Optum, a division of health insurance giant UnitedHealth Group, has acquired MedExpress Urgent Care, a leader in walk-in care. Representatives of both companies were not immediately available Monday and terms of the deal were not disclosed. Eden Praire, Minn.-based Optum announced the acquisition in a press release. Downtown Pittsburgh-based health insurer Highmark Inc. has a 10 percent share in MedExpress, but it was not immediately clear how the acquisition will affect the investment. Morgantown,…
Reported by bizjournals 23 hours ago.
UnitedHealth subsidiary acquires MedExpress
↧
↧
Y Combinator-Backed Health Insurance Startup SimplyInsured Pulls In $1.75 Million In Seed Funding
Online health insurance for small businesses platform SimplyInsured has raised a total of $1.75 million in seed funding from Starling Ventures, Altair, NerdWallet co-founders Jake Gibson and Tim Chen, Amee and Adil Chaudry, Sam Melamed and Y Combinator to help “pour gas” on sales of the product. SimplyInsured launched out of Y Combinator’s winter 2013 batch with the aim of… Read More
Reported by TechCrunch 21 hours ago.
↧
Just because it's worth $1 billion doesn't mean it's a unicorn, says VC who lived through the last bubble
Brad Feld, the founder of both tech incubator Techstars and Boulder-based VC firm Foundry Group, has a message for Silicon Valley.In a tweetstorm Monday, Feld warned that just because a company is valued at more than a billion dollars, that doesn't mean it's a "unicorn."
The term "unicorn" is used today to refer to private tech companies with a $1 billion valuation, but it was originally investor-speak for the rare startup that offers massive returns, and can make an entire fund.
A company's valuation is relative and fleeting, and not necessarily indicative of how much it's going to be worth over time.
As chatter about billion-dollar companies continues, Feld's tweetstorm couldn't have come at a better time. On Monday, health insurance startup Oscar announced that it had just closed a $4145 million round of funding, making it the latest company with a billion-dollar valuation.
Here's what he had to say:
1. I'm starting to see companies that crested $1b from the last 1990's referred to as Unicorns
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
2. Useful history lesson - some of these were worth > $1b.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
3. But many of them were worth a lot less in the end.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
4. Some went bankrupt (well - a lot went bankrupt).
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
5. Others were bought for much less than $1b.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
6. Two from my life were Interliant and MessageMedia.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
7. Interliant peak market cap as a public company was just under $3b in 2000.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
8. It went bankrupt in 2002.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
9. MessageMedia peak market cap as a public company in 2000 was around $1.5b.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
10. DoubleClick acquired it in 2002 for $14m.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
11. Just remember - it's not cash until you can buy beer with it.
— Brad Feld (@bfeld) April 20, 2015
*SEE ALSO: A major tech investor says 'a whole bunch of crazy little companies will disappear'*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Kids settle the debate and tell us which is better: an Apple or Samsung phone Reported by Business Insider 19 hours ago.
↧
Power Morcellator Lawyers at Bernstein Liebhard LLP Comment on Insurance Trade Group’s Call for Greater Regulation of Medical Devices
The Firm commends the AHIP call for greater regulation of medical devices, particularly strengthening of the FDA’s 510(k) program, in light of safety concerns surrounding power morcellator.
New York, New York (PRWEB) April 20, 2015
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association representing the U.S. health insurance industry, is seeking greater regulation of medical devices as a result of the recent controversy involving surgical tools called power morcellators (http://www.morcellatorlawsuit2015.com). In a letter to U.S. Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) dated April 14th, the group asserted that the safety concerns surrounding uterine morcellation point to “serious gaps in the current approval and post monitoring process for medical devices." Among other things, the letter called for a strengthening of the pre- and post-market review processes, particularly the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) 510(k) clearance program for medical devices, which allowed power morcellators to come to market without the benefit of human testing.*
“The AHIP is correct that the power morcellator issue illustrates the need for stronger medical device oversight, and we commend the organization for bringing attention to this important public health issue. In particular, we agree the 510(K) system should be reviewed, as morcellators are far from the only devices cleared through this program that would later become the subject of safety concerns.** In fact, we are currently litigating numerous medical device lawsuits involving transvaginal mesh, metal hip implants and other products that have gone through this process," says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is providing free legal consultations to women who were diagnosed with advanced uterine cancer following surgery with a power morcellator.
FDA 510(k) Clearance
Under the FDA’s 510(k) program, a medical device is not required to undergo human testing if a manufacturer can prove that the product is “substantially equivalent” to a device that is already on the market. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine called on the FDA to eliminate the 510(k) program entirely, after concluding that a reliance on substantial equivalence cannot assure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices reviewed through this process.***
Power morcellators are used in minimally-invasive hysterectomies and fibroid removal procedures to shred tissue so that it may be removed through a small abdominal incision. On April 17, 2014, the FDA issued a public alert which discouraged doctors from using the devices in gynecological procedures, due to their potential to spread and upstage undetected uterine cancers.**** This past November, the agency updated its earlier alert, and warned that the devices should not be used on a majority of women who require these types of surgeries because of this risk. Among other things, the FDA pointed out the difficulty in screening for uterine malignancies prior to surgery, and noted that the dissemination of these cancer cells greatly reduces a woman’s odds of long-term survival.
Alleged victims of uterine cancers that were spread via a power morcellator may be entitled to compensation for their injury-related damages. To learn more, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP’s website, or call the Firm directly for a free, no-obligation case review at 800-511-5092.
*assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/AHIP_Letter_SenCasey_PowerMorcellators_41415.pdf, AHIP, April 14, 2015
**propublica.org/special/four-medical-implants-that-escaped-fda-scrutiny, ProPublica, April 30, 2012
***http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13150, Institute of Medicine, September 2011
****fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm393576.htm, FDA, April 17, 2014
About Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993. As a national law firm, Bernstein Liebhard LLP possesses all of the legal and financial resources required to successfully challenge billion dollar pharmaceutical and medical device companies. As a result, our attorneys and legal staff have been able to recover more than $3 billion on behalf of our clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. Bernstein Liebhard LLP is the only firm in the country to be named to this prestigious list every year since it was first published in 2003.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
800-511-5092
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2015 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, 800-511-5092. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
info(at)consumerinjurylawyers(dot)com
http://www.morcellatorlawsuit2015.com
https://plus.google.com/115936073311125306742?rel=author Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.
New York, New York (PRWEB) April 20, 2015
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association representing the U.S. health insurance industry, is seeking greater regulation of medical devices as a result of the recent controversy involving surgical tools called power morcellators (http://www.morcellatorlawsuit2015.com). In a letter to U.S. Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) dated April 14th, the group asserted that the safety concerns surrounding uterine morcellation point to “serious gaps in the current approval and post monitoring process for medical devices." Among other things, the letter called for a strengthening of the pre- and post-market review processes, particularly the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) 510(k) clearance program for medical devices, which allowed power morcellators to come to market without the benefit of human testing.*
“The AHIP is correct that the power morcellator issue illustrates the need for stronger medical device oversight, and we commend the organization for bringing attention to this important public health issue. In particular, we agree the 510(K) system should be reviewed, as morcellators are far from the only devices cleared through this program that would later become the subject of safety concerns.** In fact, we are currently litigating numerous medical device lawsuits involving transvaginal mesh, metal hip implants and other products that have gone through this process," says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is providing free legal consultations to women who were diagnosed with advanced uterine cancer following surgery with a power morcellator.
FDA 510(k) Clearance
Under the FDA’s 510(k) program, a medical device is not required to undergo human testing if a manufacturer can prove that the product is “substantially equivalent” to a device that is already on the market. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine called on the FDA to eliminate the 510(k) program entirely, after concluding that a reliance on substantial equivalence cannot assure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices reviewed through this process.***
Power morcellators are used in minimally-invasive hysterectomies and fibroid removal procedures to shred tissue so that it may be removed through a small abdominal incision. On April 17, 2014, the FDA issued a public alert which discouraged doctors from using the devices in gynecological procedures, due to their potential to spread and upstage undetected uterine cancers.**** This past November, the agency updated its earlier alert, and warned that the devices should not be used on a majority of women who require these types of surgeries because of this risk. Among other things, the FDA pointed out the difficulty in screening for uterine malignancies prior to surgery, and noted that the dissemination of these cancer cells greatly reduces a woman’s odds of long-term survival.
Alleged victims of uterine cancers that were spread via a power morcellator may be entitled to compensation for their injury-related damages. To learn more, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP’s website, or call the Firm directly for a free, no-obligation case review at 800-511-5092.
*assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/AHIP_Letter_SenCasey_PowerMorcellators_41415.pdf, AHIP, April 14, 2015
**propublica.org/special/four-medical-implants-that-escaped-fda-scrutiny, ProPublica, April 30, 2012
***http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13150, Institute of Medicine, September 2011
****fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm393576.htm, FDA, April 17, 2014
About Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993. As a national law firm, Bernstein Liebhard LLP possesses all of the legal and financial resources required to successfully challenge billion dollar pharmaceutical and medical device companies. As a result, our attorneys and legal staff have been able to recover more than $3 billion on behalf of our clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. Bernstein Liebhard LLP is the only firm in the country to be named to this prestigious list every year since it was first published in 2003.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
800-511-5092
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2015 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, 800-511-5092. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
info(at)consumerinjurylawyers(dot)com
http://www.morcellatorlawsuit2015.com
https://plus.google.com/115936073311125306742?rel=author Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.
↧
Here's Proof That Obamacare Was Anything But a Government Takeover
Anyone who still thinks the Affordable Care Act was a "government takeover of health care" should consider this headline from the news pages of last Thursday's Investor's Business Daily:
UnitedHealth Profit Soars On Obamacare, Optum
That's from a Wall Street publication whose editorial writers have rarely missed an opportunity to bash the health care reform law. Here are a few other headlines, these from IBD's editorial page, just since the first of this year.
More Phony ObamaCare Numbers From The White House--March 16, 2015
Shock Poll: Half The Uninsured Want Obamacare Repealed--March 3, 2015
Democrats Keep Running Away From ObamaCare--February 18, 2015
CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare--January 27, 2015
It wouldn't surprise me if UnitedHealth Group executives helped shape the opinions of those editorial writers during the reform debate. One of the things I did in my old job as head of PR for one of the country's other big for profit-insurers was arranging for my CEO to have "desk side chats" with bigwigs at important publications like Investor's Business Daily. We would often leave those meetings with an invitation to submit an op-ed, as was the case several years ago when Ed Hanway, Cigna's CEO at the time, and I visited with then Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann and Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
The CEOs of the largest for-profit health insurance corporations were very wary of Obamacare as it was being drafted on Capitol Hill. They didn't really say so publicly--in fact they had their chief lobbyist, America's Health Insurance Plans' Karen Ignagni--claim to support reform.
"You have our commitment to play, to contribute, and to help pass health care reform this year," Ignagni told President Obama during a March 5, 2009, meeting at the White House.
