Dear Gen-E Readers, we want your input. Our Dear Gen-E this week presents a particularly challenging situation and we are hoping you will give us your response on how you would handle it. In the next Dear Gen-E we will actually tell you what happened. It’s a doozy. E-mail author Carol Hatton-Holmes at Carol@gener8tionalconnections.com. Dear Gen-E, I am a project manager for a large health insurance company and we have a very high profile IT implementation coming up. We hired a consulting firm… Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.

March 29 free webinar series opener provides overview of chronic kidney disease and keys for successful disease management

ROCKVILLE, Md. (PRWEB) March 28, 2016

The American Kidney Fund (AKF) is launching a monthly series of free, live, one-hour webinars for kidney patients and caregivers. Each month, leading subject-matter experts will share practical knowledge and advice on a wide range of topics.

Made possible by an educational grant from Amgen, AKF’s webinar series will kick off on Tuesday, March 29 at 1:00 p.m. ET with “Chronic kidney disease: a general overview and keys for successful management.” Dr. Orlando Gutiérrez, a nephrologist and AKF’s Chair of Medical Affairs, will cover the stages of kidney chronic kidney disease, dialysis treatment options and how to get a kidney transplant. The webinar includes a 15-minute question and answer session.

The next two webinars in the series will take place in April and May, with additional webinars coming each month:· Tuesday, April 26 at 1:00 p.m. ET: “I need a kidney transplant. Am I covered now? What about in the future?” Led by kidney transplant experts from the University of Michigan Transplant Center, this webinar will explain what transplant costs are covered by private insurance and Medicare, health insurance considerations for post-transplant, how to qualify for the transplant list and how to keep a transplanted kidney healthy.

· Tuesday, May 17 at 1:00 p.m. ET: “Living with chronic kidney disease: The ups, downs and all arounds.” Led by Dr. Tiffany Washington from the University of Georgia’s School of Social Work, this webinar will help patients manage the emotional and social aspects of living with chronic kidney disease. Dr. Washington will discuss resources to help patients stay healthy psychologically.

Advance registration is required to participate in one of AKF’s live webinars. Learn more and register at http://www.KidneyFund.org/training/webinars. Additionally, all webinars will be recorded and available for later viewing on AKF’s website.
# # #

About the American Kidney Fund
As the nation’s leading nonprofit working on behalf of the 31 million Americans with kidney disease, the American Kidney Fund is dedicated to ensuring that every kidney patient has access to health care, and that every person at risk for kidney disease is empowered to prevent it. AKF fulfills its mission by providing a complete spectrum of programs and services: prevention outreach, top-rated health educational resources, and direct financial assistance enabling kidney patients to access lifesaving medical care, including dialysis and transplantation.

AKF helps 1 out of every 5 U.S. dialysis patients with treatment-related expenses. More than 93,000 patients in all 50 states received AKF grants last year. AKF invests in clinical research to improve outcomes for kidney patients, and fights tirelessly on Capitol Hill for legislation and policies supporting the issues that are important to kidney patients. To address the enormous public health threat of kidney disease, AKF provides public and professional health education materials and courses, the Kidney Action Day® community outreach program, a Kidney Health Educator program, and a toll-free health information HelpLine (866.300.2900). AKF’s grassroots fundraising platform, KIDNEYNATION, unites Americans who are raising funds to support the organization’s mission.

AKF spends 97 cents of every donated dollar on programs and services. AKF holds the highest ratings from the nation’s charity watchdog groups, including Charity Navigator, which includes AKF on its “top 10” list of nonprofits with the longest track records of outstanding stewardship of the donated dollar.

For more information, please visit KidneyFund.org, or connect with us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.

DEAR CARRIE: I was recently promoted to the management ranks at work. Much to my surprise, the promotion pushed me into a new benefits group that requires me to pay several thousand dollars more annually toward my health insurance to receive basically the same medical and dental benefits as I received in my previous position. My question is not about the legality of this, but rather, how common it is. People I have spoken with said they expected the benefits to be better up the ranks. -- Expensive Promotion Reported by Newsday 1 day ago.

Anthem Inc.’s proposed $54 billion acquisition of Cigna Corp., which would create the country’s largest health insurer, faces scrutiny Tuesday as state regulators hold a public hearing in San Francisco to address concerns about the megamerger. Critics argue the merger would reduce competition, increase rates and make it harder for patients to find doctors. “Anthem, which is already a behemoth, would leapfrog Kaiser in California and United nationwide to be the biggest insurance company in California and the country,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of the Consumer Watchdog advocacy group. The health insurance industry is undergoing a surge of consolidation, including the planned merger of Aetna and Humana, which the California Department of Insurance plans to review in hearings next month. While the federal Affordable Care Act has helped reduce the number of uninsured Americans, some observers say it’s also spurred merger activity. Anthem, for its part, described expanding access to affordable health coverage as the company’s top priority and “the foundation of our combination with Cigna.” “Anthem and Cigna have limited overlap in a highly competitive industry and together will be in a better position to improve consumer choice and quality,” said Darrel Ng, spokesman for Anthem Blue Cross. Here are details about the California Department of Insurance’s public hearing to discuss the proposed acquisition of Cigna by Anthem, which would create the country’s largest health insurer: Reported by SFGate 1 day ago.

