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

There's A New Focus On End-Of-Life Care And Counseling In 40 States

$
0
0
This piece comes to us courtesy of Stateline. Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.
Beginning next year, the federal government will conduct a five-year, 40-state experiment to determine whether there is a better way to help elderly Americans come to grips with terminal illnesses and prepare to die.

Last month, the Obama administration announced that 141 hospices across the country will offer end-of-life care and counseling to dying Medicare patients at the same time those patients receive treatment to extend their lives. Currently Medicare, the federal health insurance system for people older than 65 or with certain disabilities, requires terminally ill patients to choose one or the other.

Hospice services typically involve a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, bereavement counselors, aides and volunteers who address the physical, social, emotional and spiritual needs of dying patients and their families.

The hope is that by allowing people to pursue both paths, more will opt to receive hospice services that will improve the quality of their remaining days and reduce the cost of end-of-life care. If the experiment is successful, it likely will lead to a similar shift by Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, and by private insurers.

Under the Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program can receive curative treatment and hospice care simultaneously. Some states provide funding for hospice services for adult beneficiaries of Medicaid, but require patients to waive treatments for their underlying diseases.

“It’s quite a big deal because right now a lot of people choose not to undergo hospice care because they believe they have to forgo something,” said James Tulsky, incoming chairman of the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “People are understandably reluctant to do so, even if those therapies are not all that effective.”

At present, nearly 30 percent of Medicare’s $600 billion annual budget is spent on treatment in the last six months of life, much of it on expensive interventions with limited benefits. Without changes, the cost of end-of-life care is likely to skyrocket as the nation’s elderly population grows.

Medicare is by far the largest payer for hospice services in the United States. A report by the nonprofit National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization found that in 2009, Medicare reimbursed 83.9 percent of all hospice services. By contrast, Medicaid reimbursed about 4.9 percent and private insurance covered about 8.6 percent.

The announcement of the test program by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers Medicare, follows another change in policy aimed at informing elderly patients of their options as death approaches. Starting next year, Medicare will for the first time reimburse doctors and other health professionals for talking to patients with advanced-stage diseases about their goals and wishes and the likely results of their remaining options for treatment. For instance, some patients might want to forgo a surgical procedure that would be a long shot, require weeks of recovery and powerful painkillers, and result in diminished capabilities. They might prefer to spend their final days alert and in the company of family.

Some disability and anti-euthanasia advocates have opposed Medicare payments for advanced care consultations, wary that the motivation is to reduce costs rather than to follow patients’ preferences. The suspicion ignited controversy during the debate over the Affordable Care Act in 2009, when Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, raised the specter of “death panels” charged with determining which patients deserved to be saved.

But the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation’s largest right-to-life organization, said it supports allowing treatment to be combined with hospice care.

“We have long supported giving patients access to both curative and palliative care—to ease pain and suffering—instead of requiring them to choose between them as under current hospice funding requirements,” wrote Burke Balch, an NRLC spokesman, in an email.

-An Enthusiastic Response-

Hospice and palliative care providers are enthusiastic about both of the CMS changes to Medicare. Following greater than expected enthusiasm from providers, the agency expanded the number of Medicare-certified hospices that will participate in the pilot program from 30 sites serving as many as 30,000 patients to 141 sites and as many as 150,000 patients. (See the demonstration sites here.)

“These are great steps by CMS in moving toward a laudable goal, which is to allow better access to supportive services provided by hospices,” said Vikranta Sharma, the medical director of VNA Health Group, a home care association that will run several demonstration sites in New Jersey.

During the experiment, CMS will assess whether more people use hospice care, the quality of the care, whether patients and their families are satisfied with it, and the costs.

The sites will be open to patients who have advanced-stage cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure or AIDS and who have a prognosis of six months or less to live.

Hospice services available at the sites will include supervision and treatment from doctors, nurses, social workers and chaplains; temporary relief for caregivers, or respite care; routine home care; various forms of therapy and round-the-clock telephone consultations. Prescriptions and medical devices will also be covered, along with palliative treatments.

Medicare will pay the hospices up to $400 a month per beneficiary.

-Hospices Remain Underused-

The use of hospice services has grown steadily since they were first offered in the U.S. four decades ago.

Nevertheless, of cancer patients enrolled in Medicare who died in 2013, only 47 percent had used hospice services, according to the latest data available reported on by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides analysis on the Medicare program to Congress. The median length of stay for hospice decedents was 17 days, although the Medicare hospice benefit can extend for six months or longer.

Many hospice and palliative care experts say more people would choose hospice care were it not for Medicare’s requirement that patients give up potentially life-extending treatments.

The either-or policy dates to the beginning of hospice care, which started as a grassroots movement to shield dying patients from invasive, painful and futile medical procedures. Because the operations were often expensive, Medicare sought to restrict hospice eligibility to patients willing to forgo them.

But medicine has changed since then: Patients are able to better tolerate many life-sustaining treatments. Some treatments not only hold the promise of extending lives but can relieve painful symptoms.

The demonstration sites will determine whether a shift in policy would drive up Medicare’s cost by covering medical treatment of hospice patients. But Tulsky of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute doubts it will.

Patients who are expected to live less than six months already are expensive to care for, Tulsky said, and the additional cost of hospice care is smaller than many new therapies. If patients forgo burdensome treatment, he said, costs could be less.

-- 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 4 hours ago.

Hillary Clinton: Brilliant, Passionate and Trustworthy

$
0
0
Hillary Clinton understands different times require different solutions. She has lived her life by a set of principles and convictions formed as a young woman who learned from her mother when life presents you with challenges you must work hard to overcome them to thrive. The convictions and principles she learned at an early age have guided her since she burst on the national scene with a speech at her Wellesley graduation. Hillary is a passionate fighter for children, civil rights, women's rights, education, national healthcare, advancing science, and so many other issues allowing people to live safer, better, happier and more productive lives.

She is a brilliant woman who understands nothing in the world remains the same; new scientific discoveries requiring new ways of thinking are made every day; countries change and leaders depart and new ones emerge; and forces of nature change, demanding we adjust how we look at the world. As a leader who wants to continue to fight for her convictions and make headway in that fight, Hillary sees the world as it is today and doesn't stay tied to how it was yesterday.

Recently some people have been vicious in their criticism of Hillary questioning not necessarily her positions on income-inequality, restructuring our judicial system; racism and how it stops people from moving ahead; climate change, human rights and a host of other issues on which she is outlining specific policy initiatives; but rather question her honesty and commitment when speaking out on these issues.

Those of us who are activists and came of age around the same time as Hillary were surprised by the attacks. Since the early 1960's we have been involved in the civil rights movement; marched to end the Viet Nam war getting tear gassed in DC; and stood up and fought for women's rights and LGBT rights. My own path led from teaching school in Harlem to working for one of the most progressive people to ever serve in United States Congress, Bella S. Abzug (D-NY). Today we fight to combat climate change and work to secure a path to citizenship for the eleven million immigrants here who want nothing more than a better life for themselves and their children. The surprise at the vicious attacks on Hillary is because she is the only candidate running for President who has been a leader in nearly all these areas. Others may speak out, and may have worked hard on them, but not in a leadership role.