But insurers were playing a duplicitous game. Later that year, Ignagni's group began secretly funneling tens of millions of dollars to allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to finance anti-Obamacare PR and ad campaigns. The big for-profit insurers, which gave AHIP the lion's share of the secret money, arguably are more responsible than any other special interest in turning the public's attitudes against reform.
Although the insurers stood to gain financially from a law that would require Americans to buy coverage from them, many Wall Street financial analysts and investors worried that some provisions of the law might cut into insurers' profit margins.
Analysts and investors in particular didn't like the section of the law that would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenues on health care. Before the law, many insurers routinely spent 60 percent or less of their revenues on patient care. The less spent on care, the more available to reward shareholders.
Wall Street also didn't like the provision that would have created a government-run public option to compete with commercial insurers, and they didn't think the penalties on Americans who refused to buy coverage were harsh enough.
Partly because of the anti-reform advertising blitz insurers financed in late 2009 and early 2010, Congress capitulated and gave up on the public option. And lawmakers agreed to make the penalty for not buying insurance more painful with every passing year.
But despite the worry, it turns out that the law the insurance industry's shills demonized has been awfully good to insurance company investors.
Here's how IBD's Vance Cariaga reported UnitedHealth Group's first quarter 2015 earnings report last Thursday:
"UnitedHealth Group delivered its best quarter in years Thursday as it benefited from new Obamacare customers, another strong Optum-platform showing and tame medical expenses. The nation's No. 1 health insurer also raised its full-year 2015 sales and earnings guidance." (Optum is a fast-growing division of the company that provides data and other services to its health plan division as well as to employers and other insurers.)
UnitedHealth Group's revenues grew an eye-popping 13 percent, from $31.7 billion in the first quarter of 2014 to $35.8 billion in the first quarter of 2015. Net earnings on a per share basis were even more impressive, growing 33 percent, from $1.10 to $1.46 per share.
One reasons for the glowing results was the fact that UnitedHealth added 570,000 new customers during the first quarter of 2015 from the Obamacare exchanges. And contrary to conventional wisdom, that the formerly uninsured Obamacare customers would overuse medical services, UnitedHealth executives said that wasn't the case.
In fact, the company's CEO, Stephen J. Hemsley, said that even with the new Obamacare enrollees, the company "improved" its medical loss ratio, which measures the percent of revenues spent on medical care, from 82.5 to 81.1 percent. He used the word "improved" because, as I noted, Wall Street loves it when insurers spend less on medical care.
That decrease was viewed as a very positive development by investors. By the end of Thursday, they had bid up the company's share price by 3.6 percent, to $121.60, just shy of the all-time high of $123.76 set on March 30.
I can't wait to see how IBD's editorial writers spin UnitedHealth's Obamacare success. I'll let you know if and when they weigh in. But don't hold your breath.
This was published initially by the Center for Public Integrity.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 20 hours ago.
UnitedHealth Profit Soars On Obamacare, Optum
That's from a Wall Street publication whose editorial writers have rarely missed an opportunity to bash the health care reform law. Here are a few other headlines, these from IBD's editorial page, just since the first of this year.
More Phony ObamaCare Numbers From The White House--March 16, 2015
Shock Poll: Half The Uninsured Want Obamacare Repealed--March 3, 2015
Democrats Keep Running Away From ObamaCare--February 18, 2015
CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare--January 27, 2015
It wouldn't surprise me if UnitedHealth Group executives helped shape the opinions of those editorial writers during the reform debate. One of the things I did in my old job as head of PR for one of the country's other big for profit-insurers was arranging for my CEO to have "desk side chats" with bigwigs at important publications like Investor's Business Daily. We would often leave those meetings with an invitation to submit an op-ed, as was the case several years ago when Ed Hanway, Cigna's CEO at the time, and I visited with then Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann and Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
The CEOs of the largest for-profit health insurance corporations were very wary of Obamacare as it was being drafted on Capitol Hill. They didn't really say so publicly--in fact they had their chief lobbyist, America's Health Insurance Plans' Karen Ignagni--claim to support reform.
"You have our commitment to play, to contribute, and to help pass health care reform this year," Ignagni told President Obama during a March 5, 2009, meeting at the White House.
But insurers were playing a duplicitous game. Later that year, Ignagni's group began secretly funneling tens of millions of dollars to allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to finance anti-Obamacare PR and ad campaigns. The big for-profit insurers, which gave AHIP the lion's share of the secret money, arguably are more responsible than any other special interest in turning the public's attitudes against reform.
Although the insurers stood to gain financially from a law that would require Americans to buy coverage from them, many Wall Street financial analysts and investors worried that some provisions of the law might cut into insurers' profit margins.
Analysts and investors in particular didn't like the section of the law that would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenues on health care. Before the law, many insurers routinely spent 60 percent or less of their revenues on patient care. The less spent on care, the more available to reward shareholders.
Wall Street also didn't like the provision that would have created a government-run public option to compete with commercial insurers, and they didn't think the penalties on Americans who refused to buy coverage were harsh enough.
Partly because of the anti-reform advertising blitz insurers financed in late 2009 and early 2010, Congress capitulated and gave up on the public option. And lawmakers agreed to make the penalty for not buying insurance more painful with every passing year.
But despite the worry, it turns out that the law the insurance industry's shills demonized has been awfully good to insurance company investors.
Here's how IBD's Vance Cariaga reported UnitedHealth Group's first quarter 2015 earnings report last Thursday:
"UnitedHealth Group delivered its best quarter in years Thursday as it benefited from new Obamacare customers, another strong Optum-platform showing and tame medical expenses. The nation's No. 1 health insurer also raised its full-year 2015 sales and earnings guidance." (Optum is a fast-growing division of the company that provides data and other services to its health plan division as well as to employers and other insurers.)
UnitedHealth Group's revenues grew an eye-popping 13 percent, from $31.7 billion in the first quarter of 2014 to $35.8 billion in the first quarter of 2015. Net earnings on a per share basis were even more impressive, growing 33 percent, from $1.10 to $1.46 per share.
One reasons for the glowing results was the fact that UnitedHealth added 570,000 new customers during the first quarter of 2015 from the Obamacare exchanges. And contrary to conventional wisdom, that the formerly uninsured Obamacare customers would overuse medical services, UnitedHealth executives said that wasn't the case.
In fact, the company's CEO, Stephen J. Hemsley, said that even with the new Obamacare enrollees, the company "improved" its medical loss ratio, which measures the percent of revenues spent on medical care, from 82.5 to 81.1 percent. He used the word "improved" because, as I noted, Wall Street loves it when insurers spend less on medical care.
That decrease was viewed as a very positive development by investors. By the end of Thursday, they had bid up the company's share price by 3.6 percent, to $121.60, just shy of the all-time high of $123.76 set on March 30.
I can't wait to see how IBD's editorial writers spin UnitedHealth's Obamacare success. I'll let you know if and when they weigh in. But don't hold your breath.
This was published initially by the Center for Public Integrity.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 20 hours ago.
↧
↧
Here's Proof That Obamacare Was Anything but a Government Takeover
Anyone who still thinks the Affordable Care Act was a "government takeover of health care" should consider this headline from the news pages of last Thursday's Investor's Business Daily:
"UnitedHealth Profit Soars On Obamacare, Optum"
That's from a Wall Street publication whose editorial writers have rarely missed an opportunity to bash the healthcare-reform law. Here are a few other headlines, these from IBD's editorial page, just since the first of this year:
"More Phony ObamaCare Numbers From The White House" (March 16, 2015)
"Shock Poll: Half The Uninsured Want Obamacare Repealed" (March 3, 2015)
"Democrats Keep Running Away From ObamaCare" (Feb. 18, 2015)
"CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare" (Jan. 27, 2015)
It wouldn't surprise me if UnitedHealth Group executives helped shape the opinions of those editorial writers during the reform debate. One of the things I did in my old job as head of PR for one of the country's other big for-profit insurers was arranging for my CEO to have "desk-side chats" with bigwigs at important publications like Investor's Business Daily. We would often leave those meetings with an invitation to submit an op-ed, as was the case several years ago when Ed Hanway, Cigna's CEO at the time, and I visited with then-Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann and Daniel Henninger, the deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
The CEOs of the largest for-profit health-insurance corporations were very wary of Obamacare as it was being drafted on Capitol Hill. They didn't really say so publicly; in fact, they had their chief lobbyist, America's Health Insurance Plans' Karen Ignagni claim to support reform.
"You have our commitment to play, to contribute, and to help pass healthcare reform this year," Ignagni told President Obama during a March 5, 2009, meeting at the White House.
But insurers were playing a duplicitous game. Later that year Ignagni's group began secretly funneling tens of millions of dollars to allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to finance anti-Obamacare PR and ad campaigns. The big for-profit insurers, which gave AHIP the lion's share of the secret money, arguably are more responsible than any other special interest for turning the public's attitudes against reform.
Although the insurers stood to gain financially from a law that would require Americans to buy coverage from them, many Wall Street financial analysts and investors worried that some provisions of the law might cut into insurers' profit margins.
Analysts and investors in particular didn't like the section of the law that would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenues on health care. Before the law, many insurers routinely spent 60 percent or less of their revenues on patient care. The less spent on care, the more available to reward shareholders.
Wall Street also didn't like the provision that would have created a government-run public option to compete with commercial insurers, and they didn't think the penalties on Americans who refused to buy coverage were harsh enough.
Partly because of the anti-reform advertising blitz that insurers financed in late 2009 and early 2010, Congress capitulated and gave up on the public option. And lawmakers agreed to make the penalty for not buying insurance more painful with every passing year.
But despite the worry, it turns out that the law that the insurance industry's shills demonized has been awfully good to insurance-company investors.
Here's how IBD's Vance Cariaga reported UnitedHealth Group's report on its first-quarter-2015 earnings last Thursday:
UnitedHealth Group delivered its best quarter in years Thursday as it benefited from new Obamacare customers, another strong Optum-platform showing and tame medical expenses. The nation's No. 1 health insurer also raised its full-year 2015 sales and earnings guidance.
(Optum is a fast-growing division of the company that provides data and other services to its health-plan division, as well as to employers and other insurers.)
UnitedHealth Group's revenues grew an eye-popping 13 percent, from $31.7 billion in the first quarter of 2014 to $35.8 billion in the first quarter of 2015. Net earnings on a per-share basis were even more impressive, growing 33 percent, from $1.10 to $1.46 per share.
One reasons for the glowing results was the fact that UnitedHealth added 570,000 new customers during the first quarter of 2015 from the Obamacare exchanges. And contrary to conventional wisdom, that the formerly uninsured Obamacare customers would overuse medical services, UnitedHealth executives said that wasn't the case.
In fact, the company's CEO, Stephen J. Hemsley, said that even with the new Obamacare enrollees, the company "improved" its medical-loss ratio, which measures the percent of revenues spent on medical care, from 82.5 to 81.1 percent. He used the word "improved" because, as I noted, Wall Street loves it when insurers spend less on medical care.
That decrease was viewed as a very positive development by investors. By the end of Thursday, they had bid up the company's share price by 3.6 percent, to $121.60, just shy of the all-time high of $123.76 set on March 30.
