WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says his plan for a government-run health care system from cradle to grave is like Medicare for all. Some health care experts see it mainly as a political document to distinguish Sanders' revolutionary ideas from Hillary Clinton's incremental approach. The campaign estimates it would cost $1.38 trillion a year, paid for with new taxes that would take the place of private health insurance premiums. Sanders' approach is also called 'single-payer,' because the government would become the steward of the health care system, currently about one-sixth of the economy. For starters, a government takeover of health care financing would eliminate all the useful signals about value that private payers generate. A few years ago, it became obvious Medicare had a problem paying for home medical equipment when government officials could find the same items on the Internet for much less. Altman, the Kaiser foundation president, said it's possible a single-payer system could produce substantial savings, for example by eliminating administrative duplication among insurers. Back in 2013, the Obama administration famously promised that the president's health care plan would launch on the same day in all 50 states.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 1 day ago.
Sanders health plan would be more generous than Medicare
↧
↧
California governor outlines next vision for the state
Brown spent much of the last year promoting California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions leading up to the United Nations climate talks in Paris. Brown has acknowledged he needs to be more involved in negotiations on how to pay for the $59 billion backlog in needed road repairs and his proposal for a new $1 billion tax on health providers to help fund the state's health insurance program for the poor. Despite conflicts on those issues, Brown retains immense political clout, along with at least $24 million in his campaign bank account, which he can use to support or oppose any of a slew of initiatives making their way to the ballot this year. Besides the anti-tunnel initiative, there are proposals to extend the voter-approved sales and income taxes Brown backed, and a $9 billion school construction bond.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 1 day ago.
↧
MAP Health Management Hires Avi Mukherjee as Chief Technology Officer
MAP hires former Geneia executive to lead its global technology and data operations.
(PRWEB) January 21, 2016
MAP Health Management, LLC, announced today it has hired Avi Mukherjee as its Chief Technology Officer. The position is newly created within MAP’s organization based on growth and increasing opportunities in the healthcare technology field. Mr. Mukherjee will be responsible for defining the information management platform for MAP. This will include identifying opportunities and risks for delivering the company’s services, including identification of competitive services, opportunities for innovation, and assessment of data security.
Prior to joining MAP, Mr. Mukherjee was the Chief Technology Officer at Geneia, a global healthcare organization renowned for its innovations in technology and healthcare delivery. At Geneia, Mr. Mukherjee focused on building product management and technology teams to work on transformational white space opportunities spanning healthcare business and technology.
“The creation of the position of Chief Technology Officer is a direct result of the dynamic growth MAP is experiencing. Avi will be a tremendous asset to our organization as we continue to develop and combine technologies and resources to the field of behavioral health and beyond,” said Jacob Levenson, CEO of MAP Health Management. “MAP’s mission is to improve treatment outcomes and we are excited to welcome Avi - his depth of knowledge and experience will propel MAP to strategically achieve our goals.”
For the past decade, Mr. Mukherjee has excelled in numerous leadership positions in the areas of product management, clinical interoperability, mobile health, clinical analytics and risk mitigation strategies.
“I am very excited to join the executive team at MAP and drive new and more effective ways for the behavioral health field to use data analytics and technology platforms to make payers and providers more efficient and improve patient satisfaction,” commented Mukherjee.
A graduate in Computer and Electrical Engineering from the University of Kalyani in West Bengal, India, Mr. Mukherjee also holds a Master’s in Business Administration from the Booth School of Business from the University of Chicago. He also served as a Research Assistant in the Applied Science Program at Concordia University, Canada.
About MAP Health Management, LLC
MAP Health Management is the industry leader in the provision of comprehensive outcomes data, telehealth recovery support programs and revenue cycle management to addiction treatment providers across the country. The MAP Recovery Network, The Premier Outcomes-Driven Provider Network, facilitated by MAP, is comprised of quality addiction treatment providers who differentiate themselves to behavioral healthcare consumers and health insurance payers by measuring outcomes data and demonstrating treatment success rates. Nationally recognized treatment facilities trust MAP to help them navigate and thrive in the new healthcare paradigm by utilizing the latest data-driven technologies, including telehealth services. MAP’s dedicated teams of research analysts, clinical directors, recovery advocates, technology professionals and billing experts work to improve patient outcomes, empower treatment providers with data, reduce costs and drive facility revenue. For more information, see http://www.ThisisMAP.com and http://www.MAPNetwork.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
(PRWEB) January 21, 2016
MAP Health Management, LLC, announced today it has hired Avi Mukherjee as its Chief Technology Officer. The position is newly created within MAP’s organization based on growth and increasing opportunities in the healthcare technology field. Mr. Mukherjee will be responsible for defining the information management platform for MAP. This will include identifying opportunities and risks for delivering the company’s services, including identification of competitive services, opportunities for innovation, and assessment of data security.
Prior to joining MAP, Mr. Mukherjee was the Chief Technology Officer at Geneia, a global healthcare organization renowned for its innovations in technology and healthcare delivery. At Geneia, Mr. Mukherjee focused on building product management and technology teams to work on transformational white space opportunities spanning healthcare business and technology.
“The creation of the position of Chief Technology Officer is a direct result of the dynamic growth MAP is experiencing. Avi will be a tremendous asset to our organization as we continue to develop and combine technologies and resources to the field of behavioral health and beyond,” said Jacob Levenson, CEO of MAP Health Management. “MAP’s mission is to improve treatment outcomes and we are excited to welcome Avi - his depth of knowledge and experience will propel MAP to strategically achieve our goals.”
For the past decade, Mr. Mukherjee has excelled in numerous leadership positions in the areas of product management, clinical interoperability, mobile health, clinical analytics and risk mitigation strategies.
“I am very excited to join the executive team at MAP and drive new and more effective ways for the behavioral health field to use data analytics and technology platforms to make payers and providers more efficient and improve patient satisfaction,” commented Mukherjee.
A graduate in Computer and Electrical Engineering from the University of Kalyani in West Bengal, India, Mr. Mukherjee also holds a Master’s in Business Administration from the Booth School of Business from the University of Chicago. He also served as a Research Assistant in the Applied Science Program at Concordia University, Canada.
About MAP Health Management, LLC
MAP Health Management is the industry leader in the provision of comprehensive outcomes data, telehealth recovery support programs and revenue cycle management to addiction treatment providers across the country. The MAP Recovery Network, The Premier Outcomes-Driven Provider Network, facilitated by MAP, is comprised of quality addiction treatment providers who differentiate themselves to behavioral healthcare consumers and health insurance payers by measuring outcomes data and demonstrating treatment success rates. Nationally recognized treatment facilities trust MAP to help them navigate and thrive in the new healthcare paradigm by utilizing the latest data-driven technologies, including telehealth services. MAP’s dedicated teams of research analysts, clinical directors, recovery advocates, technology professionals and billing experts work to improve patient outcomes, empower treatment providers with data, reduce costs and drive facility revenue. For more information, see http://www.ThisisMAP.com and http://www.MAPNetwork.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
↧
Here’s One Big Problem With The Bernie Sanders Plan For Health Care Utopia
The Bernie Sanders health care plan, which the Vermont senator released this week, sounds pretty spectacular at first blush. It’s a proposal to create a single-payer system, which means that Sanders would wipe away existing insurance arrangements and replace them with a single government program. Everybody would get insurance, free of co-pays or deductibles.
That’d be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldn’t be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 billion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plan’s unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
*Two lessons from Obamacare*
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the “public option” -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didn’t want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenue.
House Democratic leaders had to weaken the proposal significantly, reducing the public option’s ability to force down health care prices, in order to pass it. Even that compromise couldn’t get it through the Senate, where Joe Lieberman, then an independent senator from Connecticut, spoke out against the public option and many Democrats, including a few liberals, quietly cheered him on.
The other, less-publicized episode from 2009 was a fight over “biosimilars,” which are -- roughly speaking -- generic versions of gene therapies, special blood products, and other treatments that pharmaceutical companies manufacture through a biological process rather than by mixing chemicals.