Following my mother's footsteps I became an activist hearing the name Hillary Rodham Clinton first from her. Then heard it over and over again related to her work with the Children's Defense Fund and when she was named head of the Legal Services Corporation. We heard about Hillary when the National Law Journal twice listed her as one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America and when as First Lady of Arkansas she led a task force reforming Arkansas's education system. There was worldwide acclaim for her historic speech on women's rights to the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing. Hillary as an activist First Lady of the United States spoke out for children and families and was recognized for her major role in advocating for a number of major pieces of legislation including the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act. Then as Secretary of State in 2011 Hillary Clinton's Human Rights Day speech was a historic moment for the LGBT rights movement.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, whether you agree with all she has accomplished or not, has made a difference. The Gallup poll shows Hillary has been most admired woman in the world 19 times. Forbes magazine ranked her as one of most powerful people in the world nine times and she has been named eight times to Time magazine's most influential 100 people on the planet. Those fighting for human rights, equal education opportunities for all, universal healthcare, children and families, and a better safer world are not surprised by this.

Hillary continues to fight for the principles of fairness and decency she grew up with. She understands progress is usually not made in giant leaps but rather incrementally. She has pledged as President she will get up every morning and work hard, as she always has, to move our nation and everyone in it forward. She will use the brilliant mind god graced her with to make progress on the convictions and principles her mother instilled in her. Her campaign is about asking each of us to join her in making this a better world for ourselves and future generations.

-- 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 2 hours ago.

10 Ways to Become Financially Independent

$
0
0
People can choose to define financial independence in their own way -- after all, not everyone wants a private jet and a mansion. However reaching real financial independence -- the ability to live comfortably off one's savings and investments with no debt whatsoever -- could be easier than you think.

It takes a plan. Many individuals -- particularly those with a healthy self-discipline and solid financial guidance -- can reach this goal. Here are 10 ideas to get started.
1. *Visualize first, then plan*. Anyone's vision of financial independence can probably use a reality check. Start by considering what your vision actually looks like and then gather some qualified financial advice to set -- or reset -- your course. The path to financial independence may be considerably different at age 20 than it is at age 50; the more time you have to save and invest generally produces a better outcome. But whatever age you are, start by getting a realistic picture of what options you have.3. *Budget*. Tracking your finances effectively starts with budgeting - the process of measuring income, subtracting expenses and deciding how to divert the difference to your goals. It's the essential first task in achieving financial independence.5. *Spend less than you earn*. Most of us have certainly heard this rule, but it remains one of the toughest financial behaviors to execute. One rule of thumb is to put between 10-15 percent of your gross income in savings or investments every week (which includes employer match if it's available). Working couples might try to bank a substantial part of one salary if possible. In any case, adhering to a lower standard of living and expenses will help anyone put more money into savings and investments sooner.7. *Build smarter safety nets*. Emergency funds and insurance are part of the financial planning picture, but they're rarely discussed in combination. The traditional definition of an emergency fund is a separate account for cash that can be used instead of credit in a sudden emergency like an unexpected car or appliance repair. But it might be wise to evaluate current deductibles on home, car and health insurance to see if those amounts should be built into one's emergency fund - many people keep deductibles fairly high to keep premiums low. Would you have cash on hand to cover deductibles if you had a sudden claim? If not, put that money in reserve. The more effective you are at dealing with financial emergencies, the faster your savings and investments can grow.9. *Eliminate debt*. Though consumer debt levels have generally fallen since the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in February that home, student loan, auto and credit card debt began creeping up again in 2014. Getting rid of revolving, non-housing debt is one of the most effective things you can do to free up money to save and invest.11. *Consider your career*. Financial independence doesn't require you to quit a career you love, but you really can't get to financial independence without steady income to fuel savings and investments that will build over time. If you are behind on your financial goals, chances are you won't be able to quit working, at least for a while. You might even consider expanding your sources of work-related income, such as consulting part time. Consider speaking with qualified financial and tax experts as you evaluate your current career income and benefits picture. Also keep in mind that over the age of 50, the Internal Revenue Service allows you to make catch-up contributions to both 401(k) and IRA accounts.13. *Downsize*. Whether you are age 20 or 50, financial independence requires a personal evaluation of what money, property and items you will need to live happily and securely. It might also help to stop any "Keeping up with the Joneses" you've done in the past that's unduly influenced your spending. Generally, you'll get to your goal faster if you can cut your overall living expenses. For some, that means selling your home and moving to a smaller one or to an area with lower living costs and taxes. You can also sell or donate property you don't need and use those proceeds to extinguish debt or add to savings or investments.15. *Invest frugally*. Become a student of investment fees and commissions. When you're able to add money to savings or investments, watch for fees, deadlines or penalty rules. Washington took aim earlier this year on fees on 401(k) accounts, but make a full evaluation of what fees you are paying on every investment account you have. And if you work with a qualified professional licensed to sell investment products, know how much you're paying in investment and advisory fees for their services and discuss their performance.17. *Buy assets that generate income*. No investment is foolproof - whether you invest in stocks, real estate, collectibles or cash investments, all have up and down markets. It is important to fully understand everything you invest in and focus on assets that will make money over the long haul. Reading widely on the subject of any class of investment you're interested in will help you buy low so you can sell higher at a later date. Don't forget to study the tax ramifications of any investment transaction you make.19. *Always know where you are financially*. Financial planning isn't about making one set of financial decisions and assuming you're set. Lives and situations change and your financial planning must be flexible enough to withstand both positive and negative changes without derailing your hopes for financial independence. If your forte is not investing, financial planning or tax matters, by all means bring in qualified experts to help. But financially independent people generally have their money issues at their fingertips not only for their own use, but for estate purposes as well.
One last point. Being able to pay for a lifestyle you love without worrying about money is an enormous relief and reward. If you don't feel you're heading in that direction, consider putting some of these steps in motion today.

*Bottom line*: Not everyone inherits a fortune. Financial independence takes work and discipline, but small steps can yield big rewards over time.

Nathaniel Sillin directs Visa's financial education programs. To follow Practical Money Skills on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PracticalMoney

-- 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 36 minutes ago.

3 Hospital Stocks That Knocked It Out Of The Park Last Quarter

$
0
0
Fewer write offs due to health insurance reform are allowing hospital operators to reap bigger profit. Reported by Motley Fool 1 hour ago.

Company Expands Technology to the Medicare Advantage Market

$
0
0
Convey Health's state-of-the-art platform can modernize several services into one user-operated system, which decreases cost, improves accuracy and facilitates regulatory compliance.

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (PRWEB) August 05, 2015

Convey Health Solutions, a leading provider of healthcare technology and member support services, is expanding its Medicare Part D technology systems to meet the needs of Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans. This state-of-the-art platform will save its clients time and money navigating the complicated and ever-changing government regulations.    

Convey Health’s innovative Medicare Services Platform will allow Medicare Advantage plans to manage all aspects of enrollment, eligibility, and membership reconciliation functions while maintaining compliance with CMS requirements and regulations. Convey Health originally developed its single integrated Medicare Service Platform for the Medicare Part D market. The extension of the platform into the Medicare Advantage sector is the next step in the evolution of the technology.

With its extensive step-by-step wizard support for users, automated workflows and reporting, Convey Health’s system will reduce costs, improve quality, reduce errors and increase member satisfaction. With its role-based access control mechanism, health plans will be able to utilize a single, secure solution for complex business processes.

Beginning with the billing module that was completed in July, the system will streamline enrollment, member services, billing and payment processing functions. Convey Health’s system will modernize these services into one user-operated system, which decreases cost, improves accuracy and facilitates regulatory compliance.

“Today, some Medicare plan sponsors are using as many as 15 different tools and multiple healthcare agents to help each customer,” said Stephanie Jones, Senior Vice President & General Manager, Medicare Part D Business Segment. “By moving to one platform built specifically to service MAPD customers we can revolutionize the way healthcare customer service is administered.”