I can't wait to see how IBD's editorial writers spin UnitedHealth's Obamacare success. I'll let you know if and when they weigh in. But don't hold your breath.
This post was published initially by the Center for Public Integrity.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.
"UnitedHealth Profit Soars On Obamacare, Optum"
That's from a Wall Street publication whose editorial writers have rarely missed an opportunity to bash the healthcare-reform law. Here are a few other headlines, these from IBD's editorial page, just since the first of this year:
"More Phony ObamaCare Numbers From The White House" (March 16, 2015)
"Shock Poll: Half The Uninsured Want Obamacare Repealed" (March 3, 2015)
"Democrats Keep Running Away From ObamaCare" (Feb. 18, 2015)
"CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare" (Jan. 27, 2015)
It wouldn't surprise me if UnitedHealth Group executives helped shape the opinions of those editorial writers during the reform debate. One of the things I did in my old job as head of PR for one of the country's other big for-profit insurers was arranging for my CEO to have "desk-side chats" with bigwigs at important publications like Investor's Business Daily. We would often leave those meetings with an invitation to submit an op-ed, as was the case several years ago when Ed Hanway, Cigna's CEO at the time, and I visited with then-Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann and Daniel Henninger, the deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
The CEOs of the largest for-profit health-insurance corporations were very wary of Obamacare as it was being drafted on Capitol Hill. They didn't really say so publicly; in fact, they had their chief lobbyist, America's Health Insurance Plans' Karen Ignagni claim to support reform.
"You have our commitment to play, to contribute, and to help pass healthcare reform this year," Ignagni told President Obama during a March 5, 2009, meeting at the White House.
But insurers were playing a duplicitous game. Later that year Ignagni's group began secretly funneling tens of millions of dollars to allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to finance anti-Obamacare PR and ad campaigns. The big for-profit insurers, which gave AHIP the lion's share of the secret money, arguably are more responsible than any other special interest for turning the public's attitudes against reform.
Although the insurers stood to gain financially from a law that would require Americans to buy coverage from them, many Wall Street financial analysts and investors worried that some provisions of the law might cut into insurers' profit margins.
Analysts and investors in particular didn't like the section of the law that would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenues on health care. Before the law, many insurers routinely spent 60 percent or less of their revenues on patient care. The less spent on care, the more available to reward shareholders.
Wall Street also didn't like the provision that would have created a government-run public option to compete with commercial insurers, and they didn't think the penalties on Americans who refused to buy coverage were harsh enough.
Partly because of the anti-reform advertising blitz that insurers financed in late 2009 and early 2010, Congress capitulated and gave up on the public option. And lawmakers agreed to make the penalty for not buying insurance more painful with every passing year.
But despite the worry, it turns out that the law that the insurance industry's shills demonized has been awfully good to insurance-company investors.
Here's how IBD's Vance Cariaga reported UnitedHealth Group's report on its first-quarter-2015 earnings last Thursday:
UnitedHealth Group delivered its best quarter in years Thursday as it benefited from new Obamacare customers, another strong Optum-platform showing and tame medical expenses. The nation's No. 1 health insurer also raised its full-year 2015 sales and earnings guidance.
(Optum is a fast-growing division of the company that provides data and other services to its health-plan division, as well as to employers and other insurers.)
UnitedHealth Group's revenues grew an eye-popping 13 percent, from $31.7 billion in the first quarter of 2014 to $35.8 billion in the first quarter of 2015. Net earnings on a per-share basis were even more impressive, growing 33 percent, from $1.10 to $1.46 per share.
One reasons for the glowing results was the fact that UnitedHealth added 570,000 new customers during the first quarter of 2015 from the Obamacare exchanges. And contrary to conventional wisdom, that the formerly uninsured Obamacare customers would overuse medical services, UnitedHealth executives said that wasn't the case.
In fact, the company's CEO, Stephen J. Hemsley, said that even with the new Obamacare enrollees, the company "improved" its medical-loss ratio, which measures the percent of revenues spent on medical care, from 82.5 to 81.1 percent. He used the word "improved" because, as I noted, Wall Street loves it when insurers spend less on medical care.
That decrease was viewed as a very positive development by investors. By the end of Thursday, they had bid up the company's share price by 3.6 percent, to $121.60, just shy of the all-time high of $123.76 set on March 30.
I can't wait to see how IBD's editorial writers spin UnitedHealth's Obamacare success. I'll let you know if and when they weigh in. But don't hold your breath.
This post was published initially by the Center for Public Integrity.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.
↧
Cash-And-Carry Health Insurance For Some In Los Angeles
Cash-And-Carry Health Insurance For Some In Los Angeles
Reported by ajc.com 20 hours ago.
↧
Zane Benefits Announces Complimentary Book Giveaway On GoodReads: The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It's Good for You and Your Company
Goodreads is giving away a complimentary copy of "The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It's Good for You and Your Family".
Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) April 20, 2015
Goodreads is sponsoring a book giveaway of The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You and Your Company between Mar. 31 and Apr. 30, 2015.
Paul Zane Pilzer and Rick Lindquist have released a new book entitled, The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You and Your Company. The book discusses the obvious solution to our nation’s employer health insurance woes - employer-funded individual health insurance.
According to Zane Benefits, “Employer-funded individual health insurance has emerged as the ideal solution for employee health benefits, rather than employer-provided, due to the Affordable Care Act”. The book imparts to readers that over the next 10 years, 100 million Americans will move into this type of arrangement to obtain their health insurance.
For a chance to win a complimentary copy, simply enter to win on Goodreads website or through the app.
For more information visit: ZaneBenefits.com.
EDITORS NOTE: Rick Lindquist is available for questions from the media through Zane Benefits. Contact Jessica Welker at 435-275-4507 or media(at)zanebenefits(dot)com
###
About Zane Benefits:
Zane Benefits is the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Since 2006, Zane Benefits has been on a mission to bring the benefits of individual health insurance to business owners and their employees.
Zane Benefits' software helps businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans for annual savings of 20 to 60 percent compared with traditional employer-provided health insurance. Today, over 20,000 customers use Zane Benefits' software, services, and support to reimburse individual health insurance plans purchased independent of employment. For more information visit ZaneBenefits.com.
About the Authors:
Paul Zane Pilzer is The New York Times best-selling author of 11 books, a former professor at NYU, and has served as an economist in two White House administrations. He is also the founder of six companies including the two largest U.S. suppliers of personalized employee health benefits, Extend Health (1999) and Zane Benefits (2006).
Rick Lindquist is CEO and President of Zane Benefits, Inc., the U.S. leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Zane Benefits’ software has been featured on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The New York Times. He is a regular contributor to leading health benefits publications, including ClarifyingHealth.com.
About the Book:
The #1 Amazon best-selling The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance is a comprehensive guide to utilizing new individual health plans to save 20 to 60 percent on health insurance. Over the next 10 years, 100 million Americans will move from employer-provided to individually purchased health insurance. Written by a world-renowned economist and New York Times best-selling author, this insightful guide explains how individual health insurance offers more to employees than employer-provided plans.
The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You, Your Family, and Your Company (Wiley, 2014, ISBN: 978-1-119-01211-5, $25.00) is available at bookstores nationwide, from major online booksellers, and direct from the publisher by calling 800-225-5945. In Canada, call 800-567-4797. For more information, please visit the book’s page on http://www.wiley.com. Reported by PRWeb 20 hours ago.
Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) April 20, 2015
Goodreads is sponsoring a book giveaway of The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You and Your Company between Mar. 31 and Apr. 30, 2015.
Paul Zane Pilzer and Rick Lindquist have released a new book entitled, The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You and Your Company. The book discusses the obvious solution to our nation’s employer health insurance woes - employer-funded individual health insurance.
According to Zane Benefits, “Employer-funded individual health insurance has emerged as the ideal solution for employee health benefits, rather than employer-provided, due to the Affordable Care Act”. The book imparts to readers that over the next 10 years, 100 million Americans will move into this type of arrangement to obtain their health insurance.
For a chance to win a complimentary copy, simply enter to win on Goodreads website or through the app.
For more information visit: ZaneBenefits.com.
EDITORS NOTE: Rick Lindquist is available for questions from the media through Zane Benefits. Contact Jessica Welker at 435-275-4507 or media(at)zanebenefits(dot)com
###
About Zane Benefits:
Zane Benefits is the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Since 2006, Zane Benefits has been on a mission to bring the benefits of individual health insurance to business owners and their employees.
Zane Benefits' software helps businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans for annual savings of 20 to 60 percent compared with traditional employer-provided health insurance. Today, over 20,000 customers use Zane Benefits' software, services, and support to reimburse individual health insurance plans purchased independent of employment. For more information visit ZaneBenefits.com.
About the Authors:
Paul Zane Pilzer is The New York Times best-selling author of 11 books, a former professor at NYU, and has served as an economist in two White House administrations. He is also the founder of six companies including the two largest U.S. suppliers of personalized employee health benefits, Extend Health (1999) and Zane Benefits (2006).
Rick Lindquist is CEO and President of Zane Benefits, Inc., the U.S. leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Zane Benefits’ software has been featured on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The New York Times. He is a regular contributor to leading health benefits publications, including ClarifyingHealth.com.
About the Book:
The #1 Amazon best-selling The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance is a comprehensive guide to utilizing new individual health plans to save 20 to 60 percent on health insurance. Over the next 10 years, 100 million Americans will move from employer-provided to individually purchased health insurance. Written by a world-renowned economist and New York Times best-selling author, this insightful guide explains how individual health insurance offers more to employees than employer-provided plans.
The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You, Your Family, and Your Company (Wiley, 2014, ISBN: 978-1-119-01211-5, $25.00) is available at bookstores nationwide, from major online booksellers, and direct from the publisher by calling 800-225-5945. In Canada, call 800-567-4797. For more information, please visit the book’s page on http://www.wiley.com. Reported by PRWeb 20 hours ago.
↧
Rep. Dave Brat Compares Obamacare To North Korea (Video)
Rep. Dave Brat Compares Obamacare To North Korea (Video)Rep. Dave Brat Compares Obamacare To North Korea (Video)
Health
Politics
World
DaveBrat
Has Been Optimized
Republican Rep. Dave Brat of Virginia recently compared Obamacare to North Korea by claiming that the health care law was somehow at odds with the free market.
Brat made his comments yesterday at the “Hold Their Feet To The Fire” conference, noted RightWingWatch.org (video below).
Brat began the segment by pushing back against a report by Politifact that ruled against his earlier claim that the repeal of Obamacare would save "our nation more than $2 trillion."
Politifact stated, "Brat’s statement focuses on the expenses of Obamacare but ignores the revenue and saving sides of the program, which also would be wiped out by the repeal."
This time, Brat compared Obamacare (which regulates the free market of health insurance sales by insurance companies) to North Korea:
If you don't use the price system, you can look at every country in the world. Look at North Korea and South Korea. It’s the same culture, it’s the same people, look at a map at night, half of one of the countries is not lit, there’s no lights, and the bottom free-market country, all Koreans, is lit up. So you make your bet on which country you want to be, you want to go free market.
