it.
"Criminals will use those stolen Social Security numbers to open accounts, get medical treatment, commit tax fraud, you name it," said Adam Levin, chairman and founder of IDentityTheft 911, to Today. Another expert was unaware of any other breach of this much personal data in history.
Children are at particular risk of identity theft because their information is more valuable to criminals. Because there is no history and typically no previous credit applications, it is far easier to fraudulently create identities. The criminals, who will likely have purchased the information from the original hackers, can use the identities whole or take the critical Social Security numbers and match them with other names and addresses, creating synthetic identities.
Because children have typically not yet applied for credit, there is no organic way for them or their parents to recognize that something wrong is happening. Particularly with synthetic identities, the families are unlikely to receive any notification that the Social Security numbers have been used. It can take years for the damage to come to light, usually when the victim comes of age, tries to apply for credit, and is turned down because of defaulted payments of the criminals.
In addition, medical identity theft is a burgeoning problem. Criminals use not only a Social Security number, but insurance numbers to gain treatment and leave the victim saddled with the bills and a health record that is no longer accurate because of the other person's information is now included. People may find care providers contacting them for payment of services provided, see a reduction of allowable benefits that were "used," and even receive incorrect medical diagnoses because of the unrelated information now included in the medical record.
The Identity Theft Resource Center offers a list of red flags that someone may have compromised the identity of their children. They include:
· Collection agency calls or letters for the children.
· Pre-approved credit card offers if the children never had bank accounts.
· Notice to your child of a traffic violation warrant or notification of overdue taxes.
· Denial of government benefits because the Social Security number is listed as having already received them.
· Notification from the IRS that a dependent's name or Social Security number already appears on someone else's tax form.
According to Kiplinger, there are some steps the parents can take. Check credit reports of you and your children with all three credit reporting agencies: Experian, Equifax (EFX) and TransUnion. If your child is over 13, you can do this through the website AnnualCreditReport.com. If under 13, you'll need to make the request in writing, including such information as a certified copy of the birth certificate, a copy of the child's Social Security card, a copy of your driver's license, and a copy of a current utility bill with your current address.
Because it can take so long for identity theft to become obvious, you'll need to monitor the credit accords of a child for the foreseeable future. Consider putting a security freeze on the credit records at all three agencies so no one can apply for credit under the Social Security number without alerting someone. And keep watching the mail for bills, notifications, or anything else out of place addressed to the children.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 14 hours ago.
Over the weeks, the implications of the action have continued to grow. As "Today" noted, the victims include tens of millions of children who are listed on their parents' insurance, putting the young people at a real risk of identity theft.
Criminals will use those stolen Social Security numbers to open accounts, get medical treatment, commit tax fraud, you name it.
"Criminals will use those stolen Social Security numbers to open accounts, get medical treatment, commit tax fraud, you name it," said Adam Levin, chairman and founder of IDentityTheft 911, to Today. Another expert was unaware of any other breach of this much personal data in history.
Children are at particular risk of identity theft because their information is more valuable to criminals. Because there is no history and typically no previous credit applications, it is far easier to fraudulently create identities. The criminals, who will likely have purchased the information from the original hackers, can use the identities whole or take the critical Social Security numbers and match them with other names and addresses, creating synthetic identities.
Because children have typically not yet applied for credit, there is no organic way for them or their parents to recognize that something wrong is happening. Particularly with synthetic identities, the families are unlikely to receive any notification that the Social Security numbers have been used. It can take years for the damage to come to light, usually when the victim comes of age, tries to apply for credit, and is turned down because of defaulted payments of the criminals.
In addition, medical identity theft is a burgeoning problem. Criminals use not only a Social Security number, but insurance numbers to gain treatment and leave the victim saddled with the bills and a health record that is no longer accurate because of the other person's information is now included. People may find care providers contacting them for payment of services provided, see a reduction of allowable benefits that were "used," and even receive incorrect medical diagnoses because of the unrelated information now included in the medical record.
The Identity Theft Resource Center offers a list of red flags that someone may have compromised the identity of their children. They include:
· Collection agency calls or letters for the children.
· Pre-approved credit card offers if the children never had bank accounts.
· Notice to your child of a traffic violation warrant or notification of overdue taxes.
· Denial of government benefits because the Social Security number is listed as having already received them.
· Notification from the IRS that a dependent's name or Social Security number already appears on someone else's tax form.
According to Kiplinger, there are some steps the parents can take. Check credit reports of you and your children with all three credit reporting agencies: Experian, Equifax (EFX) and TransUnion. If your child is over 13, you can do this through the website AnnualCreditReport.com. If under 13, you'll need to make the request in writing, including such information as a certified copy of the birth certificate, a copy of the child's Social Security card, a copy of your driver's license, and a copy of a current utility bill with your current address.
Because it can take so long for identity theft to become obvious, you'll need to monitor the credit accords of a child for the foreseeable future. Consider putting a security freeze on the credit records at all three agencies so no one can apply for credit under the Social Security number without alerting someone. And keep watching the mail for bills, notifications, or anything else out of place addressed to the children.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 14 hours ago.
↧
↧
Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises in the US Industry Market Research Report Now Available from IBISWorld
A large number of franchisees have joined the industry in an attempt to capitalize on a number of positive upstream trends that are driving demand for pharmacies and drug stores nationwide. For these reasons, industry research firm IBISWorld has added a report on the Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry to its growing industry report collection.
New York, NY (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
The Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry is composed of operators that retail to customers a range of prescription and over-the-counter medications, beauty items, toiletries and consumable goods. Operators in this industry are not independent pharmacies or drug stores. They are retail locations that operate under franchise agreements that dictate the terms and conditions under which these retailers market themselves and operate. Over the past five years, the industry has undergone vivacious growth.
A large number of franchisees have joined the industry in an attempt to capitalize on a number of positive upstream trends that are driving demand for pharmacies and drug stores nationwide. For example, healthcare reform has increased the number of Americans with private health insurance; the number of adults aged 65 and older, the industry's largest demographic, has grown considerably over the past five years; per capita disposable income has increased over the period; and federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid has exhibited robust growth as well. According to IBISWorld Industry Analyst Farrell McKenna, “though industry growth has been robust, franchisees have still contended with rising external competition from national retail chains and big-box merchandisers, as well as cost pressures from Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).” These factors are expected to hinder future growth for the industry.
Over the five years to 2020, the Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry is expected to grow at a more muted rate. “The underlying positive trends that drove industry growth over the past five years will continue to be a boon for industry operators,” says Mckenna. However, the leading franchisors, McKesson Corporation and Cardinal Health, which have exhibited explosive growth in recent years, are expected to reach a point of relative saturation in which it becomes increasingly difficult to compete amid rising costs from PBMs and price-based competition from big-box retailers and national pharmacy chains.
For more information, visit IBISWorld’s Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises in the US industry report page.