This completely unique system is the culmination of more than a decade of technological advancements built specifically for a Medicare Part D platform. The billing module currently supports various functions including customer invoicing, payment and refund processing, and handling Failure-to-Pay (FTP) and Good Cause Reinstatements.

Convey Health Solutions is currently developing future modules that will be added to the platform including enrollment, reconciliation, appeals and grievances and coordination of benefits. Ultimately, a full member management solution including all modules will be available to MAPD organizations in the first half of 2016.

“Convey Health Solutions has developed an array of software products to assist in various Medicare programs, including Prescription Drug Plans, Over-the-Counter (OTC) Benefits, Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWP), and now MAPD,” Jones said. For a live demonstration of Convey Health’s MAPD billing module or any other healthcare specific technology solutions, including PDP, EGWP or Over-the-Counter (OTC), please contact us at BusinessSolutions(at)ConveyHS(dot)com.

About Convey Health Solutions
Convey Health Solutions provides comprehensive, technology-enabled solutions to clients that offer Medicare Prescription Drug Plans, Medicare Advantage Plans, and other related provider benefit programs. For nearly a decade, the company has improved the quality and cost of large-scale health insurance processes for nationally recognized clients using its proprietary technology. Convey Health’s healthcare-focused teams operate in locations across South Florida, Arizona and in the Philippines to help several million Americans each year navigate the complexities of Medicare. Learn more at http://www.ConveyHealthSolutions.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 hour ago.

The New Health Care: No, Giving More People Health Insurance Doesn’t Save Money

$
0
0
The argument for the cost savings from universal health coverage makes some intuitive sense, but it’s not backed up by research. Reported by NYTimes.com 1 day ago.

Actuaries Detail the Drivers of Health Insurance Premium Changes for 2016

$
0
0
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Growing health care costs, the phaseout of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) transitional reinsurance program, and assumptions regarding the composition of the 2016 risk pool are among the major factors driving changes in health... Reported by PR Newswire 1 day ago.

Qliance pivots toward employers in a post-ACA health insurance market

$
0
0
Seattle-based health clinic chain Qliance is feeling the impact of the Affordable Care Act, and tweaking its business model in response. Qliance has long been a provider of primary care to employers, unions, Medicaid and uninsured individuals. But CEO Erika Bliss said that since the 2010 passage of the ACA, more employers have been coming to Qliance with questions about how to tie together new health care innovations that are cropping up in hospitals and primary care settings. Those include telemedicine,… Reported by bizjournals 21 hours ago.

PlanSource Partners with State of Utah to Build Successful State Exchange

$
0
0
PlanSource Partners with State of Utah to Build Successful State Exchange ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 6, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- PlanSource, a leading provider of cloud-based health exchange and benefits administration technology, partnered with the state of Utah in 2013 to build Avenue H, the state's online health insurance marketplace for small businesses. Today, Avenue... Reported by PR Newswire 5 hours ago.

Gay, Bisexual Men More Likely To Use Indoor Tanning Than Straight Men

$
0
0
By Andrew M. Seaman

(Reuters Health) - Gay and bisexual men are more likely than straight men to use indoor tanning, and almost as likely as women to engage in the dermatologically risky behavior, according to new research."We're not surprised that there is more indoor tanning among gay and bisexual men, compared to straight men, but what is striking is that the absolute prevalence rivals that of straight women," said lead author Dr. Howa Yeung.He and Dr. Suephy Chen, both dermatologists at Emory University in Atlanta, report in JAMA Dermatology that 5 percent of gay men and about 7 percent of bisexual men reported tanning in the last year, compared to less than 2 percent of straight men and about 7 percent of straight women.Straight women have historically been considered the highest risk group for indoor tanning, Yeung told Reuters Health. "We really haven't focused on men at all," he added.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that as many as 400,000 cases of skin cancer may be related to indoor tanning in the United States each year, including 6,000 melanomas, which are the deadliest type of skin cancer.For the new study, the researchers used 2013 data that asked Americans about their sexual orientation and how often they used indoor tanning devices, like sun lamps, sun beds and tanning booths.Gay and bisexual men were three times and five times, respectively, more likely than straight men to have tanned indoors within the past year. What's more they were about five and seven times, respectively, more likely to tan "frequently" than straight men.Frequent tanning is the use of indoor tanning devices 10 or more times within the past year.Among women, the researchers found no differences between gay, bisexual and straight women once they accounted for factors known to influence tanning behaviors, including age, race or ethnicity, education, income, health insurance status, where the person lives and her skin cancer history.
The study can't say why gay and bisexual men are more likely to tan indoors than straight men, but it may involve dissatisfaction with body image, Yeung said."More research needs to be done about why that is the case," he said.Yeung also said they can't say whether the increased popularity of indoor tanning among gay and bisexual men translates into more cancers, because databases that track cancer don't ask about sexual orientation."With the recent national focus on gay marriage, there is more and more focus on gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender (LGBT) health," Yeung said."As a dermatologist, I want to highlight some of these things and inform the LGBT population so we can improve their skin health," he added.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1W29oA2 JAMA Dermatology, online August 5, 2015.

 

*More on HuffPost: *

-- 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 2 hours ago.

Fitch Completes Insurance Notching Review for U.S. Health Insurance

$
0
0
CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fitch Ratings has completed a portfolio review covering 12 health insurance groups within the U.S. Health Insurance sector. The review focused exclusively on the application of Fitch's recently updated notching criteria for the insurance industry. Its purpose was to identify any ratings that should be changed as a result of the application of the updated notching criteria. SUMMARY OF RATING ACTIONS The review resulted in no changes to any of the 12 health insurance gro Reported by Business Wire 2 hours ago.

Wanted: Health Insurance Gurus

$
0
0
Many people rely on specialists to help them sign up for health insurance. The problem is, there aren’t always enough experts to go around. Reported by IBTimes 8 minutes ago.

Obamacare is Here to Stay, So Let's Make it Better

$
0
0
The Supreme Court's ruling to uphold health care subsidies almost certainly put an end to conservatives' chances of taking down Obamacare. While some GOP politicians-particularly those running for president-continue to tell the party's base that repeal is an achievable goal, the reality is that it remains very unlikely to happen.

So, where do we go from here? In the 2014 midterm elections, Democrats-especially those from red states- were forced to walk a fine line. They were already on record supporting the law, but thanks to a botched rollout, and effective messaging from conservatives, it wasn't popular with voters.

Last year, some of those senators joined with other Democrats in pushing a number of proposals they felt would make Obamacare better. In an op-ed published in Politico, the senators wrote:
As each of us has said from the beginning, the ACA is not perfect. And as each of us has promised, we are taking important steps to make the law work even better for families and small businesses across the country...

...We encourage our colleagues from both parties, in the House and the Senate, to join us in this responsible effort to make the Affordable Care Act work better for America's families and businesses.

In 2016, Republican senators may be facing the same kind of choice. Many of them rode into office in 2010 because their anti-Obamacare message was popular with voters. Next year, however, those senators will be facing a presidential electorate, which will trend much further left than the one that voted them into office in 2010.

The electorate isn't the only thing that will be different from 2010. Six years ago, Obamacare was a newly enacted law that had yet to take effect. None of their constituents were benefitting from the law's subsidies and coverage provisions. Now, these senators will be facing voters who have health insurance because of Obamacare. On top of that, one recent government report even found that repealing Obamacare could add as much as $353 billion to the federal deficit and cost 24 million Americans their health insurance.

This complex political balancing act, coupled with many moderate Democrats already on record supporting fixes to the law, could provide a rare opportunity for bipartisanship on such a contentious issue.