Brat failed to mention that South Korea has universal healthcare, a government-run system. He also failed to mention that free market health care in the U.S. was skyrocketing before Obamacare took effect.
According to Bloomberg, "On average, the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance increased 26 percent from 2009 to 2014. But costs increased faster before the law was enacted: From 2004 to 2009, costs increased 34 percent. From 1999 to 2004, they went up 72 percent."
The U.S. health care system is far more expensive than non-oppressive countries (Canada, France, Sweden, and others) that have universal government health care, noted the Commonweath Fund on 2014.
In 2013, The New York Times reported how hospitals in the U.S. mark up the cost of common saline solution (sterile saltwater) from the actual $1 cost to hundreds of dollars. The pricing is done in secret, keeping patients in the dark until they see their bill.
The Republican party's claim that Obamacare was causing skyrocketing heath care costs in 2014 was ruled "mostly false," by Politifact.
Sources: Politifact 1, Poltifact 2, Commonweath Fund, Bloomberg, RightWingWatch.org, The New York Times, Wikipedia
Image Credit: United States Congress
1
Comments:
Likes:
Shares:
Combined FB:
Video Piece:
Video Piece (This piece contains embedded video content)
OV in Depth: Reported by Opposing Views 20 hours ago.
↧
↧
America's worst airline for customer satisfaction is...
Which airline has the lowest customer satisfaction?
Spirit Airlines ranked dead last in the latest travel report from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI).
With a score of 54, Spirit dethroned United Airlines as the lowest-ranking carrier on the index.
Spirit was added to the list for the first time this year.
JetBlue Airways claimed the top spot as the most satisfying airline with a score of 81, a 3 percent increase from 2014, according to the ACSI Travel Report 2015. Southwest ranked just below with a score of 78, holding steady to last year's score.
Spirit Airlines is known for its low-cost price structure that adds fees for things like printing a boarding pass at the airport, a carry-on bag or water. Company spokesperson Paul Berry said the carrier's bare fares are an average 40% lower than other airlines. But if customers aren't familiar or expecting the pricing structure, he said travelers can associate that with lack of customer service.
"Once they fly us once and they get it, they love us; they know how to navigate the Spirit way of flying."
Customer satisfaction with the airline industry overall increased almost 3 percent from last year. While passenger satisfaction is at the highest level since 1994, the industry only outperformed three other industries: internet service providers, subscription television and health insurance.
Along with the general ACSI benchmark questions, the travel survey asked 12 questions about customers' flying experience including on-time arrival, boarding and baggage experience, seat comfort and flight schedules. The industry average was 71.
For the entire airline industry, seat comfort received the lowest score from passengers, while the quality of in-flight services like food and entertainment increased 7 percent from last year, the index showed.
The three major airlines, Delta, American and United, saw no changes in their scores from 2014.
Along with Spirit Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Allegiant Air and Frontier were added to the index this year. Alaska debuted at third with a score of 75 and Frontier ranked just above Spirit with a score of 58.
The airlines on the list have the smaller and regional carriers to thank for the improved satisfaction levels, explain Forrest Morgeson, director of research at ACSI. "For a variety of different reasons ... they are doing a better job and are pushing the entire industry's satisfaction levels up."
The travel report is based on responses from 7,768 customers of the airline, hotel and internet travel industries from Jan. 19-Feb. 9. Reported by Click Orlando 11 hours ago.
Spirit Airlines ranked dead last in the latest travel report from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI).
With a score of 54, Spirit dethroned United Airlines as the lowest-ranking carrier on the index.
Spirit was added to the list for the first time this year.
JetBlue Airways claimed the top spot as the most satisfying airline with a score of 81, a 3 percent increase from 2014, according to the ACSI Travel Report 2015. Southwest ranked just below with a score of 78, holding steady to last year's score.
Spirit Airlines is known for its low-cost price structure that adds fees for things like printing a boarding pass at the airport, a carry-on bag or water. Company spokesperson Paul Berry said the carrier's bare fares are an average 40% lower than other airlines. But if customers aren't familiar or expecting the pricing structure, he said travelers can associate that with lack of customer service.
"Once they fly us once and they get it, they love us; they know how to navigate the Spirit way of flying."
Customer satisfaction with the airline industry overall increased almost 3 percent from last year. While passenger satisfaction is at the highest level since 1994, the industry only outperformed three other industries: internet service providers, subscription television and health insurance.
Along with the general ACSI benchmark questions, the travel survey asked 12 questions about customers' flying experience including on-time arrival, boarding and baggage experience, seat comfort and flight schedules. The industry average was 71.
For the entire airline industry, seat comfort received the lowest score from passengers, while the quality of in-flight services like food and entertainment increased 7 percent from last year, the index showed.
The three major airlines, Delta, American and United, saw no changes in their scores from 2014.
Along with Spirit Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Allegiant Air and Frontier were added to the index this year. Alaska debuted at third with a score of 75 and Frontier ranked just above Spirit with a score of 58.
The airlines on the list have the smaller and regional carriers to thank for the improved satisfaction levels, explain Forrest Morgeson, director of research at ACSI. "For a variety of different reasons ... they are doing a better job and are pushing the entire industry's satisfaction levels up."
The travel report is based on responses from 7,768 customers of the airline, hotel and internet travel industries from Jan. 19-Feb. 9. Reported by Click Orlando 11 hours ago.
↧
What's At Stake If Supreme Court Eliminates Your Obamacare Subsidy
Each state has its own stories. In Louisiana, nearly 200,000 people signed up for health insurance through HealthCare.gov, and about 90 percent now get subsidies. What if that help goes away?
Reported by NPR 7 hours ago.
↧
Potential Expatriate Retirees Fear Political Violence, International Health Insurance Coverage
New Survey from Global Insurance Provider Clements Worldwide Indicates Misconceptions Cloud Retirement Planning for Many
Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
With a growing number of Americans retiring abroad, a poll released today by Clements Worldwide indicates that international political instability and terrorism top the list of worries among would-be expatriates.
The survey by Clements, a global insurance provider with 68 years’ experience covering individuals living and working outside of their country of citizenship, also found strong concern but lack of information about the availability of appropriate health care insurance overseas.
Asked to choose the risks of overseas living they feared most, 92 percent of respondents selected political or economic upheaval, while 86 percent picked terrorism. Eighty-nine percent expressed concern about a health crisis, while 79 percent said they were concerned about a natural disaster. When asked which factor they were “extremely concerned about,” the largest share, 18 percent, chose terrorism and 15 percent political upheaval.
“Americans appear to be forgoing retirement abroad due to fears of terrorism and potential political upheaval,” said Sergio Sanchez, chief marketing officer at Clements Worldwide. “And that’s unfortunate because our international claims data show that such risks, and the costs associated with them, pale in comparison to those created by insufficient health care coverage, or by having the wrong auto or personal accident insurance while abroad.”
In all, 24 percent of 1,179 people over age 50, and with household income over $100,000, said they are considering expatriate life within the next 15 years.
Respondents planning to retire outside of the United States were somehow less worried about the more commonplace threats of traffic or personal accidents, with just one percent saying they were “extremely concerned” about such mishaps.
Europe was the top destination considered by 59 percent, followed by the Caribbean (40 percent) and Central and South America (32 percent).
Less than nine percent of those likely to relocate are considering a new life in Asia, while fewer than three percent are looking at Africa and less than two percent at the Middle East, suggesting concern about instability in those regions.
“Risks vary based on location,” said Mr. Sanchez. “Those considering a move abroad should begin with the basics, such as comprehensive international health and automobile coverage. Then they should consider factors specific to their destination, such as personal property insurance for theft or vandalism and political violence insurance including coverage for emergency evacuation.
“Regardless of nationality, it’s critical for would-be retirees, and even currently employed professionals planning to or already living outside their home country, to reach out to a specialized international insurance broker who is familiar with their needs and the regulations that affect expatriates around the world. Having the wrong coverage can be as harmful as having no coverage.”
For instance, while access to affordable health care was the second biggest relocation concern among those planning to live abroad -- at 68 percent, second only to the cost of living (72 percent) -- a majority of respondents were not clear about what their health coverage needs abroad would be, or if expatriate coverage with access to U.S. medical facilities would be available. Respondents were also unclear as to whether they will have to become a citizen of their destination country to receive health coverage. Nearly half were unsure about this, while 22 percent said that is the case.
“Finding a suitable international health policy should not stand in the way of expatriate retirement planning,” said Mr. Sanchez. “At Clements we offer programs like GlobalCare for individuals and organizations that include unsurpassed benefits in hard currency, allow access to western-style facilities worldwide including coverage for doctor visits in the US, and English-language support. Designed to meet the healthcare needs of expats, contractors, and travelers, Clements' core plans automatically include the benefit of emergency medical evacuation at no extra cost.”
The survey was conducted online from March 19 to March 23.
About Clements Worldwide
Clements Worldwide is a leading insurance provider for expatriates and international organizations. Founded in 1947, Clements offers international car, property, term life, health, specialty and high-risk insurance in over 170 countries. With offices in Washington, D.C., London, and Dubai, Clements delivers comprehensive coverage, superior customer service, and unparalleled claims response. To learn more and quote online, visit http://www.clements.com. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
With a growing number of Americans retiring abroad, a poll released today by Clements Worldwide indicates that international political instability and terrorism top the list of worries among would-be expatriates.
The survey by Clements, a global insurance provider with 68 years’ experience covering individuals living and working outside of their country of citizenship, also found strong concern but lack of information about the availability of appropriate health care insurance overseas.
Asked to choose the risks of overseas living they feared most, 92 percent of respondents selected political or economic upheaval, while 86 percent picked terrorism. Eighty-nine percent expressed concern about a health crisis, while 79 percent said they were concerned about a natural disaster. When asked which factor they were “extremely concerned about,” the largest share, 18 percent, chose terrorism and 15 percent political upheaval.
“Americans appear to be forgoing retirement abroad due to fears of terrorism and potential political upheaval,” said Sergio Sanchez, chief marketing officer at Clements Worldwide. “And that’s unfortunate because our international claims data show that such risks, and the costs associated with them, pale in comparison to those created by insufficient health care coverage, or by having the wrong auto or personal accident insurance while abroad.”
In all, 24 percent of 1,179 people over age 50, and with household income over $100,000, said they are considering expatriate life within the next 15 years.
Respondents planning to retire outside of the United States were somehow less worried about the more commonplace threats of traffic or personal accidents, with just one percent saying they were “extremely concerned” about such mishaps.
Europe was the top destination considered by 59 percent, followed by the Caribbean (40 percent) and Central and South America (32 percent).
Less than nine percent of those likely to relocate are considering a new life in Asia, while fewer than three percent are looking at Africa and less than two percent at the Middle East, suggesting concern about instability in those regions.
“Risks vary based on location,” said Mr. Sanchez. “Those considering a move abroad should begin with the basics, such as comprehensive international health and automobile coverage. Then they should consider factors specific to their destination, such as personal property insurance for theft or vandalism and political violence insurance including coverage for emergency evacuation.