Follow IBISWorld on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/IBISWorld
Friend IBISWorld on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/IBISWorld/121347533189
IBISWorld industry Report Key Topics
The Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry retails a range of prescription and over-the-counter medications, beauty items, toiletries and consumable goods directly to consumers. Reports in our Business Franchise collection focus solely on the operation of franchised outlets and exclude non-franchise data. They show the total number of franchise outlets, total franchise revenue and the average profit margin earned by franchisees. Our reports also highlight the largest franchisors by market share.
Industry Performance
Executive Summary
Key External Drivers
Current Performance
Industry Outlook
Industry Life Cycle
Products & Markets
Supply Chain
Products & Services
Major Markets
Globalization & Trade
Business Locations
Competitive Landscape
Market Share Concentration
Key Success Factors
Cost Structure Benchmarks
Barriers to Entry
Major Companies
Operating Conditions
Capital Intensity
Key Statistics
Industry Data
Annual Change
Key Ratios
About IBISWorld Inc.
Recognized as the nation’s most trusted independent source of industry and market research, IBISWorld offers a comprehensive database of unique information and analysis on every US industry. With an extensive online portfolio, valued for its depth and scope, the company equips clients with the insight necessary to make better business decisions. Headquartered in Los Angeles, IBISWorld serves a range of business, professional service and government organizations through more than 10 locations worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.ibisworld.com or call 1-800-330-3772. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.
New York, NY (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
The Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry is composed of operators that retail to customers a range of prescription and over-the-counter medications, beauty items, toiletries and consumable goods. Operators in this industry are not independent pharmacies or drug stores. They are retail locations that operate under franchise agreements that dictate the terms and conditions under which these retailers market themselves and operate. Over the past five years, the industry has undergone vivacious growth.
A large number of franchisees have joined the industry in an attempt to capitalize on a number of positive upstream trends that are driving demand for pharmacies and drug stores nationwide. For example, healthcare reform has increased the number of Americans with private health insurance; the number of adults aged 65 and older, the industry's largest demographic, has grown considerably over the past five years; per capita disposable income has increased over the period; and federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid has exhibited robust growth as well. According to IBISWorld Industry Analyst Farrell McKenna, “though industry growth has been robust, franchisees have still contended with rising external competition from national retail chains and big-box merchandisers, as well as cost pressures from Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).” These factors are expected to hinder future growth for the industry.
Over the five years to 2020, the Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry is expected to grow at a more muted rate. “The underlying positive trends that drove industry growth over the past five years will continue to be a boon for industry operators,” says Mckenna. However, the leading franchisors, McKesson Corporation and Cardinal Health, which have exhibited explosive growth in recent years, are expected to reach a point of relative saturation in which it becomes increasingly difficult to compete amid rising costs from PBMs and price-based competition from big-box retailers and national pharmacy chains.
For more information, visit IBISWorld’s Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises in the US industry report page.
Follow IBISWorld on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/IBISWorld
Friend IBISWorld on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/IBISWorld/121347533189
IBISWorld industry Report Key Topics
The Pharmacy and Drug Store Franchises industry retails a range of prescription and over-the-counter medications, beauty items, toiletries and consumable goods directly to consumers. Reports in our Business Franchise collection focus solely on the operation of franchised outlets and exclude non-franchise data. They show the total number of franchise outlets, total franchise revenue and the average profit margin earned by franchisees. Our reports also highlight the largest franchisors by market share.
Industry Performance
Executive Summary
Key External Drivers
Current Performance
Industry Outlook
Industry Life Cycle
Products & Markets
Supply Chain
Products & Services
Major Markets
Globalization & Trade
Business Locations
Competitive Landscape
Market Share Concentration
Key Success Factors
Cost Structure Benchmarks
Barriers to Entry
Major Companies
Operating Conditions
Capital Intensity
Key Statistics
Industry Data
Annual Change
Key Ratios
About IBISWorld Inc.
Recognized as the nation’s most trusted independent source of industry and market research, IBISWorld offers a comprehensive database of unique information and analysis on every US industry. With an extensive online portfolio, valued for its depth and scope, the company equips clients with the insight necessary to make better business decisions. Headquartered in Los Angeles, IBISWorld serves a range of business, professional service and government organizations through more than 10 locations worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.ibisworld.com or call 1-800-330-3772. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.
↧
2.1 million people enrolled in New York's health insurance exchange
A total of 2.1 million people in New York state enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, called exchanges. That is according to the latest numbers following last Sunday's deadline to sign up for health insurance coverage for 2015. Still, the data show limited participation among small business despite an effort to boost that segment. State Department of Health officials did not return a request for details about that segment, called the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP. Figures…
Reported by bizjournals 14 hours ago.
↧
Occupational Therapists in the US Industry Market Research Report from IBISWorld Has Been Updated
Occupational therapists have benefited in recent years from increased insurance coverage of their services. For this reason, industry research firm IBISWorld has updated a report on the Occupational Therapists industry in its growing industry report collection.
New York, NY (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
Healthcare reform has benefited the Occupational Therapists industry in the past five years by requiring Medicare and Medicaid to cover preventive services, which may include occupational therapy (OT). Overall, Medicare and Medicaid cover OT for beneficiaries, so long as industry services are required to prevent, diagnose or treat an injury, condition or illness. States that have expanded Medicaid eligibility have been required to cover OT as an essential health benefit (EHB). According to IBISWorld Industry Analyst Sarah Turk, “Occupational therapists have been able to provide rehabilitative services, even if private health insurers did not cover this service in previous years, effectively expanding the industry's scope of care.” However, in 2015, Medicare's coverage of occupational therapy is capped at $1,940, constraining the industry's revenue growth.
In 2012, many states adopted EHB benchmark plans, with each state choosing its own model for services covered by small group and individual health insurance plans. Thanks to autism reform legislation, 40 states now require health insurers to cover OT for patients with autism, providing a boon to the industry. During the five years to 2015, industry revenue is expected to grow moderately, partly due to the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. This law, effective through March 31, 2015, has extended the exemption process for Medicare beneficiaries that have exceeded their outpatient therapy cap. “Profit is expected to rise, driven by the expansion in many states of coverage for industry services,” says Turk. “However, therapy caps and malpractice claims have still pressured industry profitability.”
During the five years to 2020, industry revenue is forecast to grow more quickly. The burgeoning elderly population will bolster demand for industry services, namely OT for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and arthritis as well as stroke patients. As healthcare insurance providers seek to cut costs, many will provide favorable reimbursements for noninvasive outpatient treatment options, including OT.
For more information, visit IBISWorld’s Occupational Therapists in the US industry report page.
Follow IBISWorld on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/IBISWorld
Friend IBISWorld on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/IBISWorld/121347533189
IBISWorld industry Report Key Topics
This industry includes independent health practitioners who help individuals with physical, mental or developmental conditions with daily living and working through everyday activities (occupations). More specifically, occupational therapy includes: helping children with disabilities to participate fully in school and social situations; helping individuals recovering from injury to regain skills; and providing support for individuals experiencing physical and cognitive changes.
