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

Five Simple Steps to Prepare For The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Grace Period Deadline

0
0
FSAstore.com Reminds Consumers of Deadline to Spend FSA Dollars from 2014

New York, NY (PRWEB) March 09, 2015

FSAstore.com, the only e-commerce site stocked exclusively with Flexible Spending Account (FSA)-eligible products, released today five simple steps to prepare for the FSA Grace Period deadline. FSAs that ended on December 31 but with a Grace Period (a two-and-a-half-month extension), have a spending deadline on March 15, by which FSA holders must use any remaining 2014 account dollars. After the Grace Period ends, any leftover FSA dollars will be forfeited.

"The March 15 deadline is the last chance for many FSA participants to use their remaining 2014 dollars, or risk losing their hard-earned money," said Jeremy Miller, FSAstore.com founder and president. "As the deadline approaches, we encourage FSA holders to check for plan-year extensions and use their FSAs to maximize their remaining healthcare savings. The first thing consumers should do is confirm with their FSA administrator to determine if they have a Grace Period or other extensions. Then, visit FSAstore.com to shop for thousands of everyday healthcare products and to access tools to track future spending deadlines, learn about their accounts, and search for eligible expenses."

Five Steps to Prepare for the FSA Grace Period Deadline:
1. Check your remaining balance. Contact your FSA administrator (account information might also be available online) to review the remaining balance and ask about the spending deadline.

2. Submit (past) claims. Be sure to submit medical expenses to your FSA administrator before the March 15 deadline. Some administrators accept claims submitted online, while others prefer that FSA participants submit paperwork.

3. Use an FSA For a Range of Eligible Expenses. You might be surprised to discover the range of eligible expenses available with an FSA, including medical services not covered by regular health insurance and many health products. Use FSAstore.com's comprehensive Eligibility List to search for more than 800 products and services.

4. Save time with your FSA card. If you have access to an FSA debit card, use it to pay for eligible expenses and avoid having to submit additional paperwork. Please note: It is advisable to hold on to receipts, in case there is ever a need to substantiate a claim (prove that it is a valid claim).

5. Use it, Don't Lose it. FSAs have a "Use-it-or-Lose-it" rule. When available FSA dollars are not used, they get forfeited. Think beyond eyeglasses when spending down an FSA balance. Consider products like first-aid kits for travel and spring break, smartphone-compatible blood pressure monitors, breast pumps, and thousands of other products.

Miller added that while many consumers with an FSA have a Grace Period extension, some FSA plans now have a Carryover option. The Carryover allows account holders to roll over up to $500 in FSA dollars from year to year. FSAstore.com reminds consumers to check with their FSA administrator to confirm if the March 15 deadline applies to them.

About FSAstore.com
FSAstore.com was founded to make it simple and convenient to spend, manage, and use an FSA. FSAstore.com is the only e-commerce site stocked exclusively with FSA eligible products, eliminating any and all guesswork as to what is and is not FSA eligible. In addition to the 6,000 eligible products available, the site offers educational resources for FSA holders, including the most comprehensive Eligibility List in the industry and a Learning Center with answers to the most common FSA questions. FSAstore.com accepts all FSA and major credit cards, offers 24/7 customer service, two-day turnaround for all orders and free shipping on orders $50+. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.

Here's What Scalia Said About Obamacare Last Week. It's Not What He Said 3 Years Ago.

0
0
It's going to be at least a few weeks, and probably a few months, before we know what the Supreme Court is going to do with Obamacare. But Wednesday's oral arguments in King v. Burwell have already made something very clear: Justice Antonin Scalia isn't too worried about intellectual consistency.

Among the many issues that came up Wednesday were the likely consequences if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby prohibiting the federal government from distributing Obamacare's tax credits in two-thirds of the states. Millions of people depend on those tax credits to purchase health insurance; without the financial assistance, they'd have to give it up. And that's not all. Experts have warned that the loss of so many paying customers would disrupt whole state insurance markets, in ways that would affect even people buying insurance without federal assistance.

Congress, in theory, could avoid these problems by passing a simple, one-sentence amendment to the Affordable Care Act. The entire basis for the lawsuit is the meaning of a four-word phrase, "established by the state." And during oral arguments, Scalia suggested Congress would do just that, or at least something like it:
What about -- what about Congress? You really think Congress is just going to sit there while -- while all of the disastrous consequences ensue? I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the -- you know, the bankruptcy court decision? Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that -- that takes care of the problem. It happens all the time. Why is that not going to happen here?
Of course, Congress can't pass anything more than emergency stop-gap measures these days, as the recent showdown over Department of Homeland Security funding demonstrated. And while Republicans in the House have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times, they've yet to get a replacement bill onto the floor, let alone vote for one -- even though they've promised to produce such legislation repeatedly.

Everybody knows this. The courtroom burst into laughter when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded to Scalia by asking, incredulously, "This Congress, your honor?"

*Listen to audio of the exchange here: *
And it turns out Scalia knows it too -- or, at least, he did three years ago, when the court heard arguments in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

That was the case challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. One issue the justices considered in that dispute was whether, in principle, they could invalidate the mandate but leave the rest of the law in place. Scalia suggested that such a move wouldn't make sense, because it would undermine the law's function and Congress, beset by paralysis, would be unable to act in response.

Here's what he said back then, addressing an attorney who was proposing that only the mandate be struck down:
Let's consider how -- how your approach, severing as little as possible, thereby increases the deference that we're showing to Congress. It seems to me it puts Congress in this position: This Act is still in full effect. There is going to be this deficit that used to be made up by the mandatory coverage provision. All that money has to come from somewhere. You can't repeal the rest of the Act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It's not a matter of enacting a new Act. You got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So, the rest of the Act is going to be the law.
The circumstances are not identical and oral arguments can be famously misleading indicators of how justices will actually vote. But you have to engage in some fine hair-splitting to show how Scalia might logically expect Congress to act now but doubt its ability to act three years ago. And while many principals in this saga have engaged in "motivated reasoning" -- that is, starting with a preferred political outcome, then crafting logic to fit it -- Scalia is becoming famous for it.