Consumer advocates had been pushing to limit the period when manufacturers could sell biosimilars exclusively, and thus charge higher prices. President Barack Obama agreed, pushing to keep the exclusive period to five or maybe seven years. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who was then chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and among the most effective tacticians on Capitol Hill, wanted to limit the exclusive marketing period even more severely.
But Obama, Waxman, and their allies were no match for the drug industry in general and the biotech industry in particular. Anna Eshoo, a Democratic representative whose district includes Silicon Valley and many biotech companies, sponsored an alternative proposal to give biosimilars 12 years of exclusivity. She forced a vote, over Waxman’s objection, and prevailed in committee 47 to 11. So great was the lobbying onslaught that Waxman couldn’t even keep his fellow Democrats in line. As John McDonough, a former Capitol Hill staffer and author of Inside National Health Reform, later wrote, “The industry had won hands down.”
*Imagining the fight over Berniecare*
What does this have to do with Bernie Sanders and his single-payer plan? Everything.
Under the Sanders’ plan, the federal government would demand deep discounts from the drug industry -- basically, getting the same cheap prices that other countries and, here in the U.S., programs like the Veterans Administration health system now enjoy.
Although Sanders has not specified how his program would pay doctors and hospitals, single-payer plans typically envision the program reimbursing providers the same way that Medicare does. Since Medicare pays less than private insurance, that would mean doctors and hospitals lose significant revenue.
HuffPost readers: Have you been hit with a surprise medical bill after receiving treatment from a health care provider who wasn't in your insurance company network? Tell us about it -- email jeffrey.young@huffingtonpost.com. Please include your full name, hometown and state, and phone number if you're willing to be interviewed.
And of course the Sanders plan would wipe out the private health insurance industry completely -- taking away not just the business of selling to employers and working-age individuals, but also eliminating the existing Medicare Advantage plans on which many companies now make their biggest profits.
Drugmakers, doctors, hospitals, insurers -- these are the same groups that killed the public option and prevailed on biosimilar marketing. They’d fight single-payer even harder. Sanders has tapped into frustration among progressives, many of whom believe Democratic leaders could have won those battles and a few others if only they'd put forth more effort. But if passing such relatively moderate reforms was a struggle at the peak of progressive power in 2009, with Democratic majorities in both houses and a president who’d just won a convincing presidential election, enacting something as sweeping as the Sanders plan would be basically impossible, at least for the time being.
*Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's*
No, this grim political reality doesn’t mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
*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 23 hours ago.
That’d be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldn’t be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 billion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plan’s unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
*Two lessons from Obamacare*
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the “public option” -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didn’t want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenue.
House Democratic leaders had to weaken the proposal significantly, reducing the public option’s ability to force down health care prices, in order to pass it. Even that compromise couldn’t get it through the Senate, where Joe Lieberman, then an independent senator from Connecticut, spoke out against the public option and many Democrats, including a few liberals, quietly cheered him on.
The other, less-publicized episode from 2009 was a fight over “biosimilars,” which are -- roughly speaking -- generic versions of gene therapies, special blood products, and other treatments that pharmaceutical companies manufacture through a biological process rather than by mixing chemicals.
Consumer advocates had been pushing to limit the period when manufacturers could sell biosimilars exclusively, and thus charge higher prices. President Barack Obama agreed, pushing to keep the exclusive period to five or maybe seven years. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who was then chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and among the most effective tacticians on Capitol Hill, wanted to limit the exclusive marketing period even more severely.
But Obama, Waxman, and their allies were no match for the drug industry in general and the biotech industry in particular. Anna Eshoo, a Democratic representative whose district includes Silicon Valley and many biotech companies, sponsored an alternative proposal to give biosimilars 12 years of exclusivity. She forced a vote, over Waxman’s objection, and prevailed in committee 47 to 11. So great was the lobbying onslaught that Waxman couldn’t even keep his fellow Democrats in line. As John McDonough, a former Capitol Hill staffer and author of Inside National Health Reform, later wrote, “The industry had won hands down.”
*Imagining the fight over Berniecare*
What does this have to do with Bernie Sanders and his single-payer plan? Everything.
Under the Sanders’ plan, the federal government would demand deep discounts from the drug industry -- basically, getting the same cheap prices that other countries and, here in the U.S., programs like the Veterans Administration health system now enjoy.
Although Sanders has not specified how his program would pay doctors and hospitals, single-payer plans typically envision the program reimbursing providers the same way that Medicare does. Since Medicare pays less than private insurance, that would mean doctors and hospitals lose significant revenue.
HuffPost readers: Have you been hit with a surprise medical bill after receiving treatment from a health care provider who wasn't in your insurance company network? Tell us about it -- email jeffrey.young@huffingtonpost.com. Please include your full name, hometown and state, and phone number if you're willing to be interviewed.
And of course the Sanders plan would wipe out the private health insurance industry completely -- taking away not just the business of selling to employers and working-age individuals, but also eliminating the existing Medicare Advantage plans on which many companies now make their biggest profits.
Drugmakers, doctors, hospitals, insurers -- these are the same groups that killed the public option and prevailed on biosimilar marketing. They’d fight single-payer even harder. Sanders has tapped into frustration among progressives, many of whom believe Democratic leaders could have won those battles and a few others if only they'd put forth more effort. But if passing such relatively moderate reforms was a struggle at the peak of progressive power in 2009, with Democratic majorities in both houses and a president who’d just won a convincing presidential election, enacting something as sweeping as the Sanders plan would be basically impossible, at least for the time being.
*Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's*
No, this grim political reality doesn’t mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
*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 23 hours ago.
↧
AIS Virtual Conference on Star Ratings to Feature Top Experts Discussing Changes Coming to CMS Program
Atlantic Information Services’ upcoming Feb. 4 virtual conference, “Medicare Star Ratings: New Strategies to Match CMS’s New Goals”, will provide strategies health plans can employ to improve stars performance despite change and uncertainty coming to the program.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 21, 2016
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce the agenda and speaker line-up for “Medicare Star Ratings: New Strategies to Match CMS’s New Goals”, an upcoming Feb. 4 virtual conference. In an information-packed afternoon, top star-ratings consultants, executives of plans that are top stars achievers, and experts on improving performance on the toughest Medicare Advantage and Part D stars measures will offer strategies health plans can employ to improve stars performance despite change and uncertainty coming to the program.
The sessions are:· 11:00 a.m. – 12:30p.m.: “What’s New for the Stars Program? How Should Your Organization Respond to the Major Changes Ahead?” — In this leadoff session, two veteran stars-ratings experts — Mike Burgin of Inovalon, Inc. and Jane Scott of Health Integrated — will team up with Jonathan Harding, M.D., the Chief Medical Officer for Senior Products at Tufts Health Plan, for a fast-paced analysis of what CMS's planned star-rating enhancements are likely to mean to health plans.
· 12:45 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.: “Essence Healthcare Case Study: A Blueprint for Achieving a Five-Star Rating” — Participants will hear how Essence Healthcare aligns incentives, fully engages physicians, and embraces population management and value-based care to achieve top ratings — directly from its Chief Medical Officer Deborah Zimmerman, M.D.
· 2:15 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.: “The Challenges of Drug Star Ratings: Solutions for Part D Plan Sponsors and Their Partners” — Robert Brett of CareSource, Hae Mi Choe, Pharm.D., of University of Michigan Health System and Kristin Wanek, Pharm.D., of CVS Health will explain how plan sponsors, PBMs and pharmacies can work together successfully to improve star ratings.
· 3:45 p.m. – 5 p.m.: “A Coordinated PBM-Health Plan Approach to Improving Part D Star Ratings” — Participants will learn what steps Cambia Health Solutions took to achieve high ratings on cholesterol and hypertension adherence, and other Part D measures, on its Regence plans — from Kristine Walhof of Cambia and Vivien Chan, Pharm.D., of its PBM subsidiary, OmedaRx.
AIS’s virtual conference allows participants to attend a live conference without having to travel to a meeting site. Plus, the registration fee includes a free On-Demand recording of each session, so any agenda items can be reviewed at a later time.