Industry Performance
Executive Summary
Key External Drivers
Current Performance
Industry Outlook
Industry Life Cycle
Products & Markets
Supply Chain
Products & Services
Major Markets
Globalization & Trade
Business Locations
Competitive Landscape
Market Share Concentration
Key Success Factors
Cost Structure Benchmarks
Barriers to Entry
Major Companies
Operating Conditions
Capital Intensity
Key Statistics
Industry Data
Annual Change
Key Ratios
About IBISWorld Inc.
Recognized as the nation’s most trusted independent source of industry and market research, IBISWorld offers a comprehensive database of unique information and analysis on every US industry. With an extensive online portfolio, valued for its depth and scope, the company equips clients with the insight necessary to make better business decisions. Headquartered in Los Angeles, IBISWorld serves a range of business, professional service and government organizations through more than 10 locations worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.ibisworld.com or call 1-800-330-3772. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.
New York, NY (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
Healthcare reform has benefited the Occupational Therapists industry in the past five years by requiring Medicare and Medicaid to cover preventive services, which may include occupational therapy (OT). Overall, Medicare and Medicaid cover OT for beneficiaries, so long as industry services are required to prevent, diagnose or treat an injury, condition or illness. States that have expanded Medicaid eligibility have been required to cover OT as an essential health benefit (EHB). According to IBISWorld Industry Analyst Sarah Turk, “Occupational therapists have been able to provide rehabilitative services, even if private health insurers did not cover this service in previous years, effectively expanding the industry's scope of care.” However, in 2015, Medicare's coverage of occupational therapy is capped at $1,940, constraining the industry's revenue growth.
In 2012, many states adopted EHB benchmark plans, with each state choosing its own model for services covered by small group and individual health insurance plans. Thanks to autism reform legislation, 40 states now require health insurers to cover OT for patients with autism, providing a boon to the industry. During the five years to 2015, industry revenue is expected to grow moderately, partly due to the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. This law, effective through March 31, 2015, has extended the exemption process for Medicare beneficiaries that have exceeded their outpatient therapy cap. “Profit is expected to rise, driven by the expansion in many states of coverage for industry services,” says Turk. “However, therapy caps and malpractice claims have still pressured industry profitability.”
During the five years to 2020, industry revenue is forecast to grow more quickly. The burgeoning elderly population will bolster demand for industry services, namely OT for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and arthritis as well as stroke patients. As healthcare insurance providers seek to cut costs, many will provide favorable reimbursements for noninvasive outpatient treatment options, including OT.
For more information, visit IBISWorld’s Occupational Therapists in the US industry report page.
Follow IBISWorld on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/IBISWorld
Friend IBISWorld on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/IBISWorld/121347533189
IBISWorld industry Report Key Topics
This industry includes independent health practitioners who help individuals with physical, mental or developmental conditions with daily living and working through everyday activities (occupations). More specifically, occupational therapy includes: helping children with disabilities to participate fully in school and social situations; helping individuals recovering from injury to regain skills; and providing support for individuals experiencing physical and cognitive changes.
Industry Performance
Executive Summary
Key External Drivers
Current Performance
Industry Outlook
Industry Life Cycle
Products & Markets
Supply Chain
Products & Services
Major Markets
Globalization & Trade
Business Locations
Competitive Landscape
Market Share Concentration
Key Success Factors
Cost Structure Benchmarks
Barriers to Entry
Major Companies
Operating Conditions
Capital Intensity
Key Statistics
Industry Data
Annual Change
Key Ratios
About IBISWorld Inc.
Recognized as the nation’s most trusted independent source of industry and market research, IBISWorld offers a comprehensive database of unique information and analysis on every US industry. With an extensive online portfolio, valued for its depth and scope, the company equips clients with the insight necessary to make better business decisions. Headquartered in Los Angeles, IBISWorld serves a range of business, professional service and government organizations through more than 10 locations worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.ibisworld.com or call 1-800-330-3772. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.
↧
Health Insurance Companies Say No To Allowing Addiction Treatment Professionals To Manage Care In NJ
SEABROOK, N.J., Feb. 19, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Feb. 9, Seabrook House representatives traveled to Trenton, NJ, to support bill S2180 as it was presented to the New Jersey Senate Commerce Committee. The bill would require certain health benefits plans to provide...
Reported by PR Newswire 13 hours ago.
↧
↧
The One Percenters: How A Handful Of California Power Brokers Work To Further Inequality
*This piece was originally published on Capital & Main.*
By 2010 California, shaken by recession, found itself in a close race with New Mexico for having the most extreme divide between the richest and middle household incomes. It’s a trend that, five years later, is only worsening. We didn’t arrive at this low point in barely a generation by accident.
The condition of California’s battered middle class is the result of policies paid for by a statewide fraternity of corporations, trade groups, lobbyists and wealthy individuals. Together, they have blocked needed initiatives through a network of Capitol lobbyists, political action committees, think tanks and libertarian advocacy organizations with a national reach.
In Sacramento, the fate of legislation that could most benefit the great majority of Californians is often sealed behind closed doors by corporate and trade lobbying long before a bill can ever see a floor vote. Numbers released this month by California’s Secretary of State showed that, in 2014, top lobbyists representing big oil and gas, the health care industry, utilities, manufacturing and business interests, together outspent organized labor nearly four-to-one ($28.4 million to $7.7 million).
For their $28.4 million, state policy powerbrokers were able, among other things, to block attempts to aid education and increase the average Californians’ quality of life. Their target list is revealing, beginning with a proposed law that would have brought California in line with other petroleum-rich states’ tax policies.
California is the only top-ten oil-producing state without a so-called severance tax and, last year, legislators proposed Senate Bill 1017, which would have instituted a well-head tax on oil and natural gas. The revenue would have been used to roll back tuitions for the state’s public universities and community colleges — once more putting them within reach of students from middle-income families. The other half of the estimated $2 billion in annual revenues would have been divided equally between health and human services programs, and state parks.
But passage of SB 1017 was not to be, in part because of the efforts of the *California Chamber of Commerce*. This perennial powerhouse of corporate influence is known for its yearly “job killer” legislation hit list and has proved one of the most effective forces in perpetuating economic inequality.
In 2014 alone, CalChamber managed to:
· Defeat Assembly Bill 2416, which would have given victims of wage theft a potent legal remedy against unscrupulous employers;· Won Governor Jerry Brown’s veto on SB 25’s attempt to rein in grower stalling tactics in farm labor contract negotiations;· Killed AB 2372, which tried to close a Proposition 13 loophole that has allowed corporations to evade property tax reassessments for more than 35 years;· Helped head off SB 1021, which tried to rectify a 2013 state court decision eliminating higher parcel taxes on corporate land that have funded K-12 school districts, community colleges and other agencies.
An important ally of CalChamber is the powerful *Western States Petroleum Association* (WSPA) and its effective president Catherine Reheis-Boyd. Although it spends much of its Capitol firepower shooting down proposed fracking moratoriums, the association shared a huge role, with CalChamber, in killing SB 1017, the bill to impose an oil severance tax. WSPA financed a constellation of business allies and faux-grassroots organizations that included single-issue “AstroTurf” groups like the Californians Against Higher Oil Taxes.