Back in the individual mandate case, one of the strongest legal defenses for the law was based on an opinion Scalia himself had written, in a case called Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia barely noticed and joined an opinion declaring the mandate unconstitutional. In this latest case against Obamacare, the government can once again point to a Scalia opinion to justify its position: A majority decision, which he wrote just five months ago, arguing that judges must interpret specific words in a statute "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Yet there was Scalia on Wednesday, attacking the government and showing little to no interest in the context around "established by the State."

To be clear, the Supreme Court doesn't have to consider consequences of a decision when making its decision. But it's likely that Chief Justice John Roberts and maybe even Justice Anthony Kennedy would hesitate to issue a ruling that would have a devastating effect on millions of people.

That may be why Justice Samuel Alito, during oral arguments, floated the idea of a "stay" that would delay a ruling's impact and give Congress time to act. Alito may be trying to ease any anxiety Roberts and Kennedy might have. Scalia's professions of newfound faith in Congress could be an attempt to accomplish the same thing, even though he knows, as well as anybody, the most likely outcome of a decision is more congressional inaction. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

Obamacare Subsidies To Cost Less Than Expected, CBO Says

0
0
WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The Congressional Budget Office on Monday revised its U.S. budget deficit estimate for fiscal 2015 to $486 billion from a previous estimate in January of $468 billion due to higher estimates of spending on federal benefits program.

But the CBO lowered its forecast of cumulative deficits through fiscal 2025 by about $436 billion from its previous estimate in January, to a total of $7.209 trillion. The cumulative decline comes partly due to lower estimated costs for health insurance subsidies under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. (Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Paul Simao) Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

Why My Kentucky Kinfolks Can Sleep Easier Than My Tennessee Kinfolks

0
0
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, nowhere will the effect be more stark than along the 400-mile border between two states my family has called home, Tennessee and Kentucky.

In the state where I grew up, Tennessee, thousands of people would in all likelihood be forced back into the ranks of the uninsured. That's because the cost of coverage would quickly skyrocket for the 230,000 Tennesseans enrolled in a health plan this year through the insurance exchange that's operating there.

In Kentucky, where we lived when I worked for Humana Inc., it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court does. No one there is facing the threat of suddenly finding their coverage unaffordable.

Kentucky is one of the 16 states (and the District of Columbia) that decided to establish and operate its own exchange. Tennessee, on the other hand, is one of the 34 states that defaulted to the federal government to operate its exchange.

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argued before the high court last Wednesday that because of the way the Affordable Care Act is worded, the Obama Administration is breaking the law by providing subsidies to people in those 34 states to help them buy health insurance. Their argument is that the law allows subsidies only for enrollees in an exchange "established by the state." If the Court agrees, the subsidies for folks in exchanges operated by the federal government could come to an abrupt end as early as mid-summer.

Kentucky is also one of 29 states to have expanded its Medicaid program under the ACA. That means that folks earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level--about $16,000 for an individual and about $33,000 for a family of four--are now eligible for Medicaid in Kentucky. The federal government pays 100 percent of the cost of the expanded coverage through next year. After that, the state will begin paying a portion of the cost, up to a maximum of 10 percent.

But to the south, many poor people remain uninsured because lawmakers in Tennessee have repeatedly refused to expand the state's Medicaid program, called TennCare. Their first refusal came right after the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the federal government couldn't force the states to expand their Medicaid programs. Legislators again voted against a Medicaid expansion just last month, even though Republican Gov. Jim Haslam favored it.

Before Kentucky expanded its Medicaid program, the Bluegrass State had a considerably higher uninsured rate than Tennessee. Now it has a much lower rate. The Medicaid expansion in Kentucky, coupled with the availability of federal money to help other low- and moderate-income people buy coverage, brought the uninsured rate in Kentucky down from 20.4 percent of residents 18 and older in 2013 to 9.8 percent in 2014, according to Gallup. That was one of the biggest drops in the country.

In Tennessee, the uninsured rate has also fallen, but only because the federal government has been up to now providing subsidies to many of the state's low- and moderate income residents. The uninsured rate in the Volunteer State stood at 15.1 percent in 2014, down from 16.8 percent in 2013. The decline obviously would have been much larger had the state expanded its Medicaid program.

If the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot continue providing subsidies to folks in the states with federally operated exchanges, the uninsured rate undoubtedly will go back to what it was in 2013 if not higher. More than 80 percent of Tennesseans who bought coverage on the state's exchange receive subsidies. Most of them would have difficulty making their monthly premium payments if the subsidies evaporate.

The insurance industry warned the court in an amicus brief that an end to the subsidies would destabilize the health insurance market in the 34 states, causing premiums to rise rapidly and setting the stage for a "death spiral" that would make coverage unaffordable for all but a state's most affluent residents.

The industry's largest trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, predicted in its brief that the uninsured rate would likely be even higher than it was before the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010.

During the court's hearing last week, Justice Samuel Alito dismissed AHIP's concern and suggested that a court decision in favor of the plaintiffs would be no big deal, that states would just start operating their own exchanges.

"It's not too late for a state to establish an exchange," he said. "So going forward, there would be no harm."

While the political will might exist in a few of the 34 states to go about setting up an exchange, Tennessee likely wouldn't be among them. In fact, Tennessee State Sen. Brian Kelsey, R-Germantown, recently introduced a bill that would prevent the state from setting up its own exchange.

So while Tennessee lawmakers continue to do all they can to undermine Obamacare, low- and moderate-income Kentuckians can go to bed at night and not have the same worry that their neighbors a few miles to the south have about the cost of health care.

Does that make sense to you?