For more information, including a full agenda, speaker biographies and how to register, visit http://aishealth.com/star-ratings-2016.
About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for nearly 30 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals and health systems, health insurance companies, medical group practices, purchasers of health insurance, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, databases, Websites, looseleafs, strategic reports, directories, webinars and virtual conferences. Learn more at http://AISHealth.com. Reported by PRWeb 23 hours ago.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 21, 2016
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce the agenda and speaker line-up for “Medicare Star Ratings: New Strategies to Match CMS’s New Goals”, an upcoming Feb. 4 virtual conference. In an information-packed afternoon, top star-ratings consultants, executives of plans that are top stars achievers, and experts on improving performance on the toughest Medicare Advantage and Part D stars measures will offer strategies health plans can employ to improve stars performance despite change and uncertainty coming to the program.
The sessions are:· 11:00 a.m. – 12:30p.m.: “What’s New for the Stars Program? How Should Your Organization Respond to the Major Changes Ahead?” — In this leadoff session, two veteran stars-ratings experts — Mike Burgin of Inovalon, Inc. and Jane Scott of Health Integrated — will team up with Jonathan Harding, M.D., the Chief Medical Officer for Senior Products at Tufts Health Plan, for a fast-paced analysis of what CMS's planned star-rating enhancements are likely to mean to health plans.
· 12:45 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.: “Essence Healthcare Case Study: A Blueprint for Achieving a Five-Star Rating” — Participants will hear how Essence Healthcare aligns incentives, fully engages physicians, and embraces population management and value-based care to achieve top ratings — directly from its Chief Medical Officer Deborah Zimmerman, M.D.
· 2:15 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.: “The Challenges of Drug Star Ratings: Solutions for Part D Plan Sponsors and Their Partners” — Robert Brett of CareSource, Hae Mi Choe, Pharm.D., of University of Michigan Health System and Kristin Wanek, Pharm.D., of CVS Health will explain how plan sponsors, PBMs and pharmacies can work together successfully to improve star ratings.
· 3:45 p.m. – 5 p.m.: “A Coordinated PBM-Health Plan Approach to Improving Part D Star Ratings” — Participants will learn what steps Cambia Health Solutions took to achieve high ratings on cholesterol and hypertension adherence, and other Part D measures, on its Regence plans — from Kristine Walhof of Cambia and Vivien Chan, Pharm.D., of its PBM subsidiary, OmedaRx.
AIS’s virtual conference allows participants to attend a live conference without having to travel to a meeting site. Plus, the registration fee includes a free On-Demand recording of each session, so any agenda items can be reviewed at a later time.
For more information, including a full agenda, speaker biographies and how to register, visit http://aishealth.com/star-ratings-2016.
About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for nearly 30 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals and health systems, health insurance companies, medical group practices, purchasers of health insurance, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, databases, Websites, looseleafs, strategic reports, directories, webinars and virtual conferences. Learn more at http://AISHealth.com. Reported by PRWeb 23 hours ago.
↧
↧
Hillary and Bernie: The Credibility Gap
Panic now grips the Clinton campaign. Polls show Bernie Sanders surging to a dramatic lead in New Hampshire and closing in Iowa. The Washington Post reports that Hillary's national numbers are dropping faster now than they did in 2008. The Clinton campaign has started throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Sanders, with the gutter award captured, thus far, by Senator Claire McCaskill who smeared him with the "hammer and sickle," transparently attributing the red-baiting to future Republican attacks of her own imagination.
But the question isn't what's wrong with Bernie -- he's soaring beyond all expectations. The question is what's wrong with Hillary? She has universal name recognition, unparalleled experience, the support of the big money and the political gatekeepers, the Hollywood glitz, the best political operatives, the pollsters, the ad makers, the establishment policy mavens, and political press coverage. Having learned from 2008, she's got the best ground operation in the history of Iowa caucuses that still may rescue her there. But she's sinking rapidly against a 73-year-old political maverick who is still just introducing himself to the American people.
Already the inevitable Clinton circular firing squad has begun firing its salvos: We should have gone negative on Bernie earlier. We should have used Bill more... or less. We shouldn't have bet the house on the first four primaries. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.
Inevitably, any Clinton campaign carries a lot of baggage that simply has to be overcome. The assaults on her won't really be unleashed until the general election (although Donald Trump and Republican legislators have already started). What is plaguing the Clinton campaign are less the sins of the past than the strategic choices of the present -- particularly her decision to be the candidate of big money.
*Hillary's Unilateral Disarmament*
From its start, the Clinton campaign has boasted about its unparalleled fundraising capacity. HRC geared up a bevy of SuperPacs and C4s to take big donations and dark money. She launched a relentless operation to get wealthy donors to max out both for the primary and the general. Her ability to raise money helped scare away other potential contenders. Her continued commitment to this path is symbolized by the $33,400 a plate dinner Warren Buffet is hosting for her in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. People who can afford $33,400 for one seat at the table aren't exactly the working people Hillary claims to champion.
Sanders, of course, made a different decision. He has condemned SuperPacs, big money and secret contributions. He has funded his campaign with record numbers of small donations raised largely over the social media. He doesn't have anything like a traditional campaign fundraising operation. That independence gives both force and integrity to his core message that it is time to take back our democracy from the "billionaire class," the entrenched interests, and the Wall Street banksters.
Clinton argues that she favors fundamental campaign finance reform, but she can't "unilaterally disarm." Deep pocket Republicans are amassing huge war chests to assault her. She has to be armed with big money to defend herself.
But in doing so, Clinton "unilaterally disarmed" her own credibility. The Clinton family foundation and the family fortune have been built with large contributions and lavish "speaking fees," significantly from the biggest financial interests in the country. Wall Street made Hillary herself a millionaire, as she pocketed over $3 million in speaking fees from Wall Street finance houses in 2013. She made nearly as much ($2.8 million) speaking to health care industry interests. And now her campaign is raising big bucks from the same folks.
The result is corrosive. When Clinton insists that her Wall Street reforms are far tougher than those of Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, it rings false. She attacks Sanders for supporting Medicare for All which naturally is the bête noire of the private health insurance and drug companies.
When Sanders invoked the $600,000 Clinton received from Goldman Sachs alone in speaking fees (a bank that just agreed to pay $5 billion essentially for mortgage fraud) in the last debate, her only defense was to suggest that a similar criticism would apply to Barack Obama who also raised money from Wall Street. Democrats like President Obama, but the defense is pretty lame given that fact that he will leave office with the big banks bigger and more concentrated than they were when their excesses blew up the economy, and with no major banker going to jail for what the FBI describes as an "epidemic of fraud."
Moreover, Sanders has demonstrated that it is possible to generate enough true popular excitement to raise enough money from small donations to be financially competitive at a presidential level. He didn't "unilaterally disarm;" he armed himself in a manner consistent with his program. And very attack by the Clinton camp only rouses his committed and growing army of small donors to ante up again.
In the general election, this might not matter as much. Every Republican -- except Donald Trump, the self-funding billionaire -- is enmeshed in the same pursuit of big money. But in the primary, as Clinton protests angrily that she is a true progressive reformer, her words lack conviction not because of Sanders' mild criticisms but because she has unilaterally disarmed her own credibility.
*Credibility and Electability*
In his brilliant new book, America Ascendent, Stanley Greenberg, the opinion analyst who helped Bill Clinton win in 1992, maintains that credibility on political reform is a big deal, not a side note.
Greenberg has tracked the emerging majority that Obama helped forge of the young, single women, and people of color whom he projects will constitute a majority of the electorate in 2016. These voters are looking for change. They fare among the worst in the modern economy and are the most supportive of the activist government and progressive reforms championed by Bernie Sanders and, yes, by Hillary Clinton. (Note their rankings on the CAF Candidate Scorecard)
But, Greenberg argues, these voters are the most skeptical of whether government will serve them in the end. They understand that the rich and powerful have rigged the rules, that when money talks, politicians listen. Corruption isn't a bug, it's a feature of our big money politics.