“Regardless of nationality, it’s critical for would-be retirees, and even currently employed professionals planning to or already living outside their home country, to reach out to a specialized international insurance broker who is familiar with their needs and the regulations that affect expatriates around the world. Having the wrong coverage can be as harmful as having no coverage.”
For instance, while access to affordable health care was the second biggest relocation concern among those planning to live abroad -- at 68 percent, second only to the cost of living (72 percent) -- a majority of respondents were not clear about what their health coverage needs abroad would be, or if expatriate coverage with access to U.S. medical facilities would be available. Respondents were also unclear as to whether they will have to become a citizen of their destination country to receive health coverage. Nearly half were unsure about this, while 22 percent said that is the case.
“Finding a suitable international health policy should not stand in the way of expatriate retirement planning,” said Mr. Sanchez. “At Clements we offer programs like GlobalCare for individuals and organizations that include unsurpassed benefits in hard currency, allow access to western-style facilities worldwide including coverage for doctor visits in the US, and English-language support. Designed to meet the healthcare needs of expats, contractors, and travelers, Clements' core plans automatically include the benefit of emergency medical evacuation at no extra cost.”
The survey was conducted online from March 19 to March 23.
About Clements Worldwide
Clements Worldwide is a leading insurance provider for expatriates and international organizations. Founded in 1947, Clements offers international car, property, term life, health, specialty and high-risk insurance in over 170 countries. With offices in Washington, D.C., London, and Dubai, Clements delivers comprehensive coverage, superior customer service, and unparalleled claims response. To learn more and quote online, visit http://www.clements.com. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.
↧
Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting Is the Latest Partner Firm To Join United Benefit Advisors
Pennsylvania Agency Joins Global Network of Independent Employee Benefits Advisory Firms
Indianapolis, IN (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
United Benefit Advisors (UBA), the nation’s leading independent employee benefits advisory organization, is pleased to welcome Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting as its newest Partner Firm. Since 1991, Mark Kunkle and Jeff Power have been committed to providing the highest level of service earning the confidence of more than 450 clients. For Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting, service means innovative thinking, strategic planning, dedicated stewardship, ethical consulting, and measurable results.
Based in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting provides a full spectrum of insurance-related consulting including health care, wellness, and benefits solutions, retirement plans, human resources solutions, and compliance assistance. Their intimate knowledge of the health insurance market allows them to determine a solution to best support their client’s objectives.
“You will not find anyone who will work harder, not only to earn your business, but maintain your continued confidence and satisfaction,” said Mark Kunkle, Vice President of Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting.
“With more than two decades of leadership in the benefits industry and a team of highly-skilled professionals, I am pleased to welcome an agency like Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting to UBA,” says UBA CEO, Les McPhearson. “Their superb commitment to assisting clients and innovative progress as the insurance market evolves makes their agency an excellent addition to our growing list of Partner Firms. I look forward to the input they’ll provide to UBA’s collaborative efforts.”
As the newest Partner of UBA, Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting joins a network of more than 130 employee benefits advisory firms that serve employers of all sizes across the United States, Canada, and Europe. As a combined group, UBA’s annual employee benefit revenues rank it among the top five employee benefit advisory organizations in the U.S.
ABOUT Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting
Visit http://www.pkbenefits.com to learn more about Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting.
ABOUT United Benefit Advisors®
United Benefit Advisors® (UBA) is the nation’s leading independent employee benefits advisory organization with more than 200 offices throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Our goal is to provide an environment that empowers our more than 2,000 Partners to both maintain their individuality and to pool their expertise, insight, and market presence to provide best-in-class services and solutions that positively impact employers and make a real difference in the lives of their employees and families. An important product of that collaboration is the UBA Health Plan Survey – the nation’s largest employee benefits benchmarking survey. At UBA, we believe in service and genuine sharing through mutual trust. Our culture is one of honesty, transparency, and making others better. It is defined by the values of integrity, collaboration, care for others, innovation, and operational excellence. Employers, advisors and industry-related organizations interested in obtaining powerful results from the shared wisdom of our Partners should visit UBA online at http://www.UBAbenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.
Indianapolis, IN (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
United Benefit Advisors (UBA), the nation’s leading independent employee benefits advisory organization, is pleased to welcome Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting as its newest Partner Firm. Since 1991, Mark Kunkle and Jeff Power have been committed to providing the highest level of service earning the confidence of more than 450 clients. For Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting, service means innovative thinking, strategic planning, dedicated stewardship, ethical consulting, and measurable results.
Based in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting provides a full spectrum of insurance-related consulting including health care, wellness, and benefits solutions, retirement plans, human resources solutions, and compliance assistance. Their intimate knowledge of the health insurance market allows them to determine a solution to best support their client’s objectives.
“You will not find anyone who will work harder, not only to earn your business, but maintain your continued confidence and satisfaction,” said Mark Kunkle, Vice President of Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting.
“With more than two decades of leadership in the benefits industry and a team of highly-skilled professionals, I am pleased to welcome an agency like Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting to UBA,” says UBA CEO, Les McPhearson. “Their superb commitment to assisting clients and innovative progress as the insurance market evolves makes their agency an excellent addition to our growing list of Partner Firms. I look forward to the input they’ll provide to UBA’s collaborative efforts.”
As the newest Partner of UBA, Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting joins a network of more than 130 employee benefits advisory firms that serve employers of all sizes across the United States, Canada, and Europe. As a combined group, UBA’s annual employee benefit revenues rank it among the top five employee benefit advisory organizations in the U.S.
ABOUT Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting
Visit http://www.pkbenefits.com to learn more about Power Kunkle Benefits Consulting.
ABOUT United Benefit Advisors®
United Benefit Advisors® (UBA) is the nation’s leading independent employee benefits advisory organization with more than 200 offices throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Our goal is to provide an environment that empowers our more than 2,000 Partners to both maintain their individuality and to pool their expertise, insight, and market presence to provide best-in-class services and solutions that positively impact employers and make a real difference in the lives of their employees and families. An important product of that collaboration is the UBA Health Plan Survey – the nation’s largest employee benefits benchmarking survey. At UBA, we believe in service and genuine sharing through mutual trust. Our culture is one of honesty, transparency, and making others better. It is defined by the values of integrity, collaboration, care for others, innovation, and operational excellence. Employers, advisors and industry-related organizations interested in obtaining powerful results from the shared wisdom of our Partners should visit UBA online at http://www.UBAbenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.
↧
↧
SI-BONE, Inc. Announces Appointment of Fidelity Health Insurance Services, LLC's Martin Watson to Board of Directors
SAN JOSE, Calif., April 21, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- SI-BONE, Inc., a medical device company that pioneered the use of the iFuse Implant System, a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) device indicated for fusion for certain disorders of the sacroiliac (SI) joint, announced today that Martin...
Reported by PR Newswire 4 hours ago.
↧
The coming election will decide the future of the NHS, and with it, the United Kingdom
The National Health Service will be on the ballot paper in May, and its continued survival is vital to the preservation of the Union.
Brothers in arms: Ed Balls and Jim Murphy on the campaign trail. Photo:Getty
In September 2014 the Scottish independence referendum brought the United Kingdom perilously close to splitting apart. From that moment on those elements that we share, that help create a sense of common purpose need to become ever more precious as we try to unify our nation.
As always, constitutional change should be evolutionary and never more so than for that complex and flexible instrument of our democracy, the House of Commons. It must also, even in the shadow of the referendum in Scotland, go with the grain of English nature. I detect no wish for a separate English parliament, nor for regional government in England. But there is an English dimension which those of us whose origins are from other parts of the UK must respect. The tragedy of today is that our Prime Minister, David Cameron, cannot seem to embrace the broadminded generosity of spirit that almost all of his predecessors have been able to summon up.
Ours is at this moment in our history a hesitant and fragile Union. We all need to respect and value, whatever political parties we support, those elements which bind the citizens of the UK together. David Cameron needs to understand that to play the ‘English card’ on Scottish devolution in the way he did outside 10 Downing Street on the day after the Scottish referendum vote was a grave mistake which has already had far-reaching constitutional consequences.
He has started to do this again in his depiction of the SNP MPs likely to be elected in large numbers to the House of Commons as an illegitimate force merely because they advocate separation through the democratic mechanism of another referendum. The former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, taking a different angle was correct to warn David Cameron against bolstering the SNP chances over Labour as "a short-term and dangerous view." These issues are too serious for ‘Flashman’ politics and Ed Miliband is wise to adopt a longer term and steadier view.
The closest analogy I can find to such irresponsible behaviour on the Constitution is when David Lloyd George on 5 December 1921 infamously threatened “war within three days”, if all the members of the Irish delegation did not sign the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It was, as it turned out, a very dangerous bluff. At 2.20 a.m. the treaty was signed but not by all. Lord Birkenhead in the British government delegation commented, ‘I may have signed my political death warrant,’ to which Michael Collins, leading the Irish delegation, perceptively replied, ‘I may have signed my actual death warrant.’ Lloyd George’s intervention when revealed to the Dáil damaged Collins and though the vote went through it was despite of not because of it. Collins was at that stage despite Éamon de Valera’s opposition recognised as a brave farsighted man. Weakening him was weakening the Union. Cameron should learn this lesson from history: holding the UK together is still a task that requires courage, holding to the long view.
We need elements other than the most obvious one of the defence of the realm to bind the UK together and even on defence in relation to Trident, there are deep differences that need addressing. The aftermath of the referendum in Scotland has not lifted the threat of separation but given the UK a little more time to achieve the correct balance between its constituent parts.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, must also take the main responsibility for deceiving the people over the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the incompetent implementation of that legislation.
Cameron told NHS audiences – the royal colleges of surgeons, nurses and pathologists among others – throughout 2009 that “there will be no more of these pointless re-organisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos”. Or that “we will not persist with the top-down restructures and reorganisations of the NHS that have dominated the last decade in the NHS”, causing “terrible disruption, demoralisation and waste”. Vain attempts have been made since to claim the 2012 legislation as being “bottom up” but these were soon shown to be demonstrably false.
The major consequence of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act has been how it views health care in England as a business rather than a service. Along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have retained an undoubtedly recognisable NHS, albeit in slightly different forms. Only in England does the threat exist that the NHS will be unrecognisable by 2020 if the 2012 legislation is not repealed in substance after the May 2015 general election. This has profound implications for the UK for the underlying reasons that make the original concept of the NHS worth fighting for are clear, but not often stated, perhaps because they go to the ethical and moral basis of the way many UK citizens wish to live their lives.
In this general election there is a settled wish emerging from the great bulk of voters for the original NHS to be available in all parts of the UK in a recognisable form. It would be a unifying theme for the next UK government to reinstate the NHS, at a time when the UK needs to revive a sense of unity.