Obviously, Democrats and Republicans will disagree over how flawed the law really is, and what parts of the law need to be fixed, but the overall notion that there are areas for improvement is a starting point for potential agreement.

So, what would such a bill look like? First, the employer mandate exemption would be pushed from businesses with at least 50 employees to those with at least 100. Second, it would allow people enrolling in Obamacare to do so through agents and brokers, rather than having to navigate a website.

There is also support on Capitol Hill for striking a deal to do away with certain taxes in the law.
Other lawmakers are floating the idea of mixing repeal of part of Obamacare, such as the medical device tax, which is loathed by members of both parties, with non-health care items such as broader tax reform.
While the medical device tax gets the most media attention, another Obamacare tax that has support for repeal is the "Tan Tax." According to Forbes, the 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services has not yielded the revenue the law's authors had hoped:
The tanning tax was expected to raise $2.7 billion over the first decade of its existence. Five years into that decade, it has raised less than $500 million. For the decade, the industry projects it's on pace to throw off only $840 million-about a third of what was expected.
The Forbes piece also points out the negative impact the tax is having on jobs in the industry:
Nearly 10,000 tanning salons have closed since the tax went into effect. This has resulted in the loss of nearly 81,000 jobs...
In order to ensure these changes are fiscally responsible, lawmakers will have to find ways to make up for the more than $30 billion lost by repealing those tax provisions.

Last September, the Center for American Progress (CAP) outlined numerous tax reform ideas that had strong bipartisan support. Closing a loophole that allows life insurance policies for a company's employees to finance their debt with life insurance investments could raise about $7 billion over 10 years. Another, the corporate jet subsidy, which grants "a larger tax benefit for jets that transport executives than airlines are given for jets that carry passengers, could raise $3.8 billion over 10 years.

These proposals are just two ways that Democrats and Republicans could include in a fix bill that would keep the law on sound financial footing.

If Democrats and Republicans can work together to take a "mend it, don't end it" approach to Obamacare, it could be a defining moment. It would ease the minds of the millions of Americans who receive health insurance through Obamacare, and it would show that both parties can work together on serious policy initiatives on the most important issues facing the country.

-- 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 23 hours ago.

Could the Affordable Care Act Make the U.S. More Competitive Abroad?

$
0
0
Coauthored by David Squires

Recent debates about the Trans-Pacific Partnership got us thinking about how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) might affect U.S. competitiveness abroad. The connection is stronger than you might expect.

Our competitiveness in global trade, of course, depends on the relative cost and quality of the goods our businesses export. This is influenced by numerous factors, some of which are likely to be much more important than the ACA. For example, the strength of the U.S. dollar has raised the effective price of U.S. products overseas and undercut their sale in recent years.

But there are several ways in which the ACA could influence U.S. competitiveness.

First, working-age Americans are sicker and die younger than citizens in many other developed countries. This health disadvantage translates into a competitive disadvantage, as there is a well-documented relationship between workers' health status and their productivity. The annual economic losses from diabetes and depression alone are estimated to exceed $100 billion.

The ACA could significantly improve the U.S. workforce's overall health. Insurance expansions have been shown to improve beneficiaries' health and raise their future earnings. Since the main coverage provisions of the law took effect, 12 million to 17 million working-age adults have gained health insurance. In addition, the ACA has stimulated a wave of innovations in health care, many focused on the things that keep us well, like prevention, telehealth, and promoting healthy lifestyles and living environments. To the extent that these succeed, the benefits will be felt in workforce productivity and business competitiveness.

Second, taming our nation's astronomical health care bill would further improve our ability to compete in foreign markets. We spend more on health care than any other wealthy country--health spending represents nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy, compared with one-tenth in the average industrialized nation. This leaves fewer resources available for research, infrastructure, education, and other investments that are foundational to economic competitiveness. Warren Buffett went so far as to call our health system "the tapeworm, essentially, of the American economy."

In recent years, health care spending has grown at historically low rates. Some believe the ACA has played a role, though the jury is still out. If the spending slowdown lasts, however, the long-term prospects for U.S. competitiveness are considerably brighter.

Third, the ACA marketplaces created a functional health insurance market for people buying health insurance on their own, weakening the link between employment and coverage. This promotes entrepreneurship, by allowing workers to leave jobs and start their own businesses without losing their insurance. The resulting start-ups could grow over time into the cutting-edge companies that so enhance U.S. competitiveness. It's possible that this is already occurring. Rates of entrepreneurship and business creation have risen over the past year, and while this is most likely the result of generally favorable economic conditions, the ACA policies support this type of growth.

Some people argue that aspects of the ACA weaken our competitiveness by imposing new costs on U.S. businesses. These fears are likely exaggerated.

For starters, not all businesses sell in foreign markets. Three of the largest exporting sectors in the U.S. are manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. Manufacturers and mining companies already tend to offer job-based insurance, and are therefore untouched by most provisions of the law. Thus, the price of these exports should not be seriously affected by the ACA.

When and if the ACA's so-called employer mandate goes into effect (applying to companies with 50 or more employees), some agriculture businesses could face additional short-term expenses related to purchasing health insurance for their employees. Over the longer term, economists predict these costs will be absorbed by workers in the form of reduced wages and other benefits, which could moderate adverse effects on competitiveness. And, in the short term, the agricultural industry does not appear to be suffering, and has in fact created jobs at a faster clip than the rest of the U.S. economy since the ACA became law.

Whether, and how, the ACA affects the international competitiveness of the U.S. economy remains to be seen. But it is essential to remember the original rationale for health reform. The problems plaguing our health system are felt beyond the hospital and clinic, and affect many other aspects of our standard of living. Whatever one thinks of the ACA, U.S. competitiveness would surely benefit from a smarter, stronger health care system.

-- 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 23 hours ago.

Washington Health Benefit Exchange CEO Richard Onizuka to step down

$
0
0
Richard Onizuka, CEO of the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, says he'll step down effective Aug. 31. Onizuka was appointed in May 2012 to create and implement the state’s health insurance marketplace, Washington Healthplanfinder. The Washington Health Benefit Exchange faced serious challenges in getting the website and payment system up and running. There were issues with site crashes, then with invoicing and payments. Onizuka likened the experience to working for a startup company. He said… Reported by bizjournals 20 hours ago.

Bernie Sanders Live-Tweeted The Republican Presidential Debate

$
0
0
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, live-tweeted the first GOP primary debate on Thursday night using the hashtag #DebateWithBernie.

Sanders posted an image of himself on a couch with a clipboard ahead of the debate, inviting people to watch along with him.Sanders criticized Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) for his comments on Obamacare:


.@ScottWalker: "repeal Obamacare." Throw millions of more people off of their health insurance. Great idea. #DebateWIthBernie

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 7, 2015

He took a jab at former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), tying him to his brother, former President George W. Bush:


.@JebBush Talk about killing jobs. When your brother left office we were hemorrhaging 800k jobs a month. And you want more of the same?

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 7, 2015

He even praised former NBC employee Donald Trump, albeit jokingly:


Did @realDonaldTrump just support a national single-payer health system? Well. He was right on something. #DebateWithBernie

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 7, 2015

He also touched on income inequality, a subject he's been passionate about on the campaign trail:


At a time of massive inequality, does any R think the wealthy and large corporations should pay a nickel more in taxes? #DebateWithBernie

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 7, 2015

Read more of Sanders' tweets at his Twitter, @BernieSanders.

*Also on HuffPost:*

-- 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 17 hours ago.