This was published first by the Center for Public Integrity Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

U.S. Forecast to Run $500 Billion Deficit Again This Year

0
0
U.S. Forecast to Run $500 Billion Deficit Again This Year Filed under: U.S. Government, Government Spending, Barack Obama, This Built America

*J. Scott Applewhite/AP*

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON -- The federal budget deficit will hit $486 billion this year, nearly matching the lowest shortfall of President Barack Obama's term in office, according to projections released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The deficit projection is slightly larger than one made by the agency in January. The change was mainly because of increased spending on student loans, Medicare and Medicaid, the budget office said.The forecast includes mixed signals for Congress. Over the next decade, annual budget deficits will be smaller than previously thought because spending on private health insurance is expected to grow at slower rate, reducing the expected costs of Obama's health care law.

Beyond the next decade, however, deficits will soar again as more baby boomers retire and start receiving Social Security and Medicare, the government health insurance program for older Americans. In 2025, the budget office says the annual deficit will once again hit $1 trillion, unless Congress acts.

The annual deficit topped $1 trillion in each of Obama's first four years in office, including a record $1.4 trillion in 2009.

The federal budget deficit became a big issue during Obama's early years in office. In 2011, Obama and congressional Republicans struck a deal that resulted in significant spending cuts at many government agencies. At the start of 2013, Obama persuaded Congress to further address the deficit by raising taxes on top earners.

The deficit dipped to $485 billion in the budget year that ended last September.

Congress' Republican-run budget committees will soon start crafting their own spending blueprints for fiscal 2016, which starts on Oct. 1.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 9 hours ago.

223,000 Missouri Affordable Care Act subsidies in jeopardy

0
0
The fate of health insurance subsidies for 223,000 Missourians lies in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court after hearings last week in a case questioning whether the Affordable Care Act allows for such subsidies. The case, King v. Burwell, questions whether the IRS can enforce regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies for coverage purchased in states using the federal health care exchanges. During the most recent period of open enrollment under the ACA, a total of 253,969 Missouri consumers selected… Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.

HealthPlans.com Selected to Present at Montgomery Summit, Sponsor Keynote

0
0
HealthPlans.com Selected to Present at Montgomery Summit, Sponsor Keynote LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--HealthPlans.com, one of the most visited independent consumer health insurance businesses, according to comScore, has announced that it is presenting at the Montgomery Summit this Tuesday, March 10, 2015 in Santa Monica, California. HealthPlans.com – owned by advertising technology platform Katch - came onto the health insurance stage after the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. Recognizing the need for a simple way to shop for health insurance plans, HealthPl Reported by Business Wire 6 hours ago.

Obamacare Enrollments Hit Nearly 12 Million, Top Health Official Says

0
0
WASHINGTON -- Close to 12 million people are covered by health insurance plans purchased from an Obamacare exchange, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said at the White House Monday.

More than half of these enrollees are new to the program, said Burwell, speaking at an event commemorating the close of the second open enrollment period for subsidized private health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act's exchange marketplaces. The enrollment total surpasses the Department of Health and Human Services' projections, but is lower than what the Congressional Budget Office expected.

"Nearly 11.7 million Americans signed up or were re-enrolled through the marketplace as of Feb. 22," Burwell said. "We are finally moving the needle on reducing the number of uninsured."

These enrollments over the past two years have helped significantly reduce the share of Americans who are uninsured. That trend, though, is in jeopardy. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a lawsuit alleging that the Affordable Care Act doesn't permit health insurance subsidies for people living in the 34 states where the federal government is operating the Obamacare exchanges via HealthCare.gov. Almost 10 million people could lose their health coverage if the high court sides against the White House and eliminates the subsidies.

"We're confident that we will prevail in the court case argued before the Supreme Court last week. The law is clear," Burwell said Monday. "The text and structure of the Affordable Care Act demonstrate that individuals in every state are eligible for tax credits. Those who support this lawsuit believe that the law should be dismantled or repealed, and they are content to roll back the progress that we have achieved."

Among the estimated 7.7 million enrollees from the federal health insurance exchanges, 87 percent received tax credits worth $263 a month on average, Burwell said. More than half the enrollees paid $100 or less a month, including their subsidies. "These numbers show just how important the tax credits are to millions of Americans and to the insurance markets in those states and throughout the marketplace," she said.

The annual open enrollment period for people using the health insurance exchanges officially ended Feb. 15, but sign-ups have continued.

Federal officials and most state-run exchanges have allowed individuals with applications in process to complete them for about a week following the deadline. In addition, the federally managed exchanges serving more than 30 states, and the majority of the exchanges operated by 13 states and the District of Columbia, re-opened enrollment for people who learn when they file their income taxes that they owe a fine under the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate that most U.S. residents have health coverage.

The numbers Burwell announced Monday are 300,000 higher than those reported by the White House last month. Although additional tax season sign-ups are likely to boost the tally, enrollment is expected to decline over the course of the year as consumers obtain health coverage through another source, like a job, or as they give up their policies and become uninsured.

"While we know that the numbers will change as the year continues, we are pleased with the results today," Burwell said.

The number of sign-ups Burwell announced Monday doesn't reflect how many of those enrollees have begun paying for their insurance policies, which is necessary to secure coverage. During the 2014 enrollment campaign, the number of enrollees surpassed 8 million, but fell below 7 million within six months.

During the year, people can use the exchanges to buy insurance if they experience a life change, such as having a baby or getting married. Open enrollment for 2016 coverage begins Nov. 1, 2015, and runs through Jan. 31, 2016.

The health insurance exchange figures announced Monday don't include new sign-ups for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. Nearly 11 million people have joined those programs since Obamacare enrollment began in October 2013, largely driven by the law's broadening of Medicaid eligibility. To date, 28 states and the District of Columbia have opted into the Medicaid expansion. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

Quit Playing Politics With the Health of Children

0
0
Having worked in the Senate and House for over a decade, it is tragic is witness the inability of Members of Congress to forge bipartisan compromises to move our nation forward. Even worse, as the recent debacle over funding of the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates, Congress has a difficult time even getting members of the same party to reach agreement on a fundamental act that is necessary to fund our nation's homeland security.