When it comes to putting profits ahead of the health of Californians, CalChamber sometimes teams up with another ally, the *California Hospital Association* (CHA), whose health care industry lobbyists are major players in Sacramento. In 2014, CalChamber took the lead on defeating AB 2533, a bill designed to allow patients to get urgent care from an out-of-network provider at the same price it would cost them to use an in-network provider.
But it was CHA that spearheaded — and prevailed for the second year running — in killing AB 503, a law that would have given Californians an exact accounting of the hundreds of millions of dollars that nonprofit hospitals are currently writing off as charity care to fulfill their charitable tax exempt status. CHA also successfully brought down SB 1269. That bill would have set hospital service standards in the post-Obamacare landscape, in which some hospitals have been placing acute care patients in lower-standard outpatient observation beds in order to cut costs on Medicare beneficiaries.
* * *
Perhaps the most prominent individuals with a proxy at California’s powerbroker table are the out-of-state brothers who have become synonymous with national income inequality. Together, *Charles and David Koch* have a net worth of around $100 billion (or about $313.58 million for every U.S. man, woman and child), and the pair has made no secret of their willingness to use their bottomless pockets to clear the decks of those opposed to transforming America into a laissez faire corporate Utopia. Just last month, a Koch-funded donor network revealed its intention to spend much of a $889 million fund to tilt races in California and elsewhere during the 2016 election cycle.
A 2012 analysis of the donor network’s Byzantine but highly effective money laundering operations revealed an array of limited-liability companies that dissolved and reappeared under different names, and that swapped funds back and forth. The report stated this system was designed to darken the sources of its cash and allow the network to maintain the appearance of “social welfare” spending as stipulated under its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status.
Some of that money came under the harsh light of California’s Attorney General in 2013, when Kamala Harris slapped two Koch front groups, the Center to Protect Patient Rights and Americans for Responsible Leadership, with a record $1 million fine for violating state election law.
A major clearinghouse for inequality-aimed political money — and a longtime conduit in the national Koch donor network — is *Donors Trust** *(DT), which since 1999 has funneled more than $400 million to a number of far-right think tanks, foundations and advocacy groups. Dubbed “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement,” DT (and its sister trust, Donors Capital Fund), is a “donor advised fund” that offers its wealthy libertarian patrons both anonymity and guarantees of ideological purity by funding assaults on labor unions, climate scientists, public schools and economic regulations of all stripes.
The trust’s California interests are watched over by DT director *William “Jerry” Hume*, CEO of Walnut Creek-based vegetable processing giant Basic American Foods. The little-known Hume, who also sits on the boards of the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and privatized-education promoters the Foundation for Educational Choice, has been a major donor to business-friendly Democrats in Sacramento as well as failed “paycheck protection” ballot measures.
One of Donor Trust’s more prolific clients is the vast, $83 million *State Policy Network* (SPN), which devotes itself to funding a broad spectrum of nominally nonpartisan studies designed to support and fine-tune model laws, created by the pro-corporation American Legislative Exchange Council, for adoption at the statehouse level.
In California, both DT and SPN support such like-minded think tanks as Orange County’s California Public Policy Center and the San Francisco-based* **Pacific Research Institute* (PRI), which may be best known for the omnipresence of its Canadian-citizen president, Sally Pipes, on TV panels and at congressional hearings, inveighing against universal healthcare.
The Golden State, of course, is but one of many battlegrounds in the national inequality war, and that makes its fortunes inextricably linked to brewing battles elsewhere on such powerbroker-pushed initiatives as laws that preempt county and municipal living wage and paid sick leave laws, while allowing those same localities to pass right-to-work statutes in places like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
The entire American public sector workforce may suffer the fate of workers in those states, depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a California case that could overturn an earlier high court decision that had extended to nonunion public sector employees the requirement to pay a fee to the labor organization that is legally required to represent them.
This potentially far-reaching suit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, originated in Orange County and was brought by another Koch affiliate, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights. Last month, Friedrichs lead counsel Michael Carvin (who is also suing to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance subsidies for about five million Americans) petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Should that happen, and the court’s anti-labor majority prevail, America could well find itself transformed into a right-to-work nation at the single stroke of a gavel.
(Bill Raden is a freelance Los Angeles writer.) Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.
By 2010 California, shaken by recession, found itself in a close race with New Mexico for having the most extreme divide between the richest and middle household incomes. It’s a trend that, five years later, is only worsening. We didn’t arrive at this low point in barely a generation by accident.
The condition of California’s battered middle class is the result of policies paid for by a statewide fraternity of corporations, trade groups, lobbyists and wealthy individuals. Together, they have blocked needed initiatives through a network of Capitol lobbyists, political action committees, think tanks and libertarian advocacy organizations with a national reach.
In Sacramento, the fate of legislation that could most benefit the great majority of Californians is often sealed behind closed doors by corporate and trade lobbying long before a bill can ever see a floor vote. Numbers released this month by California’s Secretary of State showed that, in 2014, top lobbyists representing big oil and gas, the health care industry, utilities, manufacturing and business interests, together outspent organized labor nearly four-to-one ($28.4 million to $7.7 million).
For their $28.4 million, state policy powerbrokers were able, among other things, to block attempts to aid education and increase the average Californians’ quality of life. Their target list is revealing, beginning with a proposed law that would have brought California in line with other petroleum-rich states’ tax policies.
California is the only top-ten oil-producing state without a so-called severance tax and, last year, legislators proposed Senate Bill 1017, which would have instituted a well-head tax on oil and natural gas. The revenue would have been used to roll back tuitions for the state’s public universities and community colleges — once more putting them within reach of students from middle-income families. The other half of the estimated $2 billion in annual revenues would have been divided equally between health and human services programs, and state parks.
But passage of SB 1017 was not to be, in part because of the efforts of the *California Chamber of Commerce*. This perennial powerhouse of corporate influence is known for its yearly “job killer” legislation hit list and has proved one of the most effective forces in perpetuating economic inequality.
In 2014 alone, CalChamber managed to:
· Defeat Assembly Bill 2416, which would have given victims of wage theft a potent legal remedy against unscrupulous employers;· Won Governor Jerry Brown’s veto on SB 25’s attempt to rein in grower stalling tactics in farm labor contract negotiations;· Killed AB 2372, which tried to close a Proposition 13 loophole that has allowed corporations to evade property tax reassessments for more than 35 years;· Helped head off SB 1021, which tried to rectify a 2013 state court decision eliminating higher parcel taxes on corporate land that have funded K-12 school districts, community colleges and other agencies.