There is another aspect to the Scottish referendum, the wish it has inspired for England to devolve more decisions to its bigger cities: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle. In part this follows the success story of the gradual introduction of powerful mayors. There is a strong case for considering a strategic health and caring role for such cities. It would need to be introduced carefully on the basis of proven experience, not all happening at once, and would stem from a well-considered proposal from a city put to the Secretary of State for Health, who would have the enabling power to introduce it.
Constitutional changes in a democracy usually are the result of political trade-offs and changes for Scotland impact on Wales and Northern Ireland and of course by far the largest component of the UK, England.
Two other vital reforms could reinforce the structure of UK unity. First, an elected Senate representing the four elements of the UK. The House of Lords has become an absurdity in size and composition. It reeks of patronage.
The second reform comes from the McKay Commission on the consequences of devolution published in March 2013. They propose that “decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England and Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England and Wales)” while ensuring that “the right of the House of Commons as a whole to make the final decision should remain”. They have carved out a mechanism allowing that some English legislation would not have to be part of the normal procedure on all occasions. The commissioners assert: “We would expect departures from the norm to occur only rarely in practice” and “The apparent fragility of the declaratory resolution approach can also be seen as flexibility. A government, after consideration, may decide that it is necessary in the interests of the UK as a whole, or an affected part of it, to invoke the exception implicit in the word ‘normally”.
The report preserves the present position in the House of Commons that there should not be two different kinds of MPs, so all MPs would vote on whether to grant a second reading for all Bills and finally whether a Bill should become law with a single vote on third reading. If some English legislation has from time to time so great an implication for the UK as a whole that it does not fit with only English MPs amending it at committee and report stages, then Parliament can decide to make it UK legislation.
NHS reinstatement legislation in 2015 will be a classic case of the sort of legislative exception that the McKay commissioners had in mind. Ed Miliband should indicate in advance during this election that he would so regard it. He should also indicate that he would not endorse legislation for another referendum as Prime Minister of the UK in the lifetime of the next Parliament.
The social history of the NHS makes clear that it would be ‘an error to regard the NHS as a spontaneous creation’. The cumbersome National Health Insurance (NHI) administration established in 1911 supplied minimum financial relief during sickness and a ‘panel doctor’ service for the low paid on the basis of weekly deductions of income for the so-called health stamp. But many were not covered by this insurance. There was nothing for those excluded other than the charity of the doctor or a hospital. The Dawson report of 1920 pointed the way but many slum dwellers had totally inadequate healthcare, if any, and lived in conditions of Dickensian squalor. The Second World War brought the Emergency Medical Service, the Beveridge report and the 1944 White Paper outlining the provisions of the projected NHS: a resolve emerged in wartime within the British people that when peace came there would be a different and better system of healthcare for everyone.
At the heart of all marketisation and commercialisation of the NHS, David Marquand has written, lies the “totemic term “choice”: free choice by unconnected individuals, satisfying individual wants through market competition”. Healthcare, whether public or private, in a very real sense is infinite: money can be – and in many countries is – poured into healthcare by those who can afford it. Money for the NHS is a public choice, but it is all relative to what we choose to spend on education, housing, welfare, defence, all legitimate demands.
Healthcare, if publicly provided, inevitably has to be constrained. That rationing process within the NHS is flexible, professional and democratically accountable. It is decided by Parliament through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Health and Cabinet. By democratic choice it is not done by a market or by insurance premiums or an appointed QUANGO like NHS England.
Voters could have chosen a different system – they exist in many parts of the world – but no major political party has ever felt brave or foolish enough to put that choice to them. It was not a choice put to the electorate in 2010 by either the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Both parties are fudging this choice again in 2015 though at least now the Liberal Democrats have admitted some changes are needed to the existing legislation.
Politics cannot be an ideology-free zone but it should not resound with zealotry. No one should be Prime Minister for England alone. We saw in the Scottish referendum how powerful a vote swinger the NHS became in the closing stages of the campaign. Despite the fact that health is fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the spectre of an English-controlled Treasury being able to use financial allocations to bring marketisation to Scotland's NHS carried sufficient weight with voters that the ‘yes’ campaign exploited it and the ‘no’ campaign feared it. It also served to remind some voters, not just in Scotland, that the NHS as we have known it since 1948 was under threat. The English voters in this General Election are becoming evermore aware of this threat in England.
Before 7 May 2015 many MPs and candidates – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Ukip, Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru – will be systematically challenged to indicate whether they will support the NHS Reinstatement Bill in England. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, candidates are being urged to commit to vote, if elected as an MP, for reinstatement of the NHS in England. Allow marketisation and commercialisation to continue in England and it will not be long before it affects the NHS throughout the United Kingdom. The NHS in one part of the UK means the NHS in all of the UK. They will never be exactly the same for they are part of devolved government but they need to be inextricably linked in a truly united UK.
The end of the NHS as we have known and understood it in England will take place before 2020 if whichever party or parties that win the 2015 general election does not change the 2012 NHS legislation. Social historians may not be agreed as to when the exact moment of its passing will be. As endings go, it will be, in the words of T. S. Eliot, “not with a bang but a whimper” and around that moment the issue of Scottish independence will be back on the political agenda with a vengeance. The two are linked in more ways than have yet been fully recognised. The NHS is not a religion, as it has been likened to, nor is it the preserve of one political party, nor one country within our United Kingdom. It belongs to all of us.
Reported by New Statesman 3 hours ago.
Brothers in arms: Ed Balls and Jim Murphy on the campaign trail. Photo:Getty
In September 2014 the Scottish independence referendum brought the United Kingdom perilously close to splitting apart. From that moment on those elements that we share, that help create a sense of common purpose need to become ever more precious as we try to unify our nation.
As always, constitutional change should be evolutionary and never more so than for that complex and flexible instrument of our democracy, the House of Commons. It must also, even in the shadow of the referendum in Scotland, go with the grain of English nature. I detect no wish for a separate English parliament, nor for regional government in England. But there is an English dimension which those of us whose origins are from other parts of the UK must respect. The tragedy of today is that our Prime Minister, David Cameron, cannot seem to embrace the broadminded generosity of spirit that almost all of his predecessors have been able to summon up.
Ours is at this moment in our history a hesitant and fragile Union. We all need to respect and value, whatever political parties we support, those elements which bind the citizens of the UK together. David Cameron needs to understand that to play the ‘English card’ on Scottish devolution in the way he did outside 10 Downing Street on the day after the Scottish referendum vote was a grave mistake which has already had far-reaching constitutional consequences.
He has started to do this again in his depiction of the SNP MPs likely to be elected in large numbers to the House of Commons as an illegitimate force merely because they advocate separation through the democratic mechanism of another referendum. The former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, taking a different angle was correct to warn David Cameron against bolstering the SNP chances over Labour as "a short-term and dangerous view." These issues are too serious for ‘Flashman’ politics and Ed Miliband is wise to adopt a longer term and steadier view.
The closest analogy I can find to such irresponsible behaviour on the Constitution is when David Lloyd George on 5 December 1921 infamously threatened “war within three days”, if all the members of the Irish delegation did not sign the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It was, as it turned out, a very dangerous bluff. At 2.20 a.m. the treaty was signed but not by all. Lord Birkenhead in the British government delegation commented, ‘I may have signed my political death warrant,’ to which Michael Collins, leading the Irish delegation, perceptively replied, ‘I may have signed my actual death warrant.’ Lloyd George’s intervention when revealed to the Dáil damaged Collins and though the vote went through it was despite of not because of it. Collins was at that stage despite Éamon de Valera’s opposition recognised as a brave farsighted man. Weakening him was weakening the Union. Cameron should learn this lesson from history: holding the UK together is still a task that requires courage, holding to the long view.
We need elements other than the most obvious one of the defence of the realm to bind the UK together and even on defence in relation to Trident, there are deep differences that need addressing. The aftermath of the referendum in Scotland has not lifted the threat of separation but given the UK a little more time to achieve the correct balance between its constituent parts.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, must also take the main responsibility for deceiving the people over the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the incompetent implementation of that legislation.
Cameron told NHS audiences – the royal colleges of surgeons, nurses and pathologists among others – throughout 2009 that “there will be no more of these pointless re-organisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos”. Or that “we will not persist with the top-down restructures and reorganisations of the NHS that have dominated the last decade in the NHS”, causing “terrible disruption, demoralisation and waste”. Vain attempts have been made since to claim the 2012 legislation as being “bottom up” but these were soon shown to be demonstrably false.
The major consequence of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act has been how it views health care in England as a business rather than a service. Along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have retained an undoubtedly recognisable NHS, albeit in slightly different forms. Only in England does the threat exist that the NHS will be unrecognisable by 2020 if the 2012 legislation is not repealed in substance after the May 2015 general election. This has profound implications for the UK for the underlying reasons that make the original concept of the NHS worth fighting for are clear, but not often stated, perhaps because they go to the ethical and moral basis of the way many UK citizens wish to live their lives.
In this general election there is a settled wish emerging from the great bulk of voters for the original NHS to be available in all parts of the UK in a recognisable form. It would be a unifying theme for the next UK government to reinstate the NHS, at a time when the UK needs to revive a sense of unity.
There is another aspect to the Scottish referendum, the wish it has inspired for England to devolve more decisions to its bigger cities: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle. In part this follows the success story of the gradual introduction of powerful mayors. There is a strong case for considering a strategic health and caring role for such cities. It would need to be introduced carefully on the basis of proven experience, not all happening at once, and would stem from a well-considered proposal from a city put to the Secretary of State for Health, who would have the enabling power to introduce it.
Constitutional changes in a democracy usually are the result of political trade-offs and changes for Scotland impact on Wales and Northern Ireland and of course by far the largest component of the UK, England.
Two other vital reforms could reinforce the structure of UK unity. First, an elected Senate representing the four elements of the UK. The House of Lords has become an absurdity in size and composition. It reeks of patronage.
The second reform comes from the McKay Commission on the consequences of devolution published in March 2013. They propose that “decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England and Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England and Wales)” while ensuring that “the right of the House of Commons as a whole to make the final decision should remain”. They have carved out a mechanism allowing that some English legislation would not have to be part of the normal procedure on all occasions. The commissioners assert: “We would expect departures from the norm to occur only rarely in practice” and “The apparent fragility of the declaratory resolution approach can also be seen as flexibility. A government, after consideration, may decide that it is necessary in the interests of the UK as a whole, or an affected part of it, to invoke the exception implicit in the word ‘normally”.
The report preserves the present position in the House of Commons that there should not be two different kinds of MPs, so all MPs would vote on whether to grant a second reading for all Bills and finally whether a Bill should become law with a single vote on third reading. If some English legislation has from time to time so great an implication for the UK as a whole that it does not fit with only English MPs amending it at committee and report stages, then Parliament can decide to make it UK legislation.
NHS reinstatement legislation in 2015 will be a classic case of the sort of legislative exception that the McKay commissioners had in mind. Ed Miliband should indicate in advance during this election that he would so regard it. He should also indicate that he would not endorse legislation for another referendum as Prime Minister of the UK in the lifetime of the next Parliament.