In a recent National Journal article, members of Congress expressed lament about the dysfunction that has prevented Congress from getting much accomplished.

However, there is a path that they can take and is staring them in the face. For example, Congress could begin that process by finding common ground on a few important issues of importance to our nation's children, including the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and education.

Earlier this year, former House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor talked about how the Congress should move beyond gridlock by keeping in mind that over eight million children will be born over the next two years. As he wrote, "The future of those 8,053,000 little boys and girls deserve to have the two years of this Congress focused on them and not the next election."

Of course, a focus on children will require that Democrats and Republicans actually talk to one another. For example, failure to work on a bipartisan basis in the House resulted in the bill having to be pulled off the House floor because it didn't have the votes to pass due to splits within the Republican Party on it. And, even if it were to voted out of the House, the legislation stands no chance of being passed in the Senate or signed into law by President Obama.

Fortunately, Republican Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander and Democratic Ranking Member Patty Murray have chosen a different path and are engaged in bipartisan negotiations to move an education package forward to modify the failed No Child Left Behind law.

And, with respect to child health, over 1,500 organizations from across the country have called upon Congress to extend CHIP for four years, and our nation's governors, on a bipartisan basis, have called for CHIP's extension while highlighting the long-time success of the federal-state program. They recognize that, in tandem with Medicaid, that CHIP has successfully cut the nation's uninsured rate in half and has improved the health and well-being of millions of children over the last 18 years. Bipartisan conversations on Capitol Hill have begun on this as well.

Unfortunately, there are the forces swirling around Washington, D.C., that just cannot avoid playing politics with the lives of children. For example, Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, wrote an opinion piece on February 27, 2015, for Forbes entitled "The Next ACA (Affordable Care Act) Battle: Extending The Children's Health Insurance Program."

Although she notes that there is strong bipartisan support "to continue funding CHIP," she, unfortunately, calls for cutting hundreds of thousands of children off of coverage and proclaims that the "CHIP reauthorization is a battle worth fighting because it is a harbinger of things to come with future ACA battles."

There are some incredibly ironic things about Turner's proposals. First of all, she lauds that "Republicans also want to put the 'S' for State back in SCHIP (rather than CHIP) to emphasize the state nature of the program and give states more flexibility in managing the program." Second, it is important to note that Turner is strongly opposed to the ACA or Obama Care. She has written dozens of articles that are highly critical of the ACA or Obama Care. So, she likes state flexibility and dislikes Obama Care, right?

The answer is "yes," but shockingly, she proposes to restrict state flexibility in CHIP and to, thereby, expand Obama Care in her opinion piece. For example, she touts the idea of capping eligibility and coverage that states have used to vary their eligibility and coverage levels for children. This proposal would restrict state flexibility and slash federal support to states for covering certain children in 27 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.

She points out that states like New York covers children up to a higher level of poverty than North Dakota, but that is exactly what has always been a strength of CHIP, as it allows states to adjust their programs to meet the needs of their children, the differences in the cost of living or health care states between states, etc.

If the federal government were to impose eligibility limits upon states in this fashion, it would create a financial incentive for states to drop health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children in working families -- many of whom would lose coverage altogether because a number of them would be ineligible for subsidies in the exchange because of the so-called "family glitch."

That is unacceptable, as it would move our nation in the wrong direction on children's health. A CHIP extension bill should not result in children losing health insurance coverage and being left worse off. Congress should, at the very least, "do no harm" and oppose any package that would result in children losing health coverage or being left worse off in their state.

In an attempt to dismiss the negative implications this proposal would have on children's health coverage, Turner argues that we should not worry too much because many of the children losing CHIP "would be eligible for subsidized coverage through the health insurance exchanges." It is ironic that Turner, who is an avowed opponent of ObamaCare, is now arguing we should move some children from CHIP coverage to the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.

But for the children that would be moved out of CHIP, she acknowledges that, if they avoid the "family glitch" and are enrolled in the ACA, they would be placed "in policies on the exchanges which often have sky-high deductibles."

Again, this would be harmful to children, as children across the country would be left worse off in terms of higher cost, reduced benefits, and weaker provider networks. The following chart highlights some of those differences.It is surprising that an avowed opponent of Obama Care would be encouraging the movement of hundreds of thousands of additional children into that coverage. On the other hand, she may just be urging that of those children should lose coverage altogether because, 24 hours earlier on February 26th, Turner wrote another article for Forbes arguing that the Supreme Court should rule in the court's case, King v. Burwell, that federal subsidies should only be allowed for those people enrolled through state exchanges, which are in operation in less than half of the states, and not those enrolled in the federal exchange.

In short, if you cap or limit and create incentives for states to drop children from CHIP, many would lose coverage entirely due to the combination of the "family glitch," or the very arbitrary consequence of whether or not the state operates their own exchange in the ACA. This would be disastrous for children and their families, and not something that a CHIP extension should encourage or risk.

Turner also touts the idea of allowing children to be placed on 12-month waiting lists before they can receive CHIP coverage. However, for a child with cancer, asthma or in need of eyeglasses, they simply cannot wait 12 months to obtain much needed and possibly life-saving health coverage. These children would either be left uninsured or might temporarily enroll in the ACA. Having children lose coverage or find themselves placed in weaker coverage, while also forcing kids to be churned from one plan to another is anything but good for the health of children.

What may be even worse is that, because pregnant women are also covered by CHIP, a 12-month waiting period for pregnant women to enroll and receive prenatal care is simply nonsensical. Leaving pregnant women without prenatal care coverage would led to an increase in negative birth outcomes and increased infant and maternal mortality.

We simply must not gamble with the health of our nation's children or conclude, as Turner does, that "CHIP reauthorization is a battle worth fighting because it is a harbinger of things to come with future ACA battles." In fact, the opposite is true.