Greenberg's polling for Women's Voices, Women's Vote and other groups suggest that before they give a reform agenda a hearing, these voters must see a candidate who is credibly committed to political reform -- to curbing big money in politics, to cleaning out the stables in Washington, to making government serve the many and not just the wealthy and wired few. As Greenberg concludes, "When voters hear the [political] reform narrative first, they are dramatically more open to the middle-class economic narrative that calls for government activism in response to America's problems."
This helps explain the remarkable excitement that Sanders has generated among the young. He passionately champions popular big reforms -- tuition free college, a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all, a bold climate change agenda, breaking up the big banks and more. And his integrity and credibility are affirmed by his commitment to funding his campaign with the support of millions of citizens, not the big money of special interests.
As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post notes, Hillary's credibility gulf also undermines her argument about "electability." Democrats have a natural majority among the electorate, but only if they turn out. Even the Clinton campaign has been worried about whether HRC can generate the excitement among the rising American electorate to get them to the polls. Now, they worry about whether Sanders will generate so much excitement that he will flood the Iowa caucuses and primaries with a wave of new voters.
Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate who has assembled a strong campaign. She will remain formidable even if Sanders exceeds expectations by doing well in Iowa and winning in New Hampshire. The panic among her supporters is both unseemly and excessive. Claire McCaskill and the rest of the hit squad would be well advised to listen to the advice Campaign Chair John Podesta offered to David Brock, head of one of the Clinton SuperPacs., and "chill out." Clinton's difficulties stem not from the attacks of Sanders -- the most courtly of opponents -- but from her own revealing choices.
-- 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 21 hours ago.
But the question isn't what's wrong with Bernie -- he's soaring beyond all expectations. The question is what's wrong with Hillary? She has universal name recognition, unparalleled experience, the support of the big money and the political gatekeepers, the Hollywood glitz, the best political operatives, the pollsters, the ad makers, the establishment policy mavens, and political press coverage. Having learned from 2008, she's got the best ground operation in the history of Iowa caucuses that still may rescue her there. But she's sinking rapidly against a 73-year-old political maverick who is still just introducing himself to the American people.
Already the inevitable Clinton circular firing squad has begun firing its salvos: We should have gone negative on Bernie earlier. We should have used Bill more... or less. We shouldn't have bet the house on the first four primaries. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.
Inevitably, any Clinton campaign carries a lot of baggage that simply has to be overcome. The assaults on her won't really be unleashed until the general election (although Donald Trump and Republican legislators have already started). What is plaguing the Clinton campaign are less the sins of the past than the strategic choices of the present -- particularly her decision to be the candidate of big money.
*Hillary's Unilateral Disarmament*
From its start, the Clinton campaign has boasted about its unparalleled fundraising capacity. HRC geared up a bevy of SuperPacs and C4s to take big donations and dark money. She launched a relentless operation to get wealthy donors to max out both for the primary and the general. Her ability to raise money helped scare away other potential contenders. Her continued commitment to this path is symbolized by the $33,400 a plate dinner Warren Buffet is hosting for her in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. People who can afford $33,400 for one seat at the table aren't exactly the working people Hillary claims to champion.
Sanders, of course, made a different decision. He has condemned SuperPacs, big money and secret contributions. He has funded his campaign with record numbers of small donations raised largely over the social media. He doesn't have anything like a traditional campaign fundraising operation. That independence gives both force and integrity to his core message that it is time to take back our democracy from the "billionaire class," the entrenched interests, and the Wall Street banksters.
Clinton argues that she favors fundamental campaign finance reform, but she can't "unilaterally disarm." Deep pocket Republicans are amassing huge war chests to assault her. She has to be armed with big money to defend herself.
But in doing so, Clinton "unilaterally disarmed" her own credibility. The Clinton family foundation and the family fortune have been built with large contributions and lavish "speaking fees," significantly from the biggest financial interests in the country. Wall Street made Hillary herself a millionaire, as she pocketed over $3 million in speaking fees from Wall Street finance houses in 2013. She made nearly as much ($2.8 million) speaking to health care industry interests. And now her campaign is raising big bucks from the same folks.
The result is corrosive. When Clinton insists that her Wall Street reforms are far tougher than those of Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, it rings false. She attacks Sanders for supporting Medicare for All which naturally is the bête noire of the private health insurance and drug companies.
When Sanders invoked the $600,000 Clinton received from Goldman Sachs alone in speaking fees (a bank that just agreed to pay $5 billion essentially for mortgage fraud) in the last debate, her only defense was to suggest that a similar criticism would apply to Barack Obama who also raised money from Wall Street. Democrats like President Obama, but the defense is pretty lame given that fact that he will leave office with the big banks bigger and more concentrated than they were when their excesses blew up the economy, and with no major banker going to jail for what the FBI describes as an "epidemic of fraud."
Moreover, Sanders has demonstrated that it is possible to generate enough true popular excitement to raise enough money from small donations to be financially competitive at a presidential level. He didn't "unilaterally disarm;" he armed himself in a manner consistent with his program. And very attack by the Clinton camp only rouses his committed and growing army of small donors to ante up again.
In the general election, this might not matter as much. Every Republican -- except Donald Trump, the self-funding billionaire -- is enmeshed in the same pursuit of big money. But in the primary, as Clinton protests angrily that she is a true progressive reformer, her words lack conviction not because of Sanders' mild criticisms but because she has unilaterally disarmed her own credibility.
*Credibility and Electability*
In his brilliant new book, America Ascendent, Stanley Greenberg, the opinion analyst who helped Bill Clinton win in 1992, maintains that credibility on political reform is a big deal, not a side note.
Greenberg has tracked the emerging majority that Obama helped forge of the young, single women, and people of color whom he projects will constitute a majority of the electorate in 2016. These voters are looking for change. They fare among the worst in the modern economy and are the most supportive of the activist government and progressive reforms championed by Bernie Sanders and, yes, by Hillary Clinton. (Note their rankings on the CAF Candidate Scorecard)
But, Greenberg argues, these voters are the most skeptical of whether government will serve them in the end. They understand that the rich and powerful have rigged the rules, that when money talks, politicians listen. Corruption isn't a bug, it's a feature of our big money politics.
Greenberg's polling for Women's Voices, Women's Vote and other groups suggest that before they give a reform agenda a hearing, these voters must see a candidate who is credibly committed to political reform -- to curbing big money in politics, to cleaning out the stables in Washington, to making government serve the many and not just the wealthy and wired few. As Greenberg concludes, "When voters hear the [political] reform narrative first, they are dramatically more open to the middle-class economic narrative that calls for government activism in response to America's problems."
This helps explain the remarkable excitement that Sanders has generated among the young. He passionately champions popular big reforms -- tuition free college, a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all, a bold climate change agenda, breaking up the big banks and more. And his integrity and credibility are affirmed by his commitment to funding his campaign with the support of millions of citizens, not the big money of special interests.
As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post notes, Hillary's credibility gulf also undermines her argument about "electability." Democrats have a natural majority among the electorate, but only if they turn out. Even the Clinton campaign has been worried about whether HRC can generate the excitement among the rising American electorate to get them to the polls. Now, they worry about whether Sanders will generate so much excitement that he will flood the Iowa caucuses and primaries with a wave of new voters.
Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate who has assembled a strong campaign. She will remain formidable even if Sanders exceeds expectations by doing well in Iowa and winning in New Hampshire. The panic among her supporters is both unseemly and excessive. Claire McCaskill and the rest of the hit squad would be well advised to listen to the advice Campaign Chair John Podesta offered to David Brock, head of one of the Clinton SuperPacs., and "chill out." Clinton's difficulties stem not from the attacks of Sanders -- the most courtly of opponents -- but from her own revealing choices.
-- 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 21 hours ago.
↧
Leading Direct Marketer Signals Aggressive Digital Strategy with Addition of Key Senior Executive
A former client and industry veteran is now leading SeQuel Response’s commitment to enhancing its presence in digital marketing.