An important ally of CalChamber is the powerful *Western States Petroleum Association* (WSPA) and its effective president Catherine Reheis-Boyd. Although it spends much of its Capitol firepower shooting down proposed fracking moratoriums, the association shared a huge role, with CalChamber, in killing SB 1017, the bill to impose an oil severance tax. WSPA financed a constellation of business allies and faux-grassroots organizations that included single-issue “AstroTurf” groups like the Californians Against Higher Oil Taxes.
When it comes to putting profits ahead of the health of Californians, CalChamber sometimes teams up with another ally, the *California Hospital Association* (CHA), whose health care industry lobbyists are major players in Sacramento. In 2014, CalChamber took the lead on defeating AB 2533, a bill designed to allow patients to get urgent care from an out-of-network provider at the same price it would cost them to use an in-network provider.
But it was CHA that spearheaded — and prevailed for the second year running — in killing AB 503, a law that would have given Californians an exact accounting of the hundreds of millions of dollars that nonprofit hospitals are currently writing off as charity care to fulfill their charitable tax exempt status. CHA also successfully brought down SB 1269. That bill would have set hospital service standards in the post-Obamacare landscape, in which some hospitals have been placing acute care patients in lower-standard outpatient observation beds in order to cut costs on Medicare beneficiaries.
* * *
Perhaps the most prominent individuals with a proxy at California’s powerbroker table are the out-of-state brothers who have become synonymous with national income inequality. Together, *Charles and David Koch* have a net worth of around $100 billion (or about $313.58 million for every U.S. man, woman and child), and the pair has made no secret of their willingness to use their bottomless pockets to clear the decks of those opposed to transforming America into a laissez faire corporate Utopia. Just last month, a Koch-funded donor network revealed its intention to spend much of a $889 million fund to tilt races in California and elsewhere during the 2016 election cycle.
A 2012 analysis of the donor network’s Byzantine but highly effective money laundering operations revealed an array of limited-liability companies that dissolved and reappeared under different names, and that swapped funds back and forth. The report stated this system was designed to darken the sources of its cash and allow the network to maintain the appearance of “social welfare” spending as stipulated under its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status.
Some of that money came under the harsh light of California’s Attorney General in 2013, when Kamala Harris slapped two Koch front groups, the Center to Protect Patient Rights and Americans for Responsible Leadership, with a record $1 million fine for violating state election law.
A major clearinghouse for inequality-aimed political money — and a longtime conduit in the national Koch donor network — is *Donors Trust** *(DT), which since 1999 has funneled more than $400 million to a number of far-right think tanks, foundations and advocacy groups. Dubbed “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement,” DT (and its sister trust, Donors Capital Fund), is a “donor advised fund” that offers its wealthy libertarian patrons both anonymity and guarantees of ideological purity by funding assaults on labor unions, climate scientists, public schools and economic regulations of all stripes.
The trust’s California interests are watched over by DT director *William “Jerry” Hume*, CEO of Walnut Creek-based vegetable processing giant Basic American Foods. The little-known Hume, who also sits on the boards of the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and privatized-education promoters the Foundation for Educational Choice, has been a major donor to business-friendly Democrats in Sacramento as well as failed “paycheck protection” ballot measures.
One of Donor Trust’s more prolific clients is the vast, $83 million *State Policy Network* (SPN), which devotes itself to funding a broad spectrum of nominally nonpartisan studies designed to support and fine-tune model laws, created by the pro-corporation American Legislative Exchange Council, for adoption at the statehouse level.
In California, both DT and SPN support such like-minded think tanks as Orange County’s California Public Policy Center and the San Francisco-based* **Pacific Research Institute* (PRI), which may be best known for the omnipresence of its Canadian-citizen president, Sally Pipes, on TV panels and at congressional hearings, inveighing against universal healthcare.
The Golden State, of course, is but one of many battlegrounds in the national inequality war, and that makes its fortunes inextricably linked to brewing battles elsewhere on such powerbroker-pushed initiatives as laws that preempt county and municipal living wage and paid sick leave laws, while allowing those same localities to pass right-to-work statutes in places like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
The entire American public sector workforce may suffer the fate of workers in those states, depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a California case that could overturn an earlier high court decision that had extended to nonunion public sector employees the requirement to pay a fee to the labor organization that is legally required to represent them.
This potentially far-reaching suit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, originated in Orange County and was brought by another Koch affiliate, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights. Last month, Friedrichs lead counsel Michael Carvin (who is also suing to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance subsidies for about five million Americans) petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Should that happen, and the court’s anti-labor majority prevail, America could well find itself transformed into a right-to-work nation at the single stroke of a gavel.
(Bill Raden is a freelance Los Angeles writer.) Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.
↧
Fitch: Healthcare Jobs Grew Faster in ACA Expansion States
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The states that expanded health insurance access under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have seen substantially faster growth in healthcare jobs than those that did not since the first expansions began last January. If this trend continues, Fitch Ratings says it could support a broader economic and tax base for state budgets and improve nonprofit hospital finances in those states. The gains in healthcare jobs suggest that ACA expansion is generally positive for that sect
Reported by Business Wire 11 hours ago.
↧
Wisconsin's Obamacare-marketplace enrollment 47% higher this year
The online Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange in Wisconsin added 23,258 enrollees the last two weeks before the Feb. 15 deadline to reach nearly 206,000 for the 2015 health plan year. The 205,839 enrollees in Wisconsin exceeded the figure in 2014, which was the first year of the program, by 47.2 percent. Enrollment in 2014 was 139,815. In the Milwaukee-Waukesha metro area, 52,115 people enrolled for 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The federal government…
Reported by bizjournals 11 hours ago.
↧
Provider-Led Health Plans Make a Comeback; AIS Newsletter Takes a Look at Their History
As more provider-led health plans offer coverage on public exchanges, industry observers discuss the history of these insurers in the February 2015 issue of Atlantic Information Services’ Inside Health Insurance Exchanges.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
Provider-led health plans (PLHPs) have a long and checkered past. But with the amount of PLHPs on the rise — for the 2015 plan year, 75 PLHPs offered coverage on public exchanges, an increase of 10 from last year, according to AIS’s Directory of Health Plans — they’re now in a position to win market share and alter the health insurance landscape, say industry observers interviewed for the February 2015 issue of Atlantic Information Services, Inc.’s Inside Health Insurance Exchanges (HEX). Others predict history will repeat itself.
Three decades ago, and again in the 1990s, hospital systems around the country began to launch their own health insurance entities, but few survived. Many of them failed because they didn’t understand what went into operating an efficient health plan, industry consultant Joe Paduda, who worked for an HMO consulting company in the 1980s, told HEX. “There was a degree of arrogance on the part of providers. And there is a real risk that providers today suffer from that same ailment,” he asserts. Another problem was that hospital executives didn’t understand the difference between patients and members, enrolling the sickest and most frequent visitors into their HMO, which created a pool of bad risk. And, unlike large health plans, they didn’t have enough funding to counter the high risk; hospital systems of years past were much smaller than they are currently. “They didn’t understand how to price [their coverage] to make sure they had sufficient resources,” Rick Corcoran, an audit partner at KPMG who works with both payers and providers, told HEX.