Fact Checking The Early Republican Debate

$
0
0
The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org 

The Republican presidential candidates who failed to make the cut for the Aug. 6 prime-time debate repeated a number of past false and misleading claims, while adding some new ones that we hadn’t heard before:
· South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the U.S. sends “$300 billion overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts.” But that’s spending on all oil imports, including from Canada and Mexico.· Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal claimed a study proved “expanding Medicaid does not improve health care outcomes.” The study he cited measured only three health indicators over a two-year period, and even then found some positive benefits.· Former New York Gov. George Pataki said when he left office, “there were over 1 million fewer people on welfare in New York state than when I took office.” True, but that decrease was part of a national trend after President Clinton signed the 1996 welfare overhaul legislation.· Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum claimed that “almost all” immigrants in the past 20 years “are unskilled workers.” Not so. In 2010, 30 percent of working-age immigrants had a college degree while 28 percent lacked a high school diploma.· Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry claimed that under his tenure, and since the recession, Texas gained jobs while the rest of the country lost them. According to the job-growth measure used by most economists, the rest of the country gained 1.2 million jobs, while Texas gained the same.· Santorum also exaggerated in saying 74 percent of Americans lack a college degree. The number for those age 18 and older is 65 percent.· Jindal claimed President Obama said that “we don’t have leverage with China to get a better deal on Iran,” because the U.S. borrows money from China. Not exactly. Obama said economically cutting off the world’s largest banks, China and other countries would have consequences for the U.S.
The debate was held in Cleveland a few hours before the top 10 candidates took the stage.*Oil and Facts Don’t Mix*

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the U.S. sends “$300 billion overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts.” But that amount represents all spending on oil imports, including huge amounts from countries such as Canada and Mexico, which, according to polls, do not “hate our guts.”

*Graham:* When it comes to fossil fuels, we’re going to find more here and use less. Over time, we’re going to become energy independent. I am tired of sending $300 billion overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imported a total of 3.37 billion barrels of oil in 2014. The average cost of all that oil was $89.56 per barrel, again according to the EIA. That means that the total import cost in 2014 was just under $302 billion, close to the figure Graham cited.

But that oil comes from a variety of countries, and some of them do not appear to hate the United States. In fact, the U.S. imported the most oil — about 1.24 billion barrels — from Canada. Our neighbor to the north is generally not considered an American enemy, and polling bears that out: The Pew Research Center found in its most recent survey that the U.S. has a 68 percent favorability rating in Canada. (It is also, of course, not “overseas.”)

Saudi Arabia is the second biggest provider of oil to the United States, sending 425 million barrels in 2014; Pew does not have data on favorability in this country. Mexico is third with 307 million barrels, and 66 percent of that country sees the U.S. in a positive light. Venezuela is next, at 287 million barrels; according to Pew, 51 percent of Venezuela has a favorable opinion of the U.S. In fifth place is Iraq at 132 million barrels, again with no data from Pew on favorability.

In sixth place is Russia, at 119 million barrels of oil. At last count, only 15 percent of Russians surveyed see the U.S. favorably. Even if we allow that Russia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia may “hate our guts,” that represents less than $61 billion in oil imports. The other three countries in the top six represent about $164 billion of the total expenditures, meaning the U.S. spends more money importing fossil fuels from countries that do not actually hate our guts.

-*Jindal Overplays Medicaid Study*-

Explaining his opposition to Medicaid expansion through the Affordable Care Act, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said a study in Oregon showed that “simply expanding Medicaid does not improve health care outcomes.” But the Oregon study wasn’t as sweeping as Jindal claimed — for one, the study found that Medicaid expansion lowered rates of depression. And other studies have shown more positive health outcomes from Medicaid expansion.

We looked at this issue in depth in a story we wrote in July titled, “Is Medicaid Bad for Your Health?” At the heart of the issue is a study called the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 2, 2013. The study took advantage of a Medicaid expansion in Oregon that was based on lottery drawings and compared data from 6,387 adults who were able to apply for Medicaid coverage with 5,842 adults who were not selected.

The authors of the study concluded that, “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

The first part of that conclusion provides the basis for Jindal’s statement, “There is a better way to provide health care. The Oregon study showed this. Simply expanding Medicaid does not improve health care outcomes.” But he leaves out the second part that talks about lowering rates of depression, for example.

And as we noted in an article about the study in 2013, it had some limitations. For example, the study measured only three physical health indicators — blood pressure, cholesterol and glycated hemoglobin levels (which measure diabetic blood sugar control) — and only over a two-year period. There could be other improvements that the study didn’t attempt to measure, or that could show up once patients are covered for longer than two years.

In addition, other studies have shown more positive results for Medicaid expansion. For example, a study published on May 6, 2014, in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that after a health care overhaul in Massachusetts, mortality rates were improved compared with those in other states. Another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2012 compared several states that substantially expanded Medicaid (before the ACA) to neighboring states that did not expand Medicaid and concluded, “State Medicaid expansions to cover low-income adults were significantly associated with reduced mortality as well as improved coverage, access to care, and self-reported health.”

A 2013 report from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation looking at the breadth of academic study concluded that “[h]aving Medicaid is much better than being uninsured.”

-*Pataki’s Welfare Boast, in Context*-

Former New York Gov. George Pataki credited his policies as governor for a “cultural change” in New York, boasting that when he left office “there were over 1 million fewer people on welfare in New York state than when I took office.”

That’s true, but he failed to mention that the drop was part of a national trend after Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Pataki twice mentioned that he cut the welfare rolls by more than 1 million. The first time was when one of the debate moderators, Bill Hemmer, asked Pataki whether it was a mistake for states to expand Medicaid as permitted under the Affordable Care Act.

*Pataki, Aug. 6*: But getting back to Martha’s question about how we end dependency, do we have to have a cultural change? The answer is no. And I know this, because when I ran for governor of New York, 1 in 11 of every man, woman, and child in the state of New York was on welfare. On welfare. Think about that.

And people said “you can’t win, you can’t change the culture.” But I knew that good people who wanted to be a part of the American dream have become trapped in dependency because the federal government and the state government had made it in their economic interest not to take a job because the benefits that they didn’t work were better.

I changed that. We put in place mandatory workfare. But we allowed people to keep health care. We put in place child care support.

*Hemmer*: Yes or no, would you have expanded Obamacare in the state of New York, had you been governor at that time?

*Pataki*: No, it should be repealed. And by the way, when I left, there were over 1 million fewer people on welfare in New York state than when I took office.


Pataki was a three-term governor who served from Jan. 1, 1995, to Jan. 1, 2007. And, as we wrote when he entered the race, the average monthly number of welfare recipients in New York dropped 76 percent, from 1,264,063 in 1994 to 297,574 in 2006. That’s nearly 1 million fewer New Yorkers on welfare.

During that same time, however, the total number of welfare recipients in the U.S. dropped from 14,160,920 in calendar year 1994 to 4,148,498 in calendar year 2006, a decline of more than 10 million or 71 percent.

It’s true that the governor was an early supporter of overhauling the welfare laws, and he did make some changes as governor — including to Home Relief, a state welfare program for childless adults. But the far more sweeping changes that he proposed were rejected by the state Legislature and didn’t occur until the federal law passed.

-Santorum’s Immigrant Claim-

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also claimed that “almost all” immigrants in the past 20 years “are unskilled workers.” Not so.

*Santorum:* [A]fter 35 million people have come here over the last 20 years, almost all of whom are unskilled workers, flattening wages, creating horrible opportunity — a lack of opportunities for unskilled workers, we’re going to do something about reducing the level of immigration by 25 percent.