Eden Prairie, MN (PRWEB) January 21, 2016
SeQuel Response announced today the addition of a crucial senior executive who now holds the reins on the fast-growing direct marketing company’s ambitious digital strategy.
Turning to one of its initial clients, Twin Cities-based SeQuel Response has hired Chris Hofmann as its Vice President of Digital Services and Senior Marketing Strategist.
“We reached out to Chris and explained our big-picture plans to further bolster our digital capabilities and continue evolving into an integrated multichannel agency,” said Erik Koenig, SeQuel Response’s Chief Marketing Officer. “Now we've got an industry veteran and a student of direct-response marketing whose value is undeniable. Chris has an insatiable desire to learn about trends in direct marketing strategy, and he's a great person to have on your team to stay out in front of things.”
Hofmann’s main focus will be taking the rigorous, data-driven testing methodology that has made SeQuel Response so effective in direct mail, and translating that to digital channels and media, including paid and organic search, programmatic display, paid social, email, optimized SEO content and mobile.
“Consumers are shopping and discovering products and services in a myriad of online channels today,” Hofmann said. “The buyer is in charge. We’ll aim to help our clients put the right messages and offers in front of the most valuable prospects at just the right time.”
Hofmann comes to SeQuel Response from the University of Wisconsin-Extension, where he had been leading marketing and outreach for the university system’s dedicated online education division for more than three years, winning wide industry praise along the way. It was in his earlier position as Director of Marketing Communications with WPS Health Insurance—Wisconsin’s largest not-for-profit health insurer—that Hofmann and the leadership at SeQuel Response got to know and admire one another.
“I met Chris back in 2009 just before we launched our new direct marketing agency,” said Jay Carroll, SeQuel’s Managing Partner. “We thoroughly enjoyed the chance to work with him for the better part of four years. Being able to tap into his strategy, his way of thinking, was something we’ve always valued, and now we have that talented asset in-house.”
The addition of Hofmann in such a vital executive role comes on the heels of SeQuel Response’s consistent year-over-year growth, which has repeatedly earned the company coveted spots on various state and national “fastest-growing” lists. The growth has been so dramatic that SeQuel Response is nearing its much-needed move into a markedly larger Twin Cities headquarters.
Hofmann said he saw in SeQuel Response’s accomplishments “an opportunity to join a great group of people in a fast-growing company, where I knew I could build up the digital side of the business. That was very appealing to me.”
About SeQuel Response:
SeQuel Response is a full-service, performance-based direct marketing firm that combines creative intelligence and efficient execution to help clients achieve new levels of sales and profitability. In 2015, SeQuel Response drew significant attention from the industry. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal named SeQuel Response to the Top 25 Advertising Agencies in Minnesota for a second consecutive year. SeQuel Response also received a spot on the 2015 Inc. 5000 list of the fastest-growing private companies in the country, a back-to-back honor there as well. SeQuel relies on informed strategies, sophisticated database marketing and a data-driven testing methodology to produce attractive results. For more information, call Managing Partner Jay Carroll at 612-963-9534 or email jay(dot)carroll(at)sequelresponse(dot)com. Visit SeQuel’s website at http://www.sequelresponse.com and check out “SeQuel Inspirations,” a blog written by some of the most inspiring minds in direct marketing. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.
Eden Prairie, MN (PRWEB) January 21, 2016
SeQuel Response announced today the addition of a crucial senior executive who now holds the reins on the fast-growing direct marketing company’s ambitious digital strategy.
Turning to one of its initial clients, Twin Cities-based SeQuel Response has hired Chris Hofmann as its Vice President of Digital Services and Senior Marketing Strategist.
“We reached out to Chris and explained our big-picture plans to further bolster our digital capabilities and continue evolving into an integrated multichannel agency,” said Erik Koenig, SeQuel Response’s Chief Marketing Officer. “Now we've got an industry veteran and a student of direct-response marketing whose value is undeniable. Chris has an insatiable desire to learn about trends in direct marketing strategy, and he's a great person to have on your team to stay out in front of things.”
Hofmann’s main focus will be taking the rigorous, data-driven testing methodology that has made SeQuel Response so effective in direct mail, and translating that to digital channels and media, including paid and organic search, programmatic display, paid social, email, optimized SEO content and mobile.
“Consumers are shopping and discovering products and services in a myriad of online channels today,” Hofmann said. “The buyer is in charge. We’ll aim to help our clients put the right messages and offers in front of the most valuable prospects at just the right time.”
Hofmann comes to SeQuel Response from the University of Wisconsin-Extension, where he had been leading marketing and outreach for the university system’s dedicated online education division for more than three years, winning wide industry praise along the way. It was in his earlier position as Director of Marketing Communications with WPS Health Insurance—Wisconsin’s largest not-for-profit health insurer—that Hofmann and the leadership at SeQuel Response got to know and admire one another.
“I met Chris back in 2009 just before we launched our new direct marketing agency,” said Jay Carroll, SeQuel’s Managing Partner. “We thoroughly enjoyed the chance to work with him for the better part of four years. Being able to tap into his strategy, his way of thinking, was something we’ve always valued, and now we have that talented asset in-house.”
The addition of Hofmann in such a vital executive role comes on the heels of SeQuel Response’s consistent year-over-year growth, which has repeatedly earned the company coveted spots on various state and national “fastest-growing” lists. The growth has been so dramatic that SeQuel Response is nearing its much-needed move into a markedly larger Twin Cities headquarters.
Hofmann said he saw in SeQuel Response’s accomplishments “an opportunity to join a great group of people in a fast-growing company, where I knew I could build up the digital side of the business. That was very appealing to me.”
About SeQuel Response:
SeQuel Response is a full-service, performance-based direct marketing firm that combines creative intelligence and efficient execution to help clients achieve new levels of sales and profitability. In 2015, SeQuel Response drew significant attention from the industry. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal named SeQuel Response to the Top 25 Advertising Agencies in Minnesota for a second consecutive year. SeQuel Response also received a spot on the 2015 Inc. 5000 list of the fastest-growing private companies in the country, a back-to-back honor there as well. SeQuel relies on informed strategies, sophisticated database marketing and a data-driven testing methodology to produce attractive results. For more information, call Managing Partner Jay Carroll at 612-963-9534 or email jay(dot)carroll(at)sequelresponse(dot)com. Visit SeQuel’s website at http://www.sequelresponse.com and check out “SeQuel Inspirations,” a blog written by some of the most inspiring minds in direct marketing. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.
↧
The American Hospital Association Endorses Information Technology Compliance and Managed Security Services from IP Services
IP Services’ AHA Endorsed solution helps hospitals protect patient health data security while maintaining IT system availability and reliability.
Chicago, Ill. (PRWEB) January 21, 2016
The American Hospital Association (AHA) today announced it has exclusively endorsed Information Technology Compliance and Managed Security Services from IP Services. Following a proprietary due diligence process, AHA Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of the AHA, awards the AHA Endorsement to products and services that help member hospitals and health care organizations achieve operational excellence.
According to the 17th Annual Healthcare’s Most Wired survey by the AHA’s Health Forum and College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, health data security is one of the top priorities of the nation’s hospitals. Hospitals are striving to apply strong privacy and security measures to protect patient information.
IP Services’ Information Technology Compliance and Managed Security Services help hospitals protect patient data by supporting proactive, enterprise-wide integrity verification and security incident and event management, while also helping to reduce IT maintenance time, effort and costs.
The solution’s integrity verification engine for servers and network devices continuously detects in IT systems deviations from a “correct state.” Automatic determination of incorrect system configurations and changes helps organizations detect potential security breaches and maintain business performance and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance. The integrity verification engine issues only actionable alerts so IT personnel are not disrupted by “noise.” It can scan for security breaches up to several times a day — reducing mean time to detection from an industry average of nine months to the same day or less.
To ensure highly secure and high-availability systems, the solution’s security incident and event management services provide event correlation, compliance reporting and recommended remediation steps, and ongoing systems management such as risk analysis and management. Its TotalControl™ system applies controls for managing IT services based on globally recognized best practice processes and methodologies: the IT Infrastructure Library and the VisibleOps Handbook, which IP Services executives authored based on expertise developed through participation in the IT Process Institute, of which IP Services is a founding member.