Congress should not mess with success, as CHIP has been extremely effectively in dramatically cutting the number of uninsured children in this country. It is also, by definition, pediatric-specific, has strong public support, and delivers high-quality health care. For example, in a recent 2014 Satisfaction Survey of Iowa parents whose children were enrolled in "hawk-i" (Iowa's CHIP program), an astounding 93.7 percent expressed satisfaction with the care received and less than one percent (or 0.7 percent) expressed dissatisfaction with the care their children received.

Consequently, Congress should reject any and all efforts to mess with or play politics with the health of our nation's children. Rather, Congress should take this opportunity to end gridlock and make real progress in protecting the health of our nation's children by, first and foremost, ensuring that children are not left worse off. A clean extension of CHIP is the answer.

And frankly, that is the real battle worth fighting for -- a battle to protect our children's health. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

HUFFPOST HILL - Can Hillary Clinton Disseminate Thousands Of Pages Of Emails And Have It All?

0
0
Lindsey Graham has never sent an email, but lest you think the South Carolina senator a total luddite, he *has* figured out the medicine reminder on his Jitterbug. The GOP opposed negotiations with Iran by negotiating with Iran. And a new poll finds Fox News is the most-trusted network news outlet, a development undoubtedly buoyed by Bill O’Reilly’s enterprising D-Day reporting. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Monday, March 9th, 2015:

*BLESSED ARE THE PEACERUINERS, FOR THEY SHALL BE CALLED TOM COTTON* - Grim: "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the organizer of a controversial letter warning Iran that the U.S. government will not necessarily abide by any agreement Iran strikes with the Obama administration, *previously told a conservative audience that the goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran*. The U.S. should, instead, engage in a policy of 'regime change,' he argued... Cotton, for his part, has made no secret that he wants the talks to fail. 'The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak,' Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America. Cotton's bald admission would be less interesting had he not been the one to spearhead a Senate effort revealed Monday by Bloomberg View -- an open letter to Iran's leaders signed by 47 Republican senators. The letter explains the workings of the American government to the Iranian regime." [HuffPost]

*About that explanation of our constitutional government:* they flubbed the role of the Senate in ratifying treaties, as Harvard law professor and former Bush administration honcho Jack Goldsmith pointed out.

Reminder that Tom Cotton loves war.

*CLINTON TO TALK ABOUT EMAILS* - While we're engaged in this collective email shaming, can we focus our wrath on whomever invented the "Hey" email solicitation? Also everyone at MoveOn.org. Politico: "*Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon address the controversy over her use of a private email account at the State Department, and is likely to hold a press conference in New York* in the next several days to answer reporters’ questions, according to three people close to the potential Democratic frontrunner. The decision to address the issue, made in the last several days, comes amid a cascade of criticism following New York Times and Associated Press stories in the past week, reporting that Clinton had possibly violated State Department policy by channeling her emails through a private server housed in her suburban New York mansion. The pressure on Clinton has ratcheted up as critics, including some congressional Democrats, have called on her to publicly address the reports. That pressure only increased on Monday as a spokesman for President Obama told reporters that Clinton and the president had, in fact, exchanged emails using Clinton’s private email account during her tenure at Foggy Bottom from 2009 to 2013." [Politico]

*Haircuts*: Eliot Nelson, Jen Bendery, Paige Lavender, Donte Stallworth.

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - Thanks in large part to Republicans cutting unemployment insurance at the state level, the percentage of unemployed people who receive benefits is at a historic low, according to the Economic Policy Institute. And at the time of the previous low point, in 1984, federal benefits were available. Not this time. "Because there were no federal benefit extensions in 2014, workers who exhausted state benefits had less protection from the harm caused by unemployment than any similar cohort of jobless workers since the late 1950s -- when Congress first began benefit extensions,” EPI's Rick McHugh said. [EPI]

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It's free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MENENDEZ COULD COME SOON* - NBC New York: "Criminal charges against U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, could come later this month as a federal grand jury continues to hear evidence in the case, sources familiar with the investigation tell NBC 4 New York. Menendez has been under federal criminal investigation in connection with his ties to Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen. The senator has admitted he accepted free private plane trips from Melgen, including a 2008 trip to the luxury resort of Casa de Campo in the Dominican Republic. The senator has said he later repaid almost $70,000 for his trips on the doctor’s jet." [NBC New York]

The Michigan attorney general subpoenaed HuffPost reporter Dana Liebelson, but then backed off.

*OBAMACARE SPENDING ESTIMATES DOWN* - Thanks, Obama. Jeff Young: "Net spending on subsidies for private health insurance and greater enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program will total $1.2 trillion from next year through 2025. *That's 11 percent less than the Congressional Budget Office projected just two months ago*. The new estimate doesn't account for spending cuts and tax increases in the law, which the budget agency previously projected would result in a net decrease in the federal budget deficit because of Obamacare. A continuing, historic slowdown in the growth of national spending on health careduring recent years is one major reason for the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation's re-evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's cost. Economists agree that the recession and slow recovery played a major role in keeping down health care spending as Americans' wallets were tight, and experts predict that spending will rise more quickly as the economy continues to improve. No consensus has emerged regarding the influence of Obamacare's cost-containment initiatives on this trend, but the congressional scorekeepers have incorporated lower health care spending and lower premiums into their calculations." [HuffPost]

*SCOTUS REJECTS CONTRACEPTION MANDATE CHALLENGE* - Antonin Scalia, gettin' out of your diaphragm. Reuters: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objections to the Obamacare health law's contraception requirement. The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision. The court's action means the February 2014 appeals court ruling that denied the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university an injunction against the requirement has been wiped out." [Reuters]

*Hey, Politico, you also might want to add that "former treasury official" Tony Fratto is also "wall street consultant" Tony Fratto*: "FORMER TREASURY OFFICIALS ALSO GIVE CURRENCY RULES THUMBS DOWN: Tony Fratto, a former Treasury official, argued Thursday that it's not even easy to measure the effects of currency manipulation on the trade balance, especially given that there are so many forces that affect a currency's value, such as expectations of monetary policy changes and economic growth. 'The correlation is really weak if you can find it at all,' he argued." [Politico's Morning Trade]

Lindsey Graham revealed yesterday that he has never sent an email.