Santorum’s claim is contradicted by a 2011 study by the Brookings Institution, which found more immigrants of working age held college degrees than immigrants who never finished high school.

The study focused on the foreign-born ages 25 to 64 in the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. Neither the study nor Santorum made any distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and in fact Santorum spoke of reducing “immigration” in general by 25 percent.

The fact is, recent arrivals have been better educated than those who arrived here in earlier decades. The study, which was based on Census data in areas containing 85 percent of the immigrant population, stated:

*Brookings, “The Geography of Immigrant Skills”: *In 1980, just 19 percent of immigrants aged 25 to 64 held a bachelor’s degree, and nearly 40 percent had not completed high school. By 2010, 30 percent of working-age immigrants had at least a college degree and 28 percent lacked a high school diploma.

-*Perry’s Jobs Boast*-

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry once again puffed up his state’s record on job creation, claiming that Texas had created 1.5 million jobs “during the worst economic time this country’s had since the great depression, while the rest of the country lost 400,000 jobs.” Actually, according to the job-growth measure used by most economists, and the appropriate time frame for Perry’s tenure, the rest of the country gained 1.2 million jobs, while Texas also gained 1.2 million.

Perry has used this statistic before, citing December 2007, the beginning of the Great Recession, as his starting point. But instead of using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ nonfarm payroll data  — the data BLS itself uses to calculate the monthly job growth figures it releases— Perry relies on BLS’ household survey data, a monthly survey of 60,000 households that’s used to calculate the unemployment rate. The nonfarm payroll data, meanwhile, is a monthly survey of about 550,000 business establishments that include millions of employees.

That’s the survey most economists prefer for job growth. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco called it “the more accurate employment indicator.”

Besides being smaller, the household survey counts as “employed” people who aren’t on a payroll, including unpaid family workers, the self-employed including day laborers, and those who are absent from work and not receiving pay.

Perry can only get a loss of jobs for the rest of the country by using the household survey data for December 2007 and December 2014. But Perry left office on Jan. 20, 2015, and both of BLS’ surveys are taken during the week or payroll period that includes the 12th of the month. So January 2015 is the correct end point for Perry’s time in office. Using that month, the rest of the country gained 325,000 jobs, not lost them, even using the household survey.

Texas certainly created a lot of jobs, using either measure. But using the preferred job growth measure, the state created 1.2 million jobs from December 2007 through January 2015. The rest of the country gained 1.2 million jobs in the same time period.

Perry could accurately say that his state created about the same number of jobs as the rest of the country under his governorship since the start of the recession.

-Santorum’s College Degree Figure-

Santorum exaggerated the number of Americans who lack a college degree.

*Santorum:* Americans are … looking for someone who’s going to grow the manufacturing sector of our economy, so those 74 percent of Americans who don’t have a college degree have a chance to rise again.

Actually, the country is better educated than Santorum lets on. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2014 the number of Americans 18 and older who lacked “a college degree” of any sort was 65 percent.

That counts those with two-year academic associate degrees, but not those with occupational associate degrees.

Those who lack at least a four-year bachelor’s degree or better totaled 71 percent, still less than Santorum’s figure. But of course that 18-and-over group includes a lot of students who are still in college and soon will have degrees.

Limiting the count to those 25 and older, Census puts the number who lack a bachelor’s degree or better at 68 percent, and those who don’t have any sort of college degree at just 62.5 percent.

-*Jindal on Obama on China*-

Jindal claimed President Obama said that “we don’t have leverage with China to get a better deal on Iran,” because the U.S. borrows money from China. But that is not exactly what Obama said.

*Jindal*: Yesterday, the president stunningly admitted this. He said, “We don’t have leverage with China to get a better deal on Iran because we need them to lend us money to continue operating our government.”

Here is Obama’s full comment from an Aug. 5 speech on the Iran nuclear deal at American University.

*Obama, Aug. 5:* As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress’s rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling. If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world.

In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.


Obama was making the point that the U.S. cannot force China’s hand on the Iran nuclear deal simply by cutting China off economically. That would have consequences for the U.S. economy as well, he noted.

— Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, Dave Levitan and D’Angelo Gore

*For more GOP debate coverage, visit our liveblog.*

-- 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 16 hours ago.

Head of Washington health exchange to step down

$
0
0
The man who has led the Washington health insurance exchange since its inception in 2012 has announced he will be stepping down at the end of the month. Reported by Seattle Times 6 hours ago.

Fact Checking The Prime Time Republican Presidential Debate

$
0
0
The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org.
*Summary*

The first prime-time Republican presidential debate featured the top 10 candidates, according to polling, and they twisted some facts.
· Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that “over 40 percent of small and mid-size banks … have been wiped out” since the Dodd-Frank law was passed. Actually, the total number of commercial banks has gone down only 16 percent, continuing a longtime trend.· Businessman Donald Trump said his net worth is $10 billion, but outside estimates put the figure much lower.· Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush twice claimed that he cut taxes in the state by $19 billion. But that includes cuts in Florida estate taxes mandated by federal law that Bush had nothing to do with.· Ohio Gov. John Kasich claimed his state’s Medicaid program “is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country.” Ohio ranks 16th in terms of enrollment growth post-Affordable Care Act among the 30 expansion states and Washington, D.C.· Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker claimed his state “more than made up” for the job losses from the recession. That’s a stretch. The state has gained 4,000 jobs since the start of the recession.· Rubio said he had never advocated exceptions for rape or incest to abortion bans, but he cosponsored a bill in 2013 that contained just such exceptions.· Boasting about his education initiatives while governor, Bush claimed that the graduation rate “improved by 50 percent.” But most of the increase happened after Bush left office; the rate increased about 13 percent when he was governor.· Bush claimed that the U.S. spends more per student than any other country, but Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway all spend more for primary and secondary education.· Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee repeated the old claim that Obamacare “robbed” Medicare of $700 billion. That’s a reduction in the future growth of spending over 10 years.
We fact-checked the earlier debate, too, for candidates not in the top 10. See our story, “FactChecking the GOP Debate, Early Edition.”*Analysis*

-*Rubio on Dodd-Frank*-

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio implied that the new banking law imposed in 2010 was responsible for killing off small banks and loans to small business.

*Rubio:* [W]e need to repeal Dodd-Frank. It is eviscerating small businesses and small banks. Twenty — over 40 percent of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses have been wiped out over the — since Dodd-Frank has passed.

Actually, the total number of commercial banks has gone down only 16 percent since the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law July 21, 2010. And that decline continues a trend that goes back at least to the 1980s.

Note that Rubio caught himself. He started to say the decline was “over the” law — meaning the law caused the decline — but then said the decline happened “since” the law was passed. That just describes a coincidence, which may or may not have been caused by the law.

The fact is, small and medium-sized banks had been getting swallowed up by larger banks for decades before the Dodd-Frank bill was enacted. And the rate does not appear to have accelerated since the law took effect, as seen in this graph from the Federal Reserve Economic Data database, maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

The numbers on which the graphic is based show that there were 14,400 commercial banks (all but a handful “small and medium” in size) in the first quarter of 1984, but that number had declined to 6,570 by the third quarter of 2010, when Dodd-Frank was signed into law.

That’s a fairly steady decrease of 54 percent over 26-and-a-half years. And since then, the number has declined further to 5,501 as of the first quarter of this year. That’s a drop of 16 percent (not “over 40 percent”) in four-and-a-half years.

-Trump’s Wealth Claim-

Donald Trump repeated his claim that his net worth is $10 billion.