“IP Services’ AHA Endorsed compliance and security services stand apart because they detect configuration changes that might suggest breaches, but also system vulnerabilities across the entire enterprise — a proactive approach to security,” said Tim Steffl, chief operating & development officer, AHA Solutions. “Additionally, the services demonstrate strong results, both in their dramatic reduction in mean time to detection, and in the fact that IP Services clients remain uncompromised and safe.”
“We are excited to partner with AHA Solutions by delivering our proven and unique IT managed services methodologies, which will mitigate the security risks and vulnerabilities hospitals face relative to HIPAA compliance and their overall security posture,” said Scott Alldridge, CEO of IP Services.
About the AHA
The American Hospital Association (AHA) is a not-for-profit association of health care provider organizations and individuals that are committed to the improvement of health in their communities. The AHA is the national advocate for its members, who include nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other health care organizations and 43,000 individual members. Founded in 1898, the AHA provides education for health care leaders and is a source of information on health care issues and trends. Visit http://www.aha.org to learn more.
About AHA Solutions, Inc.
AHA Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of the American Hospital Association dedicated to serving member hospitals by helping them identify the optimal solutions to their most pressing market challenges. Through the AHA Endorsement, along with educational programs featuring peers and industry experts, AHA Solutions supports the decision-making process for hospitals looking for partners to help with clinical integration, information technology, talent management, cultural transformation, financial sustainability, the patient flow and other key challenges.
AHA Solutions is proud to reinvest its profits in the AHA Mission: To advance the health of individuals and communities. For more information, contact AHA Solutions at 800.242.4677 or visit http://www.aha-solutions.org. Also connect with us via Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
About IP Services
IP Services proactively manages clients’ critical IT systems and applications in any data center using the VisibleOpsTM methodology and the quality control system we created called TotalControl™. IP Services’ Cybersecurity Visibility Suite uses scientifically proven best practices to secure businesses and the users they serve by monitoring and protecting the systems and applications that are the heart of modern businesses. For more information, visit http://www.ipservices.com.
# # #
CONTACT INFORMATION:
American Hospital Association:
Marie Watteau
Vice President, Media Relations and Digital Media
American Hospital Association
202.626.2351
mwatteau(at)aha(dot)org
IP Services:
Mark Allers
VP of Business Development
IP Services
503.705.4778
mark.allers(at)ipservices(dot)com Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.
Chicago, Ill. (PRWEB) January 21, 2016
The American Hospital Association (AHA) today announced it has exclusively endorsed Information Technology Compliance and Managed Security Services from IP Services. Following a proprietary due diligence process, AHA Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of the AHA, awards the AHA Endorsement to products and services that help member hospitals and health care organizations achieve operational excellence.
According to the 17th Annual Healthcare’s Most Wired survey by the AHA’s Health Forum and College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, health data security is one of the top priorities of the nation’s hospitals. Hospitals are striving to apply strong privacy and security measures to protect patient information.
IP Services’ Information Technology Compliance and Managed Security Services help hospitals protect patient data by supporting proactive, enterprise-wide integrity verification and security incident and event management, while also helping to reduce IT maintenance time, effort and costs.
The solution’s integrity verification engine for servers and network devices continuously detects in IT systems deviations from a “correct state.” Automatic determination of incorrect system configurations and changes helps organizations detect potential security breaches and maintain business performance and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance. The integrity verification engine issues only actionable alerts so IT personnel are not disrupted by “noise.” It can scan for security breaches up to several times a day — reducing mean time to detection from an industry average of nine months to the same day or less.
To ensure highly secure and high-availability systems, the solution’s security incident and event management services provide event correlation, compliance reporting and recommended remediation steps, and ongoing systems management such as risk analysis and management. Its TotalControl™ system applies controls for managing IT services based on globally recognized best practice processes and methodologies: the IT Infrastructure Library and the VisibleOps Handbook, which IP Services executives authored based on expertise developed through participation in the IT Process Institute, of which IP Services is a founding member.
“IP Services’ AHA Endorsed compliance and security services stand apart because they detect configuration changes that might suggest breaches, but also system vulnerabilities across the entire enterprise — a proactive approach to security,” said Tim Steffl, chief operating & development officer, AHA Solutions. “Additionally, the services demonstrate strong results, both in their dramatic reduction in mean time to detection, and in the fact that IP Services clients remain uncompromised and safe.”
“We are excited to partner with AHA Solutions by delivering our proven and unique IT managed services methodologies, which will mitigate the security risks and vulnerabilities hospitals face relative to HIPAA compliance and their overall security posture,” said Scott Alldridge, CEO of IP Services.
About the AHA
The American Hospital Association (AHA) is a not-for-profit association of health care provider organizations and individuals that are committed to the improvement of health in their communities. The AHA is the national advocate for its members, who include nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other health care organizations and 43,000 individual members. Founded in 1898, the AHA provides education for health care leaders and is a source of information on health care issues and trends. Visit http://www.aha.org to learn more.
About AHA Solutions, Inc.
AHA Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of the American Hospital Association dedicated to serving member hospitals by helping them identify the optimal solutions to their most pressing market challenges. Through the AHA Endorsement, along with educational programs featuring peers and industry experts, AHA Solutions supports the decision-making process for hospitals looking for partners to help with clinical integration, information technology, talent management, cultural transformation, financial sustainability, the patient flow and other key challenges.
AHA Solutions is proud to reinvest its profits in the AHA Mission: To advance the health of individuals and communities. For more information, contact AHA Solutions at 800.242.4677 or visit http://www.aha-solutions.org. Also connect with us via Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
About IP Services
IP Services proactively manages clients’ critical IT systems and applications in any data center using the VisibleOpsTM methodology and the quality control system we created called TotalControl™. IP Services’ Cybersecurity Visibility Suite uses scientifically proven best practices to secure businesses and the users they serve by monitoring and protecting the systems and applications that are the heart of modern businesses. For more information, visit http://www.ipservices.com.
# # #
CONTACT INFORMATION:
American Hospital Association:
Marie Watteau
Vice President, Media Relations and Digital Media
American Hospital Association
202.626.2351
mwatteau(at)aha(dot)org
IP Services:
Mark Allers
VP of Business Development
IP Services
503.705.4778
mark.allers(at)ipservices(dot)com Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.
↧
South Florida Leads State In ‘Obamacare’ Policies
When it comes to having health insurance provided by the federal marketplace, South Florida leads the state.
Reported by cbs4.com 18 hours ago.
↧
↧
New Canaan Schools 6.4% Budget Hike Proposed
Patch New Canaan, CT -- Superintendent Bryan Luizzi said the reason for the proposed increase is due to health insurance and other matters.
Reported by Patch 17 hours ago.
↧
Cruz reveals he doesn't have health insurance
Reported by Politico 14 hours ago.
↧
A.M. Best Assigns Ratings to The Hollard Insurance Company Pty Ltd
SINGAPORE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A.M. Best has assigned a financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) and an issuer credit rating of “a-” to The Hollard Insurance Company Pty Ltd (HIC) (Australia). The outlook assigned to both ratings is stable. Formed in 1999, HIC is a direct general insurer domiciled in Australia. It major product offerings include pet health insurance, domestic motor, householders and commercial insurance. The company is a subsidiary of Hollard Investments B.V., which also owns G
Reported by Business Wire 14 hours ago.
↧
Fewer Obamacare Choices Could Boost Health Stocks
Health insurance companies trying to manage costs of customers buying products on public exchanges under the Affordable Care Act are offering more plans with limited choices to control costs and boost company profits.
Reported by Motley Fool 14 hours ago.
↧
↧
What We Know: Sanders' health care plan
— A government-run system could eliminate some duplicative administrative costs that come from having many private insurance companies. — Taiwan's popular national health insurance system, set up 20 years ago, required more tax revenue to keep pace with costs.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 14 hours ago.