But a variety of factors now make PLHPs a viable option for hospital systems, namely dramatic improvements in technology, Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations (the elimination of medical underwriting and the creation of public insurance exchanges), a financial market with low interest rates, and a health care market more comfortable with restricted provider networks. Also different is the level of health insurance experience among PLHP executives, with most having worked for one or more large health insurance companies.
Visit http://aishealth.com/archive/nhex0215-02 to read the article in its entirety and to see a table ranking the top 25 PLHPs by medical membership, including the percentage of their enrollees that came from public insurance exchanges.
About Inside Health Insurance Exchanges
Inside Health Insurance Exchanges provides hard-hitting news and strategies on public and private health insurance exchanges, written for business leaders with health plans, pharma companies, hospitals and health systems, brokers and agents, and exchange managers and vendors. The newsletter delivers reliable intelligence on this critical cornerstone of health reform — the players and their partners, product designs and enrollment results, employer perspectives and much more. Visit http://aishealth.com/marketplace/inside-health-insurance-exchanges for more information.
About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for more than 25 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals, health plans, medical group practices, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, websites, looseleafs, books, strategic reports, databases, webinars and conferences. Learn more at http://AISHealth.com. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
Provider-led health plans (PLHPs) have a long and checkered past. But with the amount of PLHPs on the rise — for the 2015 plan year, 75 PLHPs offered coverage on public exchanges, an increase of 10 from last year, according to AIS’s Directory of Health Plans — they’re now in a position to win market share and alter the health insurance landscape, say industry observers interviewed for the February 2015 issue of Atlantic Information Services, Inc.’s Inside Health Insurance Exchanges (HEX). Others predict history will repeat itself.
Three decades ago, and again in the 1990s, hospital systems around the country began to launch their own health insurance entities, but few survived. Many of them failed because they didn’t understand what went into operating an efficient health plan, industry consultant Joe Paduda, who worked for an HMO consulting company in the 1980s, told HEX. “There was a degree of arrogance on the part of providers. And there is a real risk that providers today suffer from that same ailment,” he asserts. Another problem was that hospital executives didn’t understand the difference between patients and members, enrolling the sickest and most frequent visitors into their HMO, which created a pool of bad risk. And, unlike large health plans, they didn’t have enough funding to counter the high risk; hospital systems of years past were much smaller than they are currently. “They didn’t understand how to price [their coverage] to make sure they had sufficient resources,” Rick Corcoran, an audit partner at KPMG who works with both payers and providers, told HEX.
But a variety of factors now make PLHPs a viable option for hospital systems, namely dramatic improvements in technology, Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations (the elimination of medical underwriting and the creation of public insurance exchanges), a financial market with low interest rates, and a health care market more comfortable with restricted provider networks. Also different is the level of health insurance experience among PLHP executives, with most having worked for one or more large health insurance companies.
Visit http://aishealth.com/archive/nhex0215-02 to read the article in its entirety and to see a table ranking the top 25 PLHPs by medical membership, including the percentage of their enrollees that came from public insurance exchanges.
About Inside Health Insurance Exchanges
Inside Health Insurance Exchanges provides hard-hitting news and strategies on public and private health insurance exchanges, written for business leaders with health plans, pharma companies, hospitals and health systems, brokers and agents, and exchange managers and vendors. The newsletter delivers reliable intelligence on this critical cornerstone of health reform — the players and their partners, product designs and enrollment results, employer perspectives and much more. Visit http://aishealth.com/marketplace/inside-health-insurance-exchanges for more information.
About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for more than 25 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals, health plans, medical group practices, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, websites, looseleafs, books, strategic reports, databases, webinars and conferences. Learn more at http://AISHealth.com. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.
↧
↧
As the School Year Approaches Once Again, Top Insurance Lawyer, Frank N. Darras, Suggests Parents Review Health and Disability Insurance Policies
Soon, children will head back to school. Parents should double-check insurance policies to ensure they have adequate coverage for the school year ahead, says Frank N. Darras of DarrasLaw.
Ontario, CA (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
Parents need to remember a lot of things when it comes time for kids to head back to school. There are school supplies to purchase, lunches to prepare, and also immunizations and other health requirements to schedule.
Most schools these days require up-to-date immunizations and doctor’s exams before they will allow the child to attend school. By keeping an active health insurance plan, families can provide their children with regular doctor’s appointments without breaking the bank. Health care insurance can be expensive but being caught without it can leave some people in debt for a long, long time. (USA.gov, Back to School)
If a family cannot afford a health insurance policy, there are other options to pursue for their children. Every year, the government offers Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for millions of children in low-income families. “The federal government sets minimum guidelines for Medicaid eligibility but states can choose to expand coverage beyond the minimum threshold. All states have done so for children – the average CHIP income eligibility level for children is 241% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL),” (Children: Medicaid.gov, July 2014).
“Parents also need to think about themselves and I don’t want anyone to forget how important a disability insurance policy can be, especially if you have kids,” states Frank N. Darras, America’s top disability insurance lawyer.“The disability policy will provide you benefits if you are injured or sick but keep in mind how your children will be affected before you say no. If you are not able to go to work, you’ll still need to put food on the table and get their clothes for the school year. Not to mention all the millions of other little things they will need.” (Injury Prevention& Control: Motor Vehicle Safety, CDC, 2014)
As far as insurance policies go, disability insurance is one of the most underrated. Millions suffer disabling injuries or chronic sickness every year and don’t have a way to provide for their families while they are recovering. Disability insurance policies are very reasonably priced with the benefits far outweighing any cost. If athletes and other top earners feel the need to protect their income then imagine how important it is for everyone else.
“Our children should be the most vital factor in our decision-making but don’t neglect to realize how significant your own role is during the process. There are disability insurance experts out there ready and waiting for you to call. Get your financial ducks in a row now so you can be ready if your family ever experiences a disaster,” says Darras.
Frank N. Darras is available for interviews. Contact Robin Nolan at McDavidPR, 919-745-9333. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.
Ontario, CA (PRWEB) February 19, 2015
Parents need to remember a lot of things when it comes time for kids to head back to school. There are school supplies to purchase, lunches to prepare, and also immunizations and other health requirements to schedule.
Most schools these days require up-to-date immunizations and doctor’s exams before they will allow the child to attend school. By keeping an active health insurance plan, families can provide their children with regular doctor’s appointments without breaking the bank. Health care insurance can be expensive but being caught without it can leave some people in debt for a long, long time. (USA.gov, Back to School)
If a family cannot afford a health insurance policy, there are other options to pursue for their children. Every year, the government offers Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for millions of children in low-income families. “The federal government sets minimum guidelines for Medicaid eligibility but states can choose to expand coverage beyond the minimum threshold. All states have done so for children – the average CHIP income eligibility level for children is 241% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL),” (Children: Medicaid.gov, July 2014).