The social history of the NHS makes clear that it would be ‘an error to regard the NHS as a spontaneous creation’. The cumbersome National Health Insurance (NHI) administration established in 1911 supplied minimum financial relief during sickness and a ‘panel doctor’ service for the low paid on the basis of weekly deductions of income for the so-called health stamp. But many were not covered by this insurance. There was nothing for those excluded other than the charity of the doctor or a hospital. The Dawson report of 1920 pointed the way but many slum dwellers had totally inadequate healthcare, if any, and lived in conditions of Dickensian squalor. The Second World War brought the Emergency Medical Service, the Beveridge report and the 1944 White Paper outlining the provisions of the projected NHS: a resolve emerged in wartime within the British people that when peace came there would be a different and better system of healthcare for everyone.
At the heart of all marketisation and commercialisation of the NHS, David Marquand has written, lies the “totemic term “choice”: free choice by unconnected individuals, satisfying individual wants through market competition”. Healthcare, whether public or private, in a very real sense is infinite: money can be – and in many countries is – poured into healthcare by those who can afford it. Money for the NHS is a public choice, but it is all relative to what we choose to spend on education, housing, welfare, defence, all legitimate demands.
Healthcare, if publicly provided, inevitably has to be constrained. That rationing process within the NHS is flexible, professional and democratically accountable. It is decided by Parliament through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Health and Cabinet. By democratic choice it is not done by a market or by insurance premiums or an appointed QUANGO like NHS England.
Voters could have chosen a different system – they exist in many parts of the world – but no major political party has ever felt brave or foolish enough to put that choice to them. It was not a choice put to the electorate in 2010 by either the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Both parties are fudging this choice again in 2015 though at least now the Liberal Democrats have admitted some changes are needed to the existing legislation.
Politics cannot be an ideology-free zone but it should not resound with zealotry. No one should be Prime Minister for England alone. We saw in the Scottish referendum how powerful a vote swinger the NHS became in the closing stages of the campaign. Despite the fact that health is fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the spectre of an English-controlled Treasury being able to use financial allocations to bring marketisation to Scotland's NHS carried sufficient weight with voters that the ‘yes’ campaign exploited it and the ‘no’ campaign feared it. It also served to remind some voters, not just in Scotland, that the NHS as we have known it since 1948 was under threat. The English voters in this General Election are becoming evermore aware of this threat in England.
Before 7 May 2015 many MPs and candidates – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Ukip, Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru – will be systematically challenged to indicate whether they will support the NHS Reinstatement Bill in England. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, candidates are being urged to commit to vote, if elected as an MP, for reinstatement of the NHS in England. Allow marketisation and commercialisation to continue in England and it will not be long before it affects the NHS throughout the United Kingdom. The NHS in one part of the UK means the NHS in all of the UK. They will never be exactly the same for they are part of devolved government but they need to be inextricably linked in a truly united UK.
The end of the NHS as we have known and understood it in England will take place before 2020 if whichever party or parties that win the 2015 general election does not change the 2012 NHS legislation. Social historians may not be agreed as to when the exact moment of its passing will be. As endings go, it will be, in the words of T. S. Eliot, “not with a bang but a whimper” and around that moment the issue of Scottish independence will be back on the political agenda with a vengeance. The two are linked in more ways than have yet been fully recognised. The NHS is not a religion, as it has been likened to, nor is it the preserve of one political party, nor one country within our United Kingdom. It belongs to all of us.
Reported by New Statesman 3 hours ago.
↧
Zane Benefits’ CEO Named Top 20 Rising Stars
President and CEO Rick Lindquist Recognized for Industry Contributions
Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Zane Benefits, a software company reinventing employee benefits for small businesses, announced today its CEO Rick Lindquist has been selected as one of Employee Benefit Adviser’s “Rising Stars” for 2015.
According to Rick Lindquist, “There is a massive shift taking place in the health insurance industry, and Zane Benefits’ small business solutions are at its forefront. Our entire team is thankful for the recognition provided by Employee Benefit Adviser’s Rising Stars.”
According to the Census Bureau, 98 percent of all U.S. companies and 66 percent of all net new jobs come from businesses with fewer than 100 employees. However, according to Zane Benefits, less than half of these businesses offer health insurance to employees, compared with 98 percent of large employers.
Through its software solutions, customer advocacy programs, and educational content, Zane Benefits is helping the 2-plus million small businesses without health insurance reinvent employee health benefits. For more information on the problems facing small businesses and existing solutions, download a sample of Rick Lindquist’s new book, The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good For You, Your Family, and Your Company.
About Zane Benefits, Inc.
Zane Benefits is the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Since 2006, Zane Benefits has been on a mission to bring the benefits of individual health insurance to business owners and their employees. Zane Benefits' software helps businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans for annual savings of 20 to 60 percent compared with traditional employer-provided health insurance. Zane Benefits' software has been featured on the front-page of The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The New York Times. Learn more at http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Zane Benefits, a software company reinventing employee benefits for small businesses, announced today its CEO Rick Lindquist has been selected as one of Employee Benefit Adviser’s “Rising Stars” for 2015.
According to Rick Lindquist, “There is a massive shift taking place in the health insurance industry, and Zane Benefits’ small business solutions are at its forefront. Our entire team is thankful for the recognition provided by Employee Benefit Adviser’s Rising Stars.”
According to the Census Bureau, 98 percent of all U.S. companies and 66 percent of all net new jobs come from businesses with fewer than 100 employees. However, according to Zane Benefits, less than half of these businesses offer health insurance to employees, compared with 98 percent of large employers.
Through its software solutions, customer advocacy programs, and educational content, Zane Benefits is helping the 2-plus million small businesses without health insurance reinvent employee health benefits. For more information on the problems facing small businesses and existing solutions, download a sample of Rick Lindquist’s new book, The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good For You, Your Family, and Your Company.
About Zane Benefits, Inc.
Zane Benefits is the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Since 2006, Zane Benefits has been on a mission to bring the benefits of individual health insurance to business owners and their employees. Zane Benefits' software helps businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans for annual savings of 20 to 60 percent compared with traditional employer-provided health insurance. Zane Benefits' software has been featured on the front-page of The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The New York Times. Learn more at http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
↧
Optimity Advisors Named Preferred Vendor by the Association of Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP)
Optimity’s Expertise Aligns with Needs of ACAP Plans and Members
Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Optimity Advisors (Optimity), a strategy, operations and Information Technology advisory firm that helps clients in complex industries navigate rapid market and technological change, today announced that the Association of Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) has named Optimity a Preferred Vendor. ACAP represents 58 local, not-for-profit, community-affiliated Safety Net Health Plans that collectively serve more than 13 million people primarily enrolled in public or state-sponsored coverage programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP or other state-only subsidized programs.
The ACAP Preferred Vendor Program provides streamlined access to vendors who understand the unique needs of ACAP plans. Each vendor has been sponsored by one ACAP plan - and approved by all. Optimity counts among its clients several current ACAP-member health plans.
Optimity’s expertise aligns with the needs of ACAP plans as they strive to improve the health and well-being of lower-income and vulnerable populations. Optimity’s team of healthcare advisors has extensive experience helping Medicaid and Medicare programs improve operational performance and develop new methodologies that promote member engagement and improved wellness. Its services span and integrate across medical, pharmacy, behavioral, ancillary, wellness and care coordination.
“We are dedicated to helping ACAP plans develop a member-centric focus across their entire operations to improve overall member wellness,” said Doris Stein, Healthcare Partner at Optimity Advisors. “Understanding the unique needs of each member, while valuing their voice and providing consistent, relevant information at all touch points, is key to driving member engagement and improving wellness. We are honored to be named a Preferred Vendor by ACAP”
About ACAP
ACAP represents 58 nonprofit Safety Net Health Plans in 24 states, which collectively serve more than 13 million people enrolled in Medicaid, Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other public health programs. For more information, visit http://www.communityplans.net.
About Optimity Advisors
Optimity Advisors is a specialized management consulting and advisory firm that combines deep industry expertise and integrated solutions to help companies enhance stakeholder value, improve operations, and address performance and risk related challenges. Optimity Advisors is comprised of professional advisors with deep domain expertise related to strategy, operational transformation, business intelligence, technology and regulatory compliance. Visit us at http://www.OptimityAdvisors.com. Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Optimity Advisors (Optimity), a strategy, operations and Information Technology advisory firm that helps clients in complex industries navigate rapid market and technological change, today announced that the Association of Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) has named Optimity a Preferred Vendor. ACAP represents 58 local, not-for-profit, community-affiliated Safety Net Health Plans that collectively serve more than 13 million people primarily enrolled in public or state-sponsored coverage programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP or other state-only subsidized programs.
The ACAP Preferred Vendor Program provides streamlined access to vendors who understand the unique needs of ACAP plans. Each vendor has been sponsored by one ACAP plan - and approved by all. Optimity counts among its clients several current ACAP-member health plans.
Optimity’s expertise aligns with the needs of ACAP plans as they strive to improve the health and well-being of lower-income and vulnerable populations. Optimity’s team of healthcare advisors has extensive experience helping Medicaid and Medicare programs improve operational performance and develop new methodologies that promote member engagement and improved wellness. Its services span and integrate across medical, pharmacy, behavioral, ancillary, wellness and care coordination.
“We are dedicated to helping ACAP plans develop a member-centric focus across their entire operations to improve overall member wellness,” said Doris Stein, Healthcare Partner at Optimity Advisors. “Understanding the unique needs of each member, while valuing their voice and providing consistent, relevant information at all touch points, is key to driving member engagement and improving wellness. We are honored to be named a Preferred Vendor by ACAP”
About ACAP
ACAP represents 58 nonprofit Safety Net Health Plans in 24 states, which collectively serve more than 13 million people enrolled in Medicaid, Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other public health programs. For more information, visit http://www.communityplans.net.
About Optimity Advisors
Optimity Advisors is a specialized management consulting and advisory firm that combines deep industry expertise and integrated solutions to help companies enhance stakeholder value, improve operations, and address performance and risk related challenges. Optimity Advisors is comprised of professional advisors with deep domain expertise related to strategy, operational transformation, business intelligence, technology and regulatory compliance. Visit us at http://www.OptimityAdvisors.com. Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
eMindful Continues to Expand Executive Leadership Team With Employee Benefits Sales Executive Michael Gallagher
Addition Comes as Wellness Market Continues Accelerating and Applied Mindfulness Programs Become a Mainstream Corporate Benefit
Vero Beach, FL (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
eMindful, the provider of ROI-based applied mindfulness programs to employers, has added Michael Gallagher as senior vice president of sales. Gallagher has more than 35 years’ experience in sales management and leadership roles with major health insurance carriers, health care delivery systems and wellness organizations.
Most recently he managed national accounts for The Vitality Group, a health and wellness company. Prior to that he was consistently a top producer, sales manager and executive for over 15 years with Kaiser Permanente, including six years in which he led national sales. Gallagher’s responsibilities with eMindful include growing the distribution channel with employee benefit consultants, brokers, insurance carriers and other partners. He also manages large private and public sector employer accounts.