↧
Citizens United Celebrates 6 Years Of Giving A Voice To Voiceless Billionaires
WASHINGTON -- Six years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its immediately controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Finally, billionaires and corporations were free to express their love for political candidates and parties with the most precious gift of affection anyone could give: money, lots and lots of money.
The Citizens United ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums from their treasuries on independent electoral activity (without getting too picky on the definition of "independent"). A subsequent lower court decision based on Citizens United extended this to wealthy individual donors.
Here are some of the people and corporate entities that the Citizens United decision bravely empowered. After years of injurious oppression, they could at last buy influence at will, as our Founding Fathers wanted them to. Because in the end, money actually wins.
*Sheldon Adelson*
In 2009, the year before Citizens United, casino magnate Adelson was worth a mere $9 billion. Since then, he has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to support GOP politicians, and now he's worth $26 billion. Though he couldn't send Mitt Romney to the White House in 2012, despite spending some $150 million in that effort, Republicans in Congress rallied around his lobbying campaign to ban online gambling (and protect his casino profits). These days, nearly every Republican presidential candidate and party leader makes the pilgrimage to his Las Vegas offices in search of his support.
*Charles & David Koch*
For decades, the billionaire Koch brothers ran a nationwide operation to back libertarian policies and Republican politicians behind the scenes. After Citizens United, they were finally able to be out and proud about the hundreds of millions of dollars that they and their stable of donors invest in elections and lobbying -- well, kind of. (They still try to obscure the money trail.)
The Kochs now lead a political operation similar in size to a national political party. Republican candidates flock to their donor conventions to present themselves to the billionaires and their very rich colleagues. The brothers publicly doubt the science on climate change, and as their money has flowed in, the GOP has similarly shifted against believing in science.
Let's not forget that the two Kochs are now worth a combined $82 billion. That's more than Bill Gates!
*U.S. Chamber of Commerce*
The leading lobbying voice for American corporations was freed by Citizens United to really pour its funds, whose donors the group refuses to name, into backing candidates who support big business. In the 2010 election cycle, the Chamber received millions from the health insurance industry to help stop the passage of health care reform. In addition to lobbying against the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, it pumped money into supporting politicians who vowed to quickly repeal the new act.
Unleashed by Citizens United, other companies like Dow Chemical and Prudential Financial also put money into the Chamber's coffers ahead of the 2010 elections. Now, the group is busy trying to protect Republican lawmakers supportive of corporate America from those tea party politicians that it helped elect in 2010 and 2012.
*Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America*
Depending on whom you believe, the pharmaceutical industry is the most put-upon sector of society (poor, misunderstood Martin Shkreli) or one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington.
Even before the Citizens United ruling, the industry's lobbying arm, known as PhRMA, had cut a deal with the Obama administration and Senate Democrats to support lobbying for health care reform so long as the proposed law didn't threaten industry profits. With the Citizens United decision coming down right before final passage, PhRMA was able to slip millions in corporate money into nonprofit groups, operated by Democrats, that would go on to support the re-election of senators who voted for the legislation.
Never one to forget to play both sides, PhRMA has also contributed millions to a group backing Republicans who opposed Obamacare.
*Michael Bloomberg*
The former mayor of New York City had used his wealth to obtain office in the Big Apple and now, thanks to Citizens United, he can spend his billions to help politicians who support his pet causes of gun control, environmental regulation, and education reform that expands charter schools and student testing. His money flows into congressional races, over to state legislative elections and even down to local school boards. We all know how communities were looking for a billionaire to have an unequal voice in their school board elections.
*Paul Singer, Ken Griffin and Tom Steyer*
Hedge fund managers, both current and former, are some of the most active donors in the post-Citizens United world with massive contributions to both Democrats and Republicans. As Griffin infamously said a few years ago, the really, really wealthy have "insufficient influence" in American politics.
Singer has pumped millions into efforts to elect Republicans who would protect the financial industry and push a neoconservative, pro-bombing foreign policy. He's trying to use his money to get Republicans to support gay marriage -- although that looks to be a lesser priority. He's also backed pro-charter school candidates in New York state.
Griffin has attempted to overcome his lowly position as an uninfluential billionaire by putting huge sums into efforts supporting Republicans in Congress and in his home state of Illinois. Not hung up on party labels, he also spent millions to support Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who backed the financial industry's push for privatization of city assets, and the Chicago mayor's favored city council candidates.
The biggest individual donor to Democrats is ex-hedge fund manager Steyer, who is spending hundreds of millions to back candidates who would act to prevent climate change.
*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 13 hours ago.
The Citizens United ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums from their treasuries on independent electoral activity (without getting too picky on the definition of "independent"). A subsequent lower court decision based on Citizens United extended this to wealthy individual donors.
Here are some of the people and corporate entities that the Citizens United decision bravely empowered. After years of injurious oppression, they could at last buy influence at will, as our Founding Fathers wanted them to. Because in the end, money actually wins.
*Sheldon Adelson*
In 2009, the year before Citizens United, casino magnate Adelson was worth a mere $9 billion. Since then, he has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to support GOP politicians, and now he's worth $26 billion. Though he couldn't send Mitt Romney to the White House in 2012, despite spending some $150 million in that effort, Republicans in Congress rallied around his lobbying campaign to ban online gambling (and protect his casino profits). These days, nearly every Republican presidential candidate and party leader makes the pilgrimage to his Las Vegas offices in search of his support.
*Charles & David Koch*
For decades, the billionaire Koch brothers ran a nationwide operation to back libertarian policies and Republican politicians behind the scenes. After Citizens United, they were finally able to be out and proud about the hundreds of millions of dollars that they and their stable of donors invest in elections and lobbying -- well, kind of. (They still try to obscure the money trail.)
The Kochs now lead a political operation similar in size to a national political party. Republican candidates flock to their donor conventions to present themselves to the billionaires and their very rich colleagues. The brothers publicly doubt the science on climate change, and as their money has flowed in, the GOP has similarly shifted against believing in science.
Let's not forget that the two Kochs are now worth a combined $82 billion. That's more than Bill Gates!
*U.S. Chamber of Commerce*
The leading lobbying voice for American corporations was freed by Citizens United to really pour its funds, whose donors the group refuses to name, into backing candidates who support big business. In the 2010 election cycle, the Chamber received millions from the health insurance industry to help stop the passage of health care reform. In addition to lobbying against the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, it pumped money into supporting politicians who vowed to quickly repeal the new act.
Unleashed by Citizens United, other companies like Dow Chemical and Prudential Financial also put money into the Chamber's coffers ahead of the 2010 elections. Now, the group is busy trying to protect Republican lawmakers supportive of corporate America from those tea party politicians that it helped elect in 2010 and 2012.
*Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America*
Depending on whom you believe, the pharmaceutical industry is the most put-upon sector of society (poor, misunderstood Martin Shkreli) or one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington.
Even before the Citizens United ruling, the industry's lobbying arm, known as PhRMA, had cut a deal with the Obama administration and Senate Democrats to support lobbying for health care reform so long as the proposed law didn't threaten industry profits. With the Citizens United decision coming down right before final passage, PhRMA was able to slip millions in corporate money into nonprofit groups, operated by Democrats, that would go on to support the re-election of senators who voted for the legislation.
Never one to forget to play both sides, PhRMA has also contributed millions to a group backing Republicans who opposed Obamacare.
*Michael Bloomberg*
The former mayor of New York City had used his wealth to obtain office in the Big Apple and now, thanks to Citizens United, he can spend his billions to help politicians who support his pet causes of gun control, environmental regulation, and education reform that expands charter schools and student testing. His money flows into congressional races, over to state legislative elections and even down to local school boards. We all know how communities were looking for a billionaire to have an unequal voice in their school board elections.
*Paul Singer, Ken Griffin and Tom Steyer*
Hedge fund managers, both current and former, are some of the most active donors in the post-Citizens United world with massive contributions to both Democrats and Republicans. As Griffin infamously said a few years ago, the really, really wealthy have "insufficient influence" in American politics.