“Parents also need to think about themselves and I don’t want anyone to forget how important a disability insurance policy can be, especially if you have kids,” states Frank N. Darras, America’s top disability insurance lawyer.“The disability policy will provide you benefits if you are injured or sick but keep in mind how your children will be affected before you say no. If you are not able to go to work, you’ll still need to put food on the table and get their clothes for the school year. Not to mention all the millions of other little things they will need.” (Injury Prevention& Control: Motor Vehicle Safety, CDC, 2014)
As far as insurance policies go, disability insurance is one of the most underrated. Millions suffer disabling injuries or chronic sickness every year and don’t have a way to provide for their families while they are recovering. Disability insurance policies are very reasonably priced with the benefits far outweighing any cost. If athletes and other top earners feel the need to protect their income then imagine how important it is for everyone else.
“Our children should be the most vital factor in our decision-making but don’t neglect to realize how significant your own role is during the process. There are disability insurance experts out there ready and waiting for you to call. Get your financial ducks in a row now so you can be ready if your family ever experiences a disaster,” says Darras.
Frank N. Darras is available for interviews. Contact Robin Nolan at McDavidPR, 919-745-9333. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.
↧
Obamacare Enrollment Ended Sunday. Except It Didn't.
The second year of Obamacare enrollment just ended. Or did it?
The Department of Health and Human Services has hinted it might reopen enrollment on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges in 37 states around the tax filing deadline April 15, with the aim of enrolling people who learn for the first time they owe a fine under the law’s individual mandate to have health coverage. Already, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington have done so, and states including California may do the same.
Since Obamacare’s exchange marketplaces first opened in October 2013, federal and state authorities have simultaneously emphasized the importance of the deadlines to sign up for coverage and then fudged them to accommodate their own errors and a public that remains uninformed about the 5-year-old health care law’s requirements and benefits.
“We’ve got millions of people who are still qualified who have a chance to sign up, but you’ve got to do it by Feb. 15,” Obama said at the White House earlier this month.
Maybe not, it turns out just a few days after that supposed deadline.
Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell will announce plans for the federal health insurance exchanges using HealthCare.gov within two weeks, she said at a press conference Wednesday. “What we try and do -- as we have throughout this open enrollment -- is focus deeply on the issue of the consumer,” she said. A group of congressional Democrats has urged the administration to permit more people to sign up, as have tax-preparation companies and groups that support Obamacare.
Allowing more people to enroll in health insurance has obvious benefits for the Obama administration and states like Vermont that operate their own exchanges. It would also help at least some of the consumers who might sign up. More uninsured people would gain coverage, fewer people would owe tax penalties next year and the backlash about the fine would be mitigated.
“It would be awful for a Vermont family to have to pay a fee of several hundred dollars or more, and then have to pay 100 percent of their medical care on top of that, just because they didn’t know the penalty existed,” Lawrence Miller, chief of health care reform for Gov. Peter Shumlin (D), said in a press release Thursday.
But the approach also carries risks.
Reopening enrollment after hyping the previous deadlines could contribute to confusion about when people are supposed to act in future years. It could also lead consumers to conclude upcoming deadlines aren’t real, especially considering the many other parts of the Affordable Care Act that have been delayed or even canceled since the law passed in 2010. And there’s a small chance it could encourage people to postpone getting coverage until they have medical needs, which would increase costs.
If a special enrollment period is going to succeed without causing problems for consumers and insurers this year, authorities will have to communicate that it’s a unique event for a specific population, said Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans.
“Special enrollment periods need to be clearly defined in terms of who qualifies and the start and end date to make sure that consumers understand and health plans can help those folks navigate that process,” Krusing said.
One reason a special enrollment period may be deemed necessary is that outreach campaigns have downplayed the mandate and the penalty. The individual mandate is the least popular part of an unpopular law, and enrollment efforts instead have focused on positive messages, like the availability of subsidies and access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
"There's been such a reluctance to talk about the mandate, and so, shockingly, people don't realize that they have to buy coverage," said Caroline Pearson, who leads the health reform practice at Avalere Health, a consulting firm.
The Treasury Department estimates as many as 6 million people will owe the penalty for not having health coverage last year, despite a slew of exemptions from the mandate. Signing up for coverage during one of these special enrollment periods wouldn’t eliminate the penalty for last year, and taxpayers who sign up for insurance would still owe a partial penalty for this year because the law allows only a three-month grace period.
This tax season is the first time Americans have to factor health insurance into their returns. The Obamacare mandate fine starts at $95 per person, but will be based on a percentage of income -- and thus be higher -- for most households subject to it for the 2014 tax year. And it gets a lot bigger for 2015: at least $325 or a percentage of income. The minimum fine goes up to $695 for 2016.
“There still remain millions upon millions of people who are unaware about these penalties,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer advocacy organization supportive of the Affordable Care Act. “And there are still millions of people who are not even aware of the subsidies they may be eligible for,” he said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
Obamacare uses fixed time periods for enrollment to dissuade consumers from putting off getting coverage until they get sick and need costly medical care. That’s the same way most employers handle job-based health benefits, and how Medicare handles sign-ups for prescription drug and Medicare Advantage insurance plans.
“It really goes to the core reason that the Affordable Care Act has an open enrollment period instead of enrollment periods throughout the year,” Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, that state’s exchange, said on the Families USA call. “The right question is, does having a special period for one time cause injury to that and affect the risk pool?”
So far, the dates for regular enrollment have varied every year: Oct. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, for last year; Nov. 15, 2014, to Feb. 15 for this year; and tentatively Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 15, 2015, for next year. And that doesn’t count prior deadline extensions, or the practice of allowing people who didn’t complete their applications on time to finish them after deadlines passed, which has been happening since Sunday.
Since all of this is so new, now may be a good time to be flexible, but the exchanges must have deadlines that matter at some point, said Sydney Smith Zvara, executive director of the Association of Washington Healthcare Plans in the Evergreen State. “Down the line, some people could end up after it’s tightened up being disappointed that they are held to a deadline, because it looked like they were so elastic,” she said.
Overall, the health insurance industry doesn’t appear concerned so far.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont and MVP Health Care each endorsed Vermont’s decision, according a press release from the exchange. Insurers in Minnesota also aren’t worried about the special enrollment period disrupting their operations, Jim Schowalter, president and CEO of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, wrote in an email. Washington state insurers support getting more people covered, but some companies are wary of creating incentives for people to postpone buying insurance, Zvara said.
Minnesota's MNSure is permitting new enrollments only for people who owe a fine from March 1 to April 30, Vermont Health Connect is available starting Thursday until May 31 for those subject to the penalty, and Washington Healthplanfinder reopened sign-ups for this group this Tuesday through April 17. “This is just a one-time opportunity. It’s not going to be throughout the year. It’s very defined,” Richard Onizuka, the CEO of Washington state’s exchange, said on the Families USA call.
California will reveal its decision early next week, and the exchanges in Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky and New York are weighing more enrollment this year, officials from those states said. By contrast, states including Colorado and Maryland currently are not eying reopening their exchanges, representatives told The Huffington Post. Early moves by Minnesota, Vermont and Washington states could put pressure on authorities elsewhere to follow suit.