In late 2014 eMindful received funding from Bridge Builders Collaborative to expand its management team and accelerate its market penetration, as the employer market for wellness services continued to strengthen. According to the industry market research firm IBISWorld, the employer wellness market exceeded $7 billion in 2014, and is expected to grow at a compounded rate of 9.4 percent annually through 2018, up from 5.6 percent during the period 2008 – 2014. IBIS found that 93 percent of companies plan to maintain or expand funding for wellness-based incentive programs over the next three to five years.
“eMindful’s bringing someone with Mike’s industry background is a testament to the company’s strong, emerging position in the employer wellness market,” said Liz Mariner, Executive Vice President with Re-Solutions Intermediaries, and a benefits industry executive of more than 30 years. “That established industry executives are gravitating to eMindful is further validation of mindfulness becoming a mainstream approach as employers look to maximize the health, productivity, and wellbeing of their employees.”
Gallagher holds an M.B.A. from Baldwin Wallace University and a B.A. from Michigan State University. He is a Certified Employee Benefit Specialist and ISCEBS Fellow with the International Foundation and Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists.
About eMindful
eMindful’s evidence-based wellness and disease management programs have been adopted by leading employers and health insurers such as NextEra Energy and Aetna to help target today’s biggest health cost drivers – stress, obesity, diabetes, smoking, cancer, and other conditions. The company offers consumers and employers convenient access to an internationally acclaimed team of instructors, available through live online courses where participants can see, hear, chat and talk with each other and their instructor.
The company’s Mindfulness at Work® program was recognized by the National Business Group on Health for innovation. Since 2007, eMindful’s corporate partners have averaged estimated savings of $8 for every $1 spent, reducing their healthcare costs while improving employees’ productivity, health and happiness. eMindful members have experienced results including 22 percent improved sleep, 37 percent decreased stress, 59 percent reversal of metabolic syndrome, and 40 percent success in smoking cessation. To learn more about eMindful or how to participate in a mindfulness program, visit eMindful.com Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
Vero Beach, FL (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
eMindful, the provider of ROI-based applied mindfulness programs to employers, has added Michael Gallagher as senior vice president of sales. Gallagher has more than 35 years’ experience in sales management and leadership roles with major health insurance carriers, health care delivery systems and wellness organizations.
Most recently he managed national accounts for The Vitality Group, a health and wellness company. Prior to that he was consistently a top producer, sales manager and executive for over 15 years with Kaiser Permanente, including six years in which he led national sales. Gallagher’s responsibilities with eMindful include growing the distribution channel with employee benefit consultants, brokers, insurance carriers and other partners. He also manages large private and public sector employer accounts.
In late 2014 eMindful received funding from Bridge Builders Collaborative to expand its management team and accelerate its market penetration, as the employer market for wellness services continued to strengthen. According to the industry market research firm IBISWorld, the employer wellness market exceeded $7 billion in 2014, and is expected to grow at a compounded rate of 9.4 percent annually through 2018, up from 5.6 percent during the period 2008 – 2014. IBIS found that 93 percent of companies plan to maintain or expand funding for wellness-based incentive programs over the next three to five years.
“eMindful’s bringing someone with Mike’s industry background is a testament to the company’s strong, emerging position in the employer wellness market,” said Liz Mariner, Executive Vice President with Re-Solutions Intermediaries, and a benefits industry executive of more than 30 years. “That established industry executives are gravitating to eMindful is further validation of mindfulness becoming a mainstream approach as employers look to maximize the health, productivity, and wellbeing of their employees.”
Gallagher holds an M.B.A. from Baldwin Wallace University and a B.A. from Michigan State University. He is a Certified Employee Benefit Specialist and ISCEBS Fellow with the International Foundation and Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists.
About eMindful
eMindful’s evidence-based wellness and disease management programs have been adopted by leading employers and health insurers such as NextEra Energy and Aetna to help target today’s biggest health cost drivers – stress, obesity, diabetes, smoking, cancer, and other conditions. The company offers consumers and employers convenient access to an internationally acclaimed team of instructors, available through live online courses where participants can see, hear, chat and talk with each other and their instructor.
The company’s Mindfulness at Work® program was recognized by the National Business Group on Health for innovation. Since 2007, eMindful’s corporate partners have averaged estimated savings of $8 for every $1 spent, reducing their healthcare costs while improving employees’ productivity, health and happiness. eMindful members have experienced results including 22 percent improved sleep, 37 percent decreased stress, 59 percent reversal of metabolic syndrome, and 40 percent success in smoking cessation. To learn more about eMindful or how to participate in a mindfulness program, visit eMindful.com Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
↧
Zane Benefits Announces Latest eBook, “Health Reimbursement Accounts in 2015”
Zane Benefits, the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses, announced today the publication of a new guide “Health Reimbursement Accounts in 2015”.
Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Zane Benefits, the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses, announced today the publication of a new guide “Health Reimbursement Accounts in 2015”.
Recent health reform brought changes to the health insurance industry, including how employers can use HRAs. These changes caused some business owners to question what is permitted when implementing an HRA. This simple, easy to use eBook helps small business owners determine which HRAs are compliant this year.
According to Zane Benefits, small business owners face the often overwhelming task of finding quality health benefits to, not only help employees and their families, but to recruit and retain top quality candidates. As businesses look for ways to offer affordable and sustainable health benefits, many have determined that Health Reimbursement Accounts are an excellent option.
The 9-page eBook is available for free download at Zanebenefits.com.
About Zane Benefits:
Zane Benefits is the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Since 2006, Zane Benefits has been on a mission to bring the benefits of individual health insurance to business owners and their employees.
Zane Benefits' software helps businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans for annual savings of 20 to 60 percent compared with traditional employer-provided health insurance. Today, over 20,000 customers use Zane Benefits' software, services, and support to reimburse individual health insurance plans purchased independent of employment. For more information visit zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.
Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Zane Benefits, the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses, announced today the publication of a new guide “Health Reimbursement Accounts in 2015”.
Recent health reform brought changes to the health insurance industry, including how employers can use HRAs. These changes caused some business owners to question what is permitted when implementing an HRA. This simple, easy to use eBook helps small business owners determine which HRAs are compliant this year.
According to Zane Benefits, small business owners face the often overwhelming task of finding quality health benefits to, not only help employees and their families, but to recruit and retain top quality candidates. As businesses look for ways to offer affordable and sustainable health benefits, many have determined that Health Reimbursement Accounts are an excellent option.
The 9-page eBook is available for free download at Zanebenefits.com.
About Zane Benefits:
Zane Benefits is the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. Since 2006, Zane Benefits has been on a mission to bring the benefits of individual health insurance to business owners and their employees.
Zane Benefits' software helps businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans for annual savings of 20 to 60 percent compared with traditional employer-provided health insurance. Today, over 20,000 customers use Zane Benefits' software, services, and support to reimburse individual health insurance plans purchased independent of employment. For more information visit zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.
↧
Gladinet Enhancements Enable FINRA and HIPAA Compliant Cloud Storage
Compliant organizations and service providers leverage Gladinet's On-Premise EFSS platform to maintain HIPAA and FINRA compliance. Gladinet has enhanced these capabilities with new improvements in security and usability.
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Gladinet continues to improve its on-premise enterprise file sync and share platform for FINRA and HIPAA compliance with new security and usability enhancements. Gladinet's strategy for compliance focuses on enablement. Organizations and service providers that have FINRA or HIPAA compliance can maintain these certifications by installing Gladinet's EFSS platform on-premise to leverage their existing infrastructure as HIPAA or FINRA compliant cloud storage. The platform now includes security features like encryption, auditing, reporting, secure connections based on SSL, 2-factor authentication as well as a variety of mobile device security features which further reinforce compliance.
FINRA licenses individuals and admits firms, writes rules to govern their behavior, examines them for regulatory compliance, and is sanctioned by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to discipline registered representatives and member firms that fail to comply with federal securities laws and FINRA's rules and regulations.
HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, sets the standard for protecting sensitive patient data. Any company that deals with protected health information (PHI) must ensure that all the required physical, network, and process security measures are in place and followed. This includes covered entities (CE), anyone who provides treatment, payment and operations in healthcare, and business associates (BA), anyone with access to patient information and provides support in treatment, payment or operations. Subcontractors, or business associates of business associates, must also be in compliance.
"We are pleased to see more and more customers leveraging our platform when HIPAA or FINRA compliance is a top priority. These customers appreciate the complete control of their data that we provide. So, rather than depend on a service provider to maintain compliance and deal with the legalities of managing the division of risk, our platform allows them complete control over all compliance factors. Our recent enhancements serve to solidify our position by addressing and exceeding the security requirements of our customers," said Jerry Huang, Gladinet's CEO.
For more information, please visit http://www.gladinet.com/CloudEnterprise.
About Gladinet
Founded in 2008, Gladinet is a growing company, with the number of people who have downloaded its cloud storage access software approaching 2 million. The company provides a brandable enterprise file sync and share platform that can be self-hosted with flexible deployment options. Gladinet's partners include HP, Amazon, IBM and hundreds of service providers in 26 countries. Reported by PRWeb 1 hour ago.
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (PRWEB) April 21, 2015
Gladinet continues to improve its on-premise enterprise file sync and share platform for FINRA and HIPAA compliance with new security and usability enhancements. Gladinet's strategy for compliance focuses on enablement. Organizations and service providers that have FINRA or HIPAA compliance can maintain these certifications by installing Gladinet's EFSS platform on-premise to leverage their existing infrastructure as HIPAA or FINRA compliant cloud storage. The platform now includes security features like encryption, auditing, reporting, secure connections based on SSL, 2-factor authentication as well as a variety of mobile device security features which further reinforce compliance.
FINRA licenses individuals and admits firms, writes rules to govern their behavior, examines them for regulatory compliance, and is sanctioned by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to discipline registered representatives and member firms that fail to comply with federal securities laws and FINRA's rules and regulations.
HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, sets the standard for protecting sensitive patient data. Any company that deals with protected health information (PHI) must ensure that all the required physical, network, and process security measures are in place and followed. This includes covered entities (CE), anyone who provides treatment, payment and operations in healthcare, and business associates (BA), anyone with access to patient information and provides support in treatment, payment or operations. Subcontractors, or business associates of business associates, must also be in compliance.
"We are pleased to see more and more customers leveraging our platform when HIPAA or FINRA compliance is a top priority. These customers appreciate the complete control of their data that we provide. So, rather than depend on a service provider to maintain compliance and deal with the legalities of managing the division of risk, our platform allows them complete control over all compliance factors. Our recent enhancements serve to solidify our position by addressing and exceeding the security requirements of our customers," said Jerry Huang, Gladinet's CEO.
For more information, please visit http://www.gladinet.com/CloudEnterprise.
About Gladinet
Founded in 2008, Gladinet is a growing company, with the number of people who have downloaded its cloud storage access software approaching 2 million. The company provides a brandable enterprise file sync and share platform that can be self-hosted with flexible deployment options. Gladinet's partners include HP, Amazon, IBM and hundreds of service providers in 26 countries. Reported by PRWeb 1 hour ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