Singer has pumped millions into efforts to elect Republicans who would protect the financial industry and push a neoconservative, pro-bombing foreign policy. He's trying to use his money to get Republicans to support gay marriage -- although that looks to be a lesser priority. He's also backed pro-charter school candidates in New York state.
Griffin has attempted to overcome his lowly position as an uninfluential billionaire by putting huge sums into efforts supporting Republicans in Congress and in his home state of Illinois. Not hung up on party labels, he also spent millions to support Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who backed the financial industry's push for privatization of city assets, and the Chicago mayor's favored city council candidates.
The biggest individual donor to Democrats is ex-hedge fund manager Steyer, who is spending hundreds of millions to back candidates who would act to prevent climate change.
*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 13 hours ago.
↧
Despite Challenges, Madison's First Selectman Vows to Reduce Tax Rate
Patch Madison, CT -- The town is facing a 15 percent increase in health insurance costs currently for next year.
Reported by Patch 13 hours ago.
↧
Baker blames physicians for role in opioid epidemic
Gov. Charlie Baker spent a large portion of his first State of the Commonwealth address speaking about health care issues, with the former health care executive touting accomplishments with the state’s troubled health insurance marketplace, while placing blame on doctors for the state’s ongoing opioid epidemic. Four people are dying a day in Massachusetts, Baker said on Thursday night. Baker pointed to doctors as the root of the problem, and he pushed for physicians to prescribe with more caution.…
Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
Obama Administration Works to Fix Health Insurance Co-Ops
An Obama administration official said the government is taking steps to help health cooperatives set up under the Affordable Care Act remain solvent, while seeking to recoup federal funds from those that failed.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 4 hours ago.
↧
It's not just the elite who should fear socialist Bernie Sanders
Brothers Larry and Bernie Sanders claim to be very close. Bernie (who is running to be the Democratic nominee for the US presidency) told the Daily Telegraph last year that he learned many of his views from his older brother. But Larry isn’t some US political luminary. Back in May, running as a member of the Green Party, he failed in his bid to win the safely Conservative seat of Oxford West and Abingdon in the UK general election.While Larry’s far-left doctrine was decisively rejected here in Britain, however, in the United States, senator Bernie Sanders is giving secretary Hillary Clinton a run for her money. Indeed, he can claim to be the most surprising candidate in this race so far.
For although Donald Trump’s comments continue to shock and awe an international audience, he is also picking up support among the most likely voters: Republicans and Democrats who are either young or blue collar workers – many of whom are unlikely to vote. Sanders, on the other hand, has managed to upset the entire Democratic nomination process. Now polling ahead of Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and climbing up the polls for the Iowa caucus, he has propelled his candidacy forward on a socialist platform that has had almost no traction on a national level since the 1930s.
Sanders’s policies have trickled out of the left-wing state of Vermont, where he has spent almost 30 years involved in state politics. Though he has been a proclaimed independent – and ideological socialist – for much of his life, he joined the Democratic Party in 2015 to throw his hat into the presidential race.
His socialism does not directly reflect the ideology of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell; in many ways, he is more radical still. Only a few days ago, he laid out his healthcare agenda. Viewing Obamacare as a stepping stone, rather than a bold piece of legislation, Sanders is proposing a single-payer health plan implemented on the federal level that expands the government health insurance programme, Medicare, to everyone. For Sanders, this new programme should not just be a safety net for those who don’t have health insurance; his plan would outlaw the sale of private health insurance entirely.
His spending plan is equally controversial, calling for higher taxes on both individuals and corporations that would amount to a roughly $18-19 trillion hike across the board.
Such ideas would not ordinarily resonate with American voters, but he has managed to combine socialist polices with a flair for “individualism” – the latter making him more palatable to a US audience. Rather than proclaiming that government is the solution to every problem, Sanders has tapped into the anger felt by both Republicans and Democrats towards the “establishment” and the “elite” (a similar tactic to that used by Trump), by attacking the billions spent on election campaigns and claiming that the link between Wall Street and Washington allows money to rig elections. His talking points on inequality, a “rigged economy”, and – to a lesser extent – climate change have won him support among citizens who still feel, almost a decade after the crash, that they are getting the short end of the stick.
Although Sanders has presented a much more serious challenge to her campaign than was ever expected, Clinton remains the favourite to win. Yet even if he doesn’t secure the nomination, his success should worry all Americans. Too many voters clearly feel there is no mainstream candidate capable of understanding people like them. Reported by City A.M. 5 hours ago.
↧
Blockchain payment revolution: Cracking the trust conundrum
We are on the threshold of a revolution in financial services which promises extraordinary leaps in efficiency for all kinds of transactions. And arguably the biggest obstacle to our society reaping the full benefit of this findustrial revolution is the issue of trust in transactions.When stock exchanges developed centuries ago, a handshake between (predominantly) gentlemen was considered enough to commit extraordinary amounts of capital to new economic ventures. When Jonathan’s Coffee House in the City of London developed into the London Stock Exchange, its motto was (and remains) Dictum Meum Pactum – my word is my bond.
This week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we are looking at how to bring Dictum Meum Pactum into the digital era. How can we prove that people are who they say they are?
The obvious example of the challenge is that favourite fintech buzzword, blockchain. Distributed ledger technology enables everyone transacting in a market to see details of every trade undertaken: of who did what and when. The issue for this exciting technology – and the reason why its first appearance as the engine for bitcoin has been so controversial – is that actors can hide behind false identities. The names they input into the system might not be what their mothers call them.
The WEF’s Disruptive Innovation in Financial Services Project has done a great deal in the past year to build consensus across some of the key players in this industry to agree a perspective on this complex and ambiguous subject. We have brought together banks, exchanges, regulators and other authorities to look at identity in the twenty-first century.
In the digital world, people might have as many identities as passwords. They will have multiple avatars for their online shopping accounts, their banking, their social media posts. Each of these they may manage separately.
Each identity has a number of elements. There are those characteristics which are unchanging – date of birth is one – but there is also biometric data and DNA analysis which can help to prove an individual’s identity. There is even your heartbeat signature. Then there are the identifiers provided by authorities: permanently assigned information such as passport and social security numbers. And there is also an individual’s accumulated identity, which changes over time and is based on the individual’s behaviour: your digital footprint, for instance, or your credit score.
Your digital ID can therefore be a rich record of your behaviours and attitudes. Your spending patterns can be monitored and analysed to generate credit scores and then to agree credit loans. Your digital footprint might provide useful evidence for pricing your health insurance more accurately. Your associations with peer groups might indicate your likelihood of managing your finances effectively. Your behaviours might also indicate you are a “safe” person to provide financial services to, in a world with heightened risk of crime and illegal activities.
All of this information is theoretically possible to gather and can be attributed to your identity. But how should this be done? Who should be entrusted and empowered to do it?
Perhaps the firms best suited for managing digital identity are those with the richest store of information – those major retailers or smartphone providers which have high volume contact with their customers. They can compile and create a detailed picture of customer behaviour which can contribute to understanding an individual. Some of the earliest credit scoring companies were spun out of retailers, for example.
But of course individuals want to ensure they own this information – that it is accurate and that it is used responsibly in circumstances over which they have some control. And that is why this is a challenge that likely requires a broad system-like solution that cuts across both the public and private spheres and, importantly, is applicable across jurisdictions and geographies. A complete digital ID network, if you will.
Imagine, then, that this network comprises every individual’s complete and authoritative digital ID report, of which they are the owners and gatekeepers. Your personal ID report would act as a completely comprehensive record of your ID attributes, with data fields automatically maintained and populated by trusted third parties. Your credit score would be provided by an independent authority, for instance; a record of insurance claims maintained by your insurer; a criminal record maintained by the courts. And all in real-time. Imagine that you allow access to this report on a field-by-field, attribute-by-attribute basis.
Your word would indeed – and unarguably – be your bond.
Once we have agreed as a society how we can and should manage our identities in the digital age, the Fourth Industrial Revolution can properly get underway. The future of finance and commerce may never be the same. Reported by City A.M. 5 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