*In our inbox*: "The International Mustache Hall of Fame today opened its doors and includes the likes of Tom Selleck, Dr. Martin Luther King, Salvador Dali, President Theodore Roosevelt, John Oates, Rollie Fingers and others. Oates called it, '....perhaps the most deeply satisfying moment of my career.'"

*OBAMA LIBRARY DECISION DELAYED FOR CHICAGO MAYORAL ELECTION* - Plus this gives them more time to suss out the "Private Property Seized By President Obama's Shock Troops" wing. AP: "President Barack Obama will hold off on announcing the location for his future presidential library until after Chicago's runoff election for mayor, two people familiar with the decision said, in a bid to avoid politicizing his legacy project. Last year the Barack Obama Foundation, which is screening proposals for the library, said the president and first lady Michelle Obama would announce the winner by the end of March. But with the Chicago race still up in the air, the announcement is no longer expected until after the April 7 runoff, said the individuals, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the library...But the individuals with knowledge of the delay said that Obama and his foundation wanted to avoid injecting the library decision into the political fray — or to be seen as giving Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel an unfair advantage." [AP]

*FOX NEWS MOST TRUSTED & MISTRUSTED NEWS NETWORK* - Only seven percent of respondents think MSNBC is the most trustworthy news network, which undoubtedly would be higher if "Dr. Nancy" were still on the air. USA Today: "On the national front, 20% said they trusted Fox 'a great deal' while 35% said "somewhat." CNN (18% for "a great deal" and 43% for 'somewhat'), NBC News (14%, 46%), CBS News (14%, 50%), ABC News (14%, 50%) and MSNBC (11%, 41%) followed. 'Fox News may be the most trusted in the network and cable news race, but they all take a back seat to your local news,' said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll...Underscoring cable news' more overtly political slant, 26% of respondents also said they didn't trust Fox News "at all" as a news source, the highest among the national TV news outlets mentioned in the survey. MSNBC came in second at 24%." [USA Today]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a buffalo saying wut up.

*SO LONG!* - Mediaite: "Exactly five years ago this week, as the Congressional debate over the Affordable Care Act was coming to its eventual conclusion, Rush Limbaugh made a bold statement about his future as a resident of the United State of America. Speaking to a caller who expressed concerns about the impact of Obamacare on the U.S. healthcare system, Limbaugh said, 'If this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented, I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica.'" [Mediaite]

*COMFORT FOOD*

- A timelapse of mold growing.

- The inside of a driverless Mercedes.

- Recreating the clocktower scene from "Back to the Future" with LEGOs.

*TWITTERAMA*

@alexburnsNYT: We have officially entered the "Will Sen. [NAME] return the $[SUM] they got from Bob Menendez?" phase of the story

@evanmcsan: “hello, I’m Senator .”

@AliWatkins: wait can we make @SenTomCotton's official hashtag #TCOTT.

*Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com) or Arthur Delaney (arthur@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e* Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Costs and Affordability of Care

0
0
In this second post assessing the track record of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) five years after its enactment, we now look at its impact on containment of health care costs and affordability of care, two of its principal goals. In the last post, we noted that up to 11 million Americans have gained access to care through the exchanges, but pointed out the many limits to these numbers; the Obama administration now claims that an additional 10 million have been enrolled in Medicaid or the CHIP children's health program since the start of the ACA. (1)

The ACA has accelerated a number of trends that were in place before its enactment, including consolidation of hospital systems, purchase of physicians' groups by hospitals (and sometimes insurers), narrowing of networks of hospitals and physicians by insurers, shift of costs to patients through higher deductibles and co-payments, and an ongoing drive to game the system for higher profits. It is now clear that there are no significant ways that the ACA can contain costs, which are driven by increasing prices without any price controls.

Starting with the price problem, here are some of the continuing problems:
· Expanding hospital systems lead to higher prices as they gain market share and have less competition (2); in his recent book, Steven Brill has described the many ways that hospital billings are generated without transparency. (3)· A committee of the American Medical Association, the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) continues to recommend reimbursement values for physician services to the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which usually accepts them (4); that process is filled with conflicts of interest on the physician side (5); over the last five years, prices of a primary care physician visit have gone up by 20 percent, 29 percent for specialist visits, and 43 percent for outpatient surgery. (6)· Insurers still have wide latitude to set their own premium prices, with little restraint by state regulators, even as they shift more costs to patients through higher cost-sharing; insurance premiums in Alaska and other rural areas are three times higher than other parts of the country (7); insurers are also increasing co-insurance requirements for specialty drugs (such as those for cancer or rheumatoid arthritis), with these rates now over 50 percent for bronze plans and 41 percent for silver plans. (8)· Drug companies inflate their costs to bring new drugs to market as a way to set higher prices, as summarized in a 2014 article by experts on this problem. (9)
Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation summarizes the price problem in this way:

It's striking that while price is such an important reason our system appears to cost so much more than others, efforts to reduce the high prices of medical care are not a meaningful part of current cost-reduction efforts.(10)