Allowing uninsured people who owe the mandate fine to sign up late actually could benefit insurers, Pearson of Avalere Health said. Individuals who remain without health coverage may be healthier than those already enrolled, because sick people are more driven to get insurance, she said.
“It’s mostly upside. I think you have the potential to actually get a reasonable enrollment bump, and I don’t think there’s really significant risk,” Pearson said. “As long as it stays limited.” Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
The Department of Health and Human Services has hinted it might reopen enrollment on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges in 37 states around the tax filing deadline April 15, with the aim of enrolling people who learn for the first time they owe a fine under the law’s individual mandate to have health coverage. Already, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington have done so, and states including California may do the same.
Since Obamacare’s exchange marketplaces first opened in October 2013, federal and state authorities have simultaneously emphasized the importance of the deadlines to sign up for coverage and then fudged them to accommodate their own errors and a public that remains uninformed about the 5-year-old health care law’s requirements and benefits.
“We’ve got millions of people who are still qualified who have a chance to sign up, but you’ve got to do it by Feb. 15,” Obama said at the White House earlier this month.
Maybe not, it turns out just a few days after that supposed deadline.
Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell will announce plans for the federal health insurance exchanges using HealthCare.gov within two weeks, she said at a press conference Wednesday. “What we try and do -- as we have throughout this open enrollment -- is focus deeply on the issue of the consumer,” she said. A group of congressional Democrats has urged the administration to permit more people to sign up, as have tax-preparation companies and groups that support Obamacare.
Allowing more people to enroll in health insurance has obvious benefits for the Obama administration and states like Vermont that operate their own exchanges. It would also help at least some of the consumers who might sign up. More uninsured people would gain coverage, fewer people would owe tax penalties next year and the backlash about the fine would be mitigated.
“It would be awful for a Vermont family to have to pay a fee of several hundred dollars or more, and then have to pay 100 percent of their medical care on top of that, just because they didn’t know the penalty existed,” Lawrence Miller, chief of health care reform for Gov. Peter Shumlin (D), said in a press release Thursday.
But the approach also carries risks.
Reopening enrollment after hyping the previous deadlines could contribute to confusion about when people are supposed to act in future years. It could also lead consumers to conclude upcoming deadlines aren’t real, especially considering the many other parts of the Affordable Care Act that have been delayed or even canceled since the law passed in 2010. And there’s a small chance it could encourage people to postpone getting coverage until they have medical needs, which would increase costs.
If a special enrollment period is going to succeed without causing problems for consumers and insurers this year, authorities will have to communicate that it’s a unique event for a specific population, said Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans.
“Special enrollment periods need to be clearly defined in terms of who qualifies and the start and end date to make sure that consumers understand and health plans can help those folks navigate that process,” Krusing said.
One reason a special enrollment period may be deemed necessary is that outreach campaigns have downplayed the mandate and the penalty. The individual mandate is the least popular part of an unpopular law, and enrollment efforts instead have focused on positive messages, like the availability of subsidies and access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
"There's been such a reluctance to talk about the mandate, and so, shockingly, people don't realize that they have to buy coverage," said Caroline Pearson, who leads the health reform practice at Avalere Health, a consulting firm.
The Treasury Department estimates as many as 6 million people will owe the penalty for not having health coverage last year, despite a slew of exemptions from the mandate. Signing up for coverage during one of these special enrollment periods wouldn’t eliminate the penalty for last year, and taxpayers who sign up for insurance would still owe a partial penalty for this year because the law allows only a three-month grace period.
This tax season is the first time Americans have to factor health insurance into their returns. The Obamacare mandate fine starts at $95 per person, but will be based on a percentage of income -- and thus be higher -- for most households subject to it for the 2014 tax year. And it gets a lot bigger for 2015: at least $325 or a percentage of income. The minimum fine goes up to $695 for 2016.
“There still remain millions upon millions of people who are unaware about these penalties,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer advocacy organization supportive of the Affordable Care Act. “And there are still millions of people who are not even aware of the subsidies they may be eligible for,” he said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
Obamacare uses fixed time periods for enrollment to dissuade consumers from putting off getting coverage until they get sick and need costly medical care. That’s the same way most employers handle job-based health benefits, and how Medicare handles sign-ups for prescription drug and Medicare Advantage insurance plans.
“It really goes to the core reason that the Affordable Care Act has an open enrollment period instead of enrollment periods throughout the year,” Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, that state’s exchange, said on the Families USA call. “The right question is, does having a special period for one time cause injury to that and affect the risk pool?”
So far, the dates for regular enrollment have varied every year: Oct. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, for last year; Nov. 15, 2014, to Feb. 15 for this year; and tentatively Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 15, 2015, for next year. And that doesn’t count prior deadline extensions, or the practice of allowing people who didn’t complete their applications on time to finish them after deadlines passed, which has been happening since Sunday.
Since all of this is so new, now may be a good time to be flexible, but the exchanges must have deadlines that matter at some point, said Sydney Smith Zvara, executive director of the Association of Washington Healthcare Plans in the Evergreen State. “Down the line, some people could end up after it’s tightened up being disappointed that they are held to a deadline, because it looked like they were so elastic,” she said.
Overall, the health insurance industry doesn’t appear concerned so far.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont and MVP Health Care each endorsed Vermont’s decision, according a press release from the exchange. Insurers in Minnesota also aren’t worried about the special enrollment period disrupting their operations, Jim Schowalter, president and CEO of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, wrote in an email. Washington state insurers support getting more people covered, but some companies are wary of creating incentives for people to postpone buying insurance, Zvara said.
Minnesota's MNSure is permitting new enrollments only for people who owe a fine from March 1 to April 30, Vermont Health Connect is available starting Thursday until May 31 for those subject to the penalty, and Washington Healthplanfinder reopened sign-ups for this group this Tuesday through April 17. “This is just a one-time opportunity. It’s not going to be throughout the year. It’s very defined,” Richard Onizuka, the CEO of Washington state’s exchange, said on the Families USA call.
California will reveal its decision early next week, and the exchanges in Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky and New York are weighing more enrollment this year, officials from those states said. By contrast, states including Colorado and Maryland currently are not eying reopening their exchanges, representatives told The Huffington Post. Early moves by Minnesota, Vermont and Washington states could put pressure on authorities elsewhere to follow suit.
Allowing uninsured people who owe the mandate fine to sign up late actually could benefit insurers, Pearson of Avalere Health said. Individuals who remain without health coverage may be healthier than those already enrolled, because sick people are more driven to get insurance, she said.
“It’s mostly upside. I think you have the potential to actually get a reasonable enrollment bump, and I don’t think there’s really significant risk,” Pearson said. “As long as it stays limited.” Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
States Navigate Federal Limits On Health Insurance For Unauthorized Immigrants
Health care and immigration reform policies explicitly prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining health insurance, but someone still has to pay when they need care.
Reported by IBTimes 9 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