*Trump: *The fact is, I built a net worth of more than $10 billion. I have a great, great company. I employ thousands of people. And I’m very proud of the job I did.

There’s ample reason to think he’s exaggerating. For one thing, in June Trump himself released a statement putting his net worth at less — $8.7 billion. In July, he increased that figure to $10 billion, touting his ability to assemble “massive” wealth as a reason voters should support him.

But outside estimates are far lower. Forbes estimated his net worth at $4 billion, ranking him in 405th place among its listing of the world’s wealthiest people (the fluctuating “real-time” ranking by Forbes has him at 430th, as of this writing).

Later, the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index, after examining the 92-page disclosure of assets and liabilities that Trump filed with the Federal Election Commission, came up with an even lower estimate: $2.9 billion.

Trump once testified in a lawsuit that his estimate of his own net worth “fluctuates” partly due to “attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”

Judging by Trump’s $10 billion claim, he’s feeling very good. But even if he is worth less than a third of what he claims (as Bloomberg estimates), he’s still a very rich person.

-*Bush’s Tax Cut Boast*-

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush claimed — twice — that as governor of Florida he cut taxes by $19 billion. But a big chunk of that came from cuts in Florida estate taxes mandated by federal law that Bush had nothing to do with.

*Bush:* I cut taxes ever year totaling $19 billion.

He repeated the tax cut figure later in the debate when asked about disparaging comments he allegedly made about Trump.

Bush’s Right to Rise PAC told Politifact Florida that the figure was based on cumulative changes in revenue between the fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2007-2008. But not all of the revenue changes were due to tax cuts. They also included various fees and license changes, as well as sales tax holidays and lottery proceeds, according to the Politifact Florida analysis.

In addition, Martin A. Sullivan, chief economist of Tax Analysts, a tax news nonprofit organization, did his own analysis and found that state legislation enacted during Bush’s eight years as governor resulted in $13 billion in tax cuts.

“My estimate — following the method used by the Florida Legislature — includes nontax revenue increases such as new lottery and slot machine revenue, and it does not include automatic cuts in Florida estate taxes brought about by changes in federal legislation in 2003,” Sullivan wrote.

He added: “These factors probably explain most of the difference between my estimate and the Bush website’s estimate.”

Sullivan said that the $13 billion in cuts amounted to $140 per resident.

-*Kasich on Medicaid Expansion*-

Ohio Gov. John Kasich defended his decision to expand Medicaid in his state under the ACA, saying that “our Medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country.” But Ohio’s Medicaid rolls are 24 percent higher, compared with pre-ACA monthly enrollment. That puts the state at 16th in terms of growth among the 30 states and the District of Columbia that have expanded Medicaid.

According to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, Ohio’s average monthly pre-ACA Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollment was 2,341,481, using July-September 2013 numbers. The post-ACA monthly figure, as of May 2015, was 2,902,768, an increase of 24 percent.

It’s true that some states saw much higher growth: Kentucky’s enrollment shot up 86 percent; Oregon’s is up 75 percent. Several other states are at 50 percent growth and above, including Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington and West Virginia.

But Ohio is in the middle of the pack, not “one of the lowest rates in the country.”

The state’s growth is slightly above the 22 percent average for all states, including nonexpansion states.

-*Walker Spins Job Growth*-

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, when asked about failing to keep a campaign promise to create 250,000 jobs in his first term, responded with some spin on the state’s unemployment rate and job growth.

*Walker:* Before I came in, the unemployment rate was over 8 percent. It’s now down to 4.6 percent. We’ve more than made up for the jobs that were lost during the recession.

The claim that the state “more than made up” for the job losses from the recession is a stretch. In December 2007, when the recession started, the state had 2,878,000 jobs, and as of June it had 2,882,000 jobs — a net gain of just 4,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Walker is right about the state’s unemployment rate, but it begs for some context.

The state’s rate was 8 percent when Walker took office in January 2011 — a full 1.2 percentage points lower than the U.S. unemployment rate. As of June, Wisconsin’s rate was 4.6 percent — 0.7 percentage points lower than the U.S. at large.

So, under Walker, the state’s job growth has not kept pace with the rest of the country — which is reflected in the fact that Wisconsin ranks 34th in job growth rate during his time as governor. Since January 2011, Wisconsin has a job growth rate of 5.1 percent, while the U.S. as a whole has a rate of 8.4 percent. *Rubio’s Stance on Abortion*

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said he had never advocated an exception to abortion bans for victims of rape or incest, but he cosponsored a bill in 2013 that contained just such exceptions.

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly began a question to Rubio by saying he “favor[s] a rape and incest exception to abortion bans.” Rubio answered:

*Rubio: *Well, Megyn, first of all, I’m not sure that that’s a correct assessment of my record. I would go on to add that I believe all–

*Kelly*: You don’t favor a rape and incest exception?

*Rubio*: I have never said that. And I have never advocated that. What I have advocated is that we pass law in this country that says all human life at every stage of its development is worthy of protection.


Though we can find no specific comments the senator made on this issue, he was an original cosponsor of a bill in 2013 called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. (The House passed a similar bill earlier this year, and we wrote about the uncertain science regarding fetal pain.) That bill prohibits abortion beyond 20 weeks gestation except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, and where:

*Senate bill 1670, November 2013:* [T]he pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest against a minor has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect.

Rubio made no further comment during his answer on whether he currently supports such exceptions. Although he is entitled to change his opinion over time, his claim that he never supported exceptions to abortion laws regarding rape or incest is false.

-*Bush Overhypes Graduation Rate Increases*-

Boasting about education changes he initiated as Florida governor, Bush claimed, “Our graduation rate improved by 50 percent.” According to the federal uniform graduation rate calculations, however, Florida’s graduation rate increased by about 13 percent when Bush was governor.

The Bush campaign pointed us to statistics that showed graduation rates have increased more than 46 percent from the time Bush took office until 2013-2014. But most of that increase took place after Bush left office in 2007, and the context of Bush’s comments left the impression he was talking about gains made during his time in office.

*Bush*: I’m for higher standards measured in an intellectually honest way, with abundant school choice, ending social promotion. And I know how to do this because as governor of the state of Florida I created the first statewide voucher program in the country, the second statewide voucher program, in the country and the third statewide voucher program in the country.

And we had rising student achievement across the board, because high standards, robust accountability, ending social promotion in third grade, real school choice across the board, challenging the teachers union and beating them is the way to go.

And Florida’s low-income kids had the greatest gains inside the country. *Our graduation rate improved by 50 percent.* That’s what I’m for.


There are several different ways to calculate graduation rates, and when we reached out to the Bush campaign for backup, it pointed to a Florida Department of Education report on “Historical Summary of Florida’s Graduation Rate.” According to the FDE methodology, the Florida graduation rate in 1998-1999 — which takes in Bush’s first year in office — was 60.2 percent. It went up to 71 percent in 2005-2006, the last full school year under Bush. That’s an 18 percent increase.

The report also lists the “federal uniform graduation rate,” which climbed from 52 percent in 1998-1999 to 58.8 percent in 2005-2006. That’s a 13 percent increase. Using that methodology, the rate increased to 76.1 percent in 2013-2014. That comes to a 46 percent increase between the time Bush took office until the latest available year of data in 2013-2014. That’s the increase to which the Bush campaign says Bush was referring.

The U.S. Department of Education’s statistics on average freshman graduation rates for public secondary schools show a more modest gain in graduation rates under Bush, from 61.4 percent in 1998-1999 to 63.6 percent in 2005-2006. That’s just under a 4 percent gain. The 2005-2006 rate ranked Florida 45th out of 50 states.