So does the ACA contain health care costs? Not surprisingly, since prices keep going up, the answer is no. But we need to ask a more telling question -- whose costs are we talking about? Many focus on the costs of insurance premiums, which indeed may go down for many (for less coverage and higher cost-sharing) or annual national health care spending (which has moderated somewhat in recent years, mostly as a result of the recession and many foregoing visits to the doctor) (11). But the real question is the costs of health care, especially out-of-pocket costs for patients. And here, patients' costs continue their upward spiral, for some of these reasons:
· For those with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI, which is exempted from the provisions of the ACA), most will pay more because of cuts in benefits, higher cost-sharing, and having to pay a larger share of premiums; some employers have dropped coverage or shifted employees to the exchanges. (12)· While many low-income people have fared better in states that have expanded Medicaid under the ACA, those in the 22 non-expanding states have done much worse; many of these states have very restrictive policies for eligibility and coverage; some have established private Medicaid programs, which the CBO has found to cost 50 percent more than public Medicaid programs. (13)
As for affordability of health care, despite its name, the ACA also fails to meet that goal, despite subsidies that many receive to purchase insurance. These measures make the point:
· According to a recent Gallup poll, 22 percent of people now say that the cost of care has led them to delay treatment for a serious condition, the highest percentage since 2001. (14)· A study by the Commonwealth Fund has found that almost 10 percent of median household income now goes to insurance premiums and deductibles, not including other cost-sharing requirements; a recent poll by the New York Time/CBS found that 46 percent of respondents have trouble affording health care. (15)· Pew research has shown that 55 percent of American households are savings-limited, able only to replace less than one month of their income through liquid savings. (16)· An estimated 43 million Americans now have an account in collection for medical debt, which makes up 52 percent of collection accounts on credit reports. (17)
Looking forward, the picture is not promising. Already, a recent tracking poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation has found that 41 percent of those without health insurance cannot afford health insurance under the ACA. (18) If the U. S. Supreme Court rules against subsidies in states with federal exchanges, a Rand study projects the cost of unsubsidized premiums could increase by almost one-half, and that 70 percent of consumers would cancel their policies (19), while a new study by the Urban Institute estimates that more than 8 million people will lose their insurance. (20) As for longer-term costs to the government and taxpayers, the CBO projects that the federal government will end up paying $50,000 for every person getting health insurance under the ACA. (21)

In our next post, we will look at the impact of the ACA on quality of care.

*References:*

1. Sullivan, P. Medicaid rolls grew by 10M under Obamacare. The Hill,
February 23, 2015.

2. Pear, R. F.T.C. wary of mergers by hospitals. New York Times, September 17, 2014.

3.Brill, S. America's Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Health Care System. New York. Random House, 2015.

4. Holzer, B. Physician, pay thyself: industry holds sway over Medicare rate decisions. Public Citizen News 34 (6): December 2014.

5. Rosenthal, E. Patients' costs skyrocket; specialists' incomes soar. New York Times, January 18, 2014.

6. Editors, Out of pocket, out of control. Bloomberg View, February 16, 2015.

7. Rau, J. Alaska health plan premiums, highest in nation, are triple those in Phoenix. Kaiser Health News, January 15, 2015.

8. Pearson, CF. Exchange plans increase costs of specialty drugs for patients in 2015. Avalere, December 2, 2014.

9. Light, DW, Kantarjian, H. Cancer Rx: the $100,000 myth. AARP Bulletin, May 2014, p. 22.

10. Altman, D. High health-care prices: more talk than action. Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2015.11. Leonhardt, D. The health-cost slowdown isn't just about the economy. New York Times, December 5, 2014.

12. Appleby, J. Expect to pay more for your employer-sponsored health care next year. Kaiser Health News, December 20, 2013.

13. Healthcare-NOW! Single Payer Activist Guide to the Affordable Care Act, 2013, p. 10.

14. Ibid # 5.

15. Rosenthal, E. Insured, but not covered. New York Times, February 7, 2015.

16. Pew Charitable Trusts. The precarious state of family balance sheets. January 29, 2015.

17. Hillebrand, G. Consumer advisory: 7 ways to keep medical debt in check. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, December 11, 2014.

18. Carey, MA. http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/a-quarter-of-uninsured-say-they-cant-afford-to-buy-coverage/. Kaiser Health News, November 21, 2014.

19. Appleby, J. Supreme Court insurance subsidies decision could trigger price spikes. Kaiser Health News, February 26, 2015.

20. Ehley, B. If SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, health costs will soar. The Fiscal Times, February 15, 2015.

21. CBO report: Obamacare to cost government $50 K per person. Newsmax, January 27, 2015.

Adapted in part from my new book, How Obamacare Is Unsustainable: Why We Need a Single Payer Solution for All Americans. Friday Harbor, WA. Copernicus Healthcare, 2015. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Colorado health insurance exchange officials clash over Medicaid role

0
0
Medicaid patients enrolling through the state health insurance exchange are taking too much of its resources, exchange board members said Monday, but state officials propose an even tighter Reported by Denver Post 2 hours ago.

Business Highlights

0
0
Time will tell if millions of consumers are willing to spend $350 on up — there's an 18-karat gold version that starts at $10,000 — for a wearable device that still requires a wirelessly connected smartphone to deliver some of its most powerful features. [...] CEO Tim Cook made his case Monday that the Apple Watch is the next must-have device, able to keep people connected to the Internet and serving their information needs all day long, like no other tool has quite been able to do. The bull has pushed through a U.S. debt crisis, an escalating conflict in the Middle East, renewed tensions with Russia over Ukraine and Europe's stagnating economy. In return, an activist shareholder decided to drop a potentially divisive bid for a seat on the company's board. The moves, announced Monday, are part of a deal with Harry Wilson, a former member of the government task force that restructured GM coming out of its 2009 bankruptcy. Wilson, who represents four hedge funds which own about 2 percent of the company, had previously accused GM of hoarding cash to the detriment of shareholders and had sought an $8 billion buyback and a board seat. WASHINGTON (AP) — Supporters of President Barack Obama's trade agenda are battling opponents' demands to bar China from keeping its currency value artificially low, a way to subsidize exports. [...] they say, it's not clear that China still manipulates its currency. WASHINGTON (AP) — Slowing health care costs are driving down the price tag of President Barack Obama's health overhaul, just as the Supreme Court is weighing whether to strike a key part of the law. Health insurance premiums are rising slower than projected, and new data show there were fewer people without health insurance before the law. WASHINGTON (AP) — Most business economists expect the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in the second half of this year, but say uncertainty over the Fed's plans is no longer slowing U.S. economic recovery, according to a new survey. The world's biggest hamburger chain has been struggling to hold onto customers amid shifting tastes and intensifying competition, including a slew of places that position themselves as more wholesome alternatives. Alcoa is taking another step to bolster its stake in the aerospace industry with a $1.5 billion deal to buy titanium supplier RTI International Metals. CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) — Price hikes are curtailing access to a popular form of an antidote to heroin overdoses, with costs doubling in the past year and the manufacturer's stock price rising by 70 percent since it went public. Reported by SeattlePI.com 2 hours ago.

CBO Sees Slightly Higher 2015 Deficit Than Previously Forecast

0
0
The U.S. budget deficit will rise slightly this year but fall in the coming two years relative to prior projections amid stronger economic growth and slower increases in spending on private health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday. Reported by Wall Street Journal 24 minutes ago.

Hawaii Health Connector surpasses 2015 enrollment goal

0
0
The Hawaii Health Connector enrolled 30,100 residents in health insurance coverage as of Monday — 3,100 more than its goal set for the fiscal year. The state's online health insurance exchange had set a goal of 27,000 enrollments by June 30, and aims to enroll 97,000 to 112,000 people by 2024. Over 13,356 residents were enrolled during the three-month enrollment period that ended mid-February, compared to about 5,000 to 6,000 enrollees the year prior, bringing total enrollment to 23,000 last… Reported by bizjournals 1 day ago.

The New Health Care: More Good News on the Deficit, This Time Because of Private Insurance Health Premiums

0
0
Federal budget forecasters lowered estimates of what the government will spend on health insurance premiums, months after doing the same for Medicare. Reported by NYTimes.com 1 day ago.

Pacific Prime Hong Kong Release Guide on Private Versus Public Healthcare in Hong Kong

0
0
Pacific Prime Hong Kong have released a guide that reviews the benefits of both the private and the public health care systems in the city

Hong Kong (PRWEB) March 10, 2015

Following the announcement of how HKD 50 billion, earmarked by the Hong Kong government in 2008, will be spent on both private and public health care in the city, Pacific Prime Hong Kong has released a new guide highlighting the difference between private and public health care in Hong Kong.

Titled Private VS Public: Health Care in Hong Kong, and covering aspects like accessibility, cost, comfort, quality of care, and more, the Private VS Public Health Care in Hong Kong guide provides expats and companies with an in-depth overview of the public and private health care systems in Hong Kong.

Because both the private and public health care systems in Hong Kong have their benefits and drawbacks, the information in the guide has been developed so that expats living and working in the city can make an informed decision when they need to use the system.

The guide is available for free on Pacific Prime Hong Kong’s website, and can be found here.

About Pacific Prime
An award-winning health insurance intermediary, Pacific Prime Hong Kong specializes in helping expats and foreigners living in the city find health insurance plans that meet their specific needs. With over 60,000 clients worldwide, and 15 years of experience, the company is the first place many turn to when they need help making sense of health insurance. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

Report: Specialty Drugs Drive Prescription Spending Jump

0
0
Report: Specialty Drugs Drive Prescription Spending Jump Filed under: Health Care, Personal Finance, Drug Companies, Health Insurance, Consumer Issues

*Matt Rourke/AP*

Prescription drugs spending jumped 13 percent last year, the biggest annual increase since 2003, according to the nation's largest pharmacy benefits manager.

Express Scripts (ESRX) said Tuesday that the jump was fueled in part by pricey specialty drugs that accounted for more than 31 cents of every dollar spent on prescriptions even though they represented only 1 percent of all U.S. prescriptions filled.Specialty drugs are advanced medications that treat complex or chronic conditions such as multiple sclerosis or certain forms of cancer. Many are seen as treatment breakthroughs, especially newer hepatitis C treatments like Sovaldi from Gilead Sciences (GILD). But Sovaldi also can cost $84,000 for a course of treatment, and those prices have drawn criticism from patient groups, insurers and Express Scripts, which runs prescription coverage for insurers and employers across the country.

Drugmakers have said the higher cost of their drugs can be recouped over time because the treatments will reduce future health care costs. In Sovaldi's case, Gilead has said that means fewer patients suffering from liver failure or transplant complications.

Express Scripts said in its annual report that spending on specialty drugs rose 31 percent last year, and compound drug costs also affected overall spending growth. In contrast, spending on more traditional prescription drugs rose 6.4 percent.

The St. Louis company also said the trend on specialty drugs will slow to more sustainable levels in the next three years.

Express Scripts and other prescription bill payers have been negotiating preferred treatment agreements with some specialty drugmakers in an attempt to gain leverage over the cost of the drugs. Some also have started using management tools like limiting use of drugs like Sovaldi to the most serious forms of hepatitis C.

Express Scripts manages drug benefits for 85 million people and analyzed more than 750 million pharmacy claims from its customers for its report.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 12 hours ago.

A List Of Essential Insurance Policies A Driver Should Have!

0
0
Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com (http://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com/) announces a new blog post, “Important Policies Any Driver Should Purchase”

(PRWEB) March 10, 2015

Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com has released a new blog post presenting a list of important insurance policies for a driver.

Auto insurance, life insurance and health insurance are essential policies for a driver. All of these policies, combined, provide the best financial protection for a driver and his or her car. Life insurance offers financial protection for the driver’s family, in case the driver dies in an accident.

When searching for cheap car insurance, clients should always compare quotes. Auto insurance quotes are now available online, on a single website like: http://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com/. Here, clients can get the best rates in their area simply by completing a single quote form. The service is free and reliable.

Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.

Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com is owned by Internet Marketing Company.

For more information, please visit http://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.

More Sign Up for Obamacare, Cost Estimate Goes Down

0
0
Nearly 11.7 million people signed up for health insurance under Obamacare for this year, the administration says. Reported by msnbc.com 10 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images