-*Bush on Education Spending*-

Bush said that the U.S. spends “more per student than any country in the world other than a couple rounding errors.” Not so.

*Bush:* Because today in America, a third of our kids, after we spend more per student than any other country in the world other than a couple rounding errors, to be honest with you, 30 percent are college- and/or career-ready.

According to the 2014 “Education at a Glance” report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, based on 2011 data, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway all spent more per student on primary and secondary education than the U.S. (see chart B1.2a on page 207). The U.S. was only the leader in per-student spending on tertiary education.

But there is support for Bush’s claim that 30 percent of high school students are college ready.

The 2014 ACT College Readiness report, according to a press release, showed that just 39 percent of ACT-tested high school graduates “met three or more of the four ACT College Readiness Benchmarks in English, math, reading and science, suggesting they are well prepared for first-year college coursework.” What’s more, 31 percent, or almost 1 out of 3 students, didn’t meet any of the benchmarks.

-*Huckabee’s Obamacare Talking Point*-

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee repeated a years-old Republican talking point in saying that Obamacare “robbed” Medicare of $700 billion. That’s a $716 billion cut in the future growth of spending of Medicare over 10 years — not a slashing of the current budget, or taking money from the Medicare trust fund.

*Huckabee: *And, if Congress wants to mess with the retirement program, why don’t we let them start by changing their retirement program, and not have one, instead of talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare that was robbed $700 billion to pay for Obamacare.

We’ve covered this claim many times, including in May, when Huckabee used the line in announcing his presidential candidacy. It was one of the whoppers of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The ACA called for reducing the future growth of spending primarily by reducing the growth of payments to hospitals and Medicare Advantage payments. Spending less than had been expected is good for Medicare’s finances, as we explained before. We’ve also said that experts question whether some of the cuts actually will be implemented. But if they are, Medicare will be able to stretch its revenues for a longer time than they would last otherwise.

— by Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, Dave Levitan and D’Angelo Gore

*For more GOP debate coverage, visit our liveblog.*

*Also on HuffPost:*

-- 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 6 hours ago.

The truth about car insurance: Readers and insurers react

$
0
0
*The truth about car insurance: Readers and insurers react*

Hundreds of consumers are speaking up on Facebook and Twitter about the normally hush-hush topic of how car insurers use credit scoring and other non-driving-related factors to set prices. The commentary was sparked by our new investigative report, "The Truth About Car Insurance," which examines the secrecy and inequities in the pricing of automobile insurance. Regulators also stepped up to offer money-saving advice on Twitter, while insurers pushed back on Consumer Reports.

In a prepared statement, David Sampson, president of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, lashed out at our report, which he said "boldly suggests to be letting readers in on a 'big secret', namely that one’s credit history is a factor in the score used to determine automobile insurance quotes."

But the fact is that insurance companies don't advertise the credit scoring methods they use to set prices, and the scores themselves are confidential. "When I first found out that my credit score had a bearing on the rate I would be charged for my auto insurance, I was shocked!!! Credit scores have NOTHING to do with how badly . . . or how well . . . a person drives!" said Rosella LaChapelle Koeller in her Facebook comment about our report.

Share your story!

*Do you believe you are being unfairly charged for car insurance? If so, read "The Truth About Car Insurance" and leave us a comment.*

Koeller is not the only one in the dark about how credit scores are being used by insurers to set premiums. Eighty-eight percent of consumers say their insurance agent never told them how their credit score affects their auto or home insurance rates, according to a 2009 survey of 1,240 Iowans by St. Ambrose University, of Davenport, Iowa.

-Insurance credit scoring unfairness-

Readers were also concerned about being unfairly charged higher premiums based on credit scores that were hurt by factors outside their control. "My credit score isn't perfect due to life situations (spousal death, illnesses, and loss of jobs)," said Michelle Williams, another reader, who says she has not had any at-fault accidents in the last 10 years. "My insurance is ridiculous, but I have to have it because it is required by law and it protects me. Why should I have to pay as much or more than someone who has caused one or more accidents simply because my credit isn't that great?"

Sixty-seven percent of U.S. consumers said they believe that the use of credit scoring to set insurance rates is unfair, according to a 2012 survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,200 consumers by the Consumer Federation of America.  

But one active Facebook commenter, Melinda Mayfield Pino, who described herself as working in product management for "a major auto insurer," said credit scores are "a wonderful predictor of future losses, probably because more responsible, conscientious people have BOTH fewer accidents and better credit scores." 

*Join the thousands of consumers who have already signed our petition to tell insurance regulators and companies "Price me by how I drive, not by who you think I am."*

-Consumer protection-

Pino also compared the lack of transparency surrounding insurance credit scoring to Coca-Cola's secret recipe and explained why insurers keep scoring models hidden even when regulators require that they be open to consumers. "In the states that don’t promise us confidentiality, we have to file “dumbed down” versions of our secret recipe so that our competitors can’t copy it," Pino said.

"I am terribly disappointed that Consumer Reports, whom I thought had the best interests of consumers at heart, doesn't either understand how insurance is priced, or has a hidden agenda," Pino said. 

Our mission to protect consumers is hardly hidden. We're asking consumers to sign our petition, which tells the 50 state insurance commissioners to "Price me by how I drive, not by who you think I am." More than a hundred consumers have done so at #FixCarInsurance. We advocate car insurance pricing based primarily on driving-related risk factors, and we make no secret of our belief that black-box pricing based on credit scores and Big Data should be prohibited.

-Better regulation-

By far, the biggest focus of our readers' Facebook comments was on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of government regulation. 

Many agreed with Nola Nicholas Deffenbaugh, who said that without government regulation, companies tend to try to get away with as much as they can. Gary W. Addis concurred. "Regulations attempt to protect us from both predatory corporations and from socialistic pricing," he said.

But some others, like Frank Harrison, expressed frustration that "since the big businesses make the regulations, then lobby them through legislatures . . . the regulations do no good."

Sue Marston, who describes herself as a 23-year activist, said, "The government has become married to special interest groups." Mary Thoma agreed, saying, "The insurance lobby is powerful because it has so much money."

In 2014, property and casualty insurers pumped $51 million in contributions into the election campaigns and committees of the same state officials who regulate their business, according to the non-profit, nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics, based in Billings, Mont.

That makes the industry the fifth largest contributor to state politicians, behind such business interests as casinos and gaming, health insurance, and Wall Street. P&C insurers put as much cash into the palms of state officials as the telecom, oil and gas, and pharmaceutical industries combined. 

In politics, money often comes with expectations. “Companies give money to candidates as an investment to at least gain access to legislators and possibly influence the legislation,” says Denise Roth-Barber, managing director of NISPM and FollowTheMoney.org.

-Savings advice-

Our readers also offered their own advice for saving money. Peter Page said he's noticed a pattern of 12 to 20 percent annual price hikes that smack of price optimization, an industry practice that raises premiums on customers deemed unlikely to shop around. To combat the increases, Page...shops around. "I change insurance companies every year," he said.

"Double-check your agent, too," advised Jeanne Healy. "Our 'independent' agent billed us over $2,400 and said that was the best he could do. Before paying I called the insurance company directly, I got the same policy, with a little better coverage for $975."

Regulators pitched in, as well, with money savers. Fifteen state insurance departments and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners gave consumers links to savings tips via our #FixCarInsurance community on Twitter. 

—Jeff Blyskal (@JeffBlyskal on Twitter)

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
   
   
   
   
    Reported by Consumer Reports 19 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images