Beginning in March 2016, LinkNow Media has begun offering healthcare benefits to all permanent employees.

Montreal, Quebec (PRWEB) March 29, 2016

In a move that will be sure to make current employees happy as well as making LinkNow Media a more competitive option for attracting top talent, company president Wesley Mendelovitch recently announced that LinkNow Media will be offering a medical benefits package to all full time, permanent employees.

Medical benefits are relatively rare in the Montreal job market, so being able to offer job candidates health insurance will help make LinkNow Media more attractive to job seekers in the area.

Even more importantly, this is finally giving the company the opportunity to reward the hard work and loyalty of the people who helped build LinkNow Media into the successful business that it is.

“Including a health benefits package for our employees is something that has been a long time coming at LinkNow," says LinkNow Media's Director of Operations, Ray Boulé. "We’ve wanted to do it for years and we actually started working on the plan to implement it months ago. It is another example of how we can give back to our employees who already give us so much.” Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.

 

AP Photo/Young Kwak

A supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders holds a sign at a campaign rally in Spokane, Washington, Thursday, March 24, 2016. 

This article originally appeared at The Huffington Post.

Once again, Bernie Sanders has demonstrated, with a trifecta of big wins in Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington State, that he has broad and enthusiastic support, especially among the young. Equally astonishing is the large percentage of voters who say they are attracted rather than repelled by Sanders’s embrace of socialism.

But if you’d bother to conduct your own focus group among Americans under 40, neither phenomenon should be surprising. Except for those graduating from elite universities, with either full scholarships or wealthy tuition-paying parents, this is the stunted generation—young adults venturing into a world of work, loaded with student debt, unable to find stable jobs or decent careers.

This is also the post-Cold War generation, for whom Soviet communism is a distant memory (along with reliable jobs). For this generation of Americans, capitalism is not exactly a good word, nor is socialism a bad one.

And this is the generation that finds employer-paid health insurance hard to find; often the “Bronze” version of the Affordable Care Act, with its high out-of-pocket payments, is all they can afford; a generation paying too much of unreliable incomes in rent, and putting off the dream of homeownership and having children.

So, when a candidate comes along calling for free college education and free universal health care, and far higher minimum wages, it sounds pretty fine. And if capitalism means the 1 percent making off with everything that isn’t nailed down, then maybe Sanders-style socialism is worth a try. So say the young.

Private frustrations and longings have at last become politicized. And well they should be. Because the reality of the rules of the game turning brutally against the young has nothing to do with technology or the immutable realities of the digital economy—and everything to do with who gets to write the rules.

The policy wonk types like to point out that the Sanders program would require a huge tax increase.

And indeed it would. But as long as the tax hike is on the upper brackets, that only adds to the appeal of the program. During and after World War II, the top marginal tax rate was north of 90 percent, and this was the era of a record economic boom.

At the heart of this generational revolution is the vanishing good job. Until recently, the claims of a new, on-demand economy, made up of short-term gigs, was challenged by economists, even liberal ones.

It was kind of a new category that didn’t show up in the data. You could debate whether Uber and Task Rabbit and kindred companies were good or evil, but they just didn’t affect that many workers.

Now, belatedly, this shift is being confirmed. The economists are right—most of the unreliable jobs are not on-demand gigs. Rather, they are other forms of lousy “contingent” work. That category includes temping, contract work, on-call workers, workers hired by staffing agencies, workers with no job security, and inferior forms of conventional employment like adjunct college professors who can make less than minimum wage, Ph.D.’s and all. (So much for the education cure.)

Jobs that used to pay decently are being turned into inferior jobs, whether in the manufacturing economy or the service economy. Yes there is an uptick in entrepreneurship, but for every young person who creates a company like Amazon, there are tens of thousands working in its warehouses.

The Wall Street Journal, of all places, reports a 60 percent increase since 2005 in the proportion of U.S. workers who have these inferior forms of employment.

The Labor Department, denied adequate funding to update its numbers, had not revised its count of contingent workers. So two eminently mainstream economists, Lawrence Katz of Harvard and Alan Krueger of Princeton (one of the very people carping about the cost of Sanders’ program) hired the Rand Corporation to do what the Labor Department should be doing—surveying actual current workers.

Katz and Krueger analyzed the results. And guess what? They confirmed in rich detail what your local 28-year-old could tell you: Real jobs are getting harder and harder to find. No wonder the uptick in GDP growth is not impressing voters, especially younger ones.

So Sanders is likely to continue making off with the youth vote. Even if he falls short of the nomination, this is bad news for Hillary Clinton. Whatever her other virtues, most young Americans don’t see her speaking to the realities of their condition.

This also presents a real conundrum for mainstream, moderate liberal economists like Katz and Krueger. Altering these trends will require radical reforms, not adjustments at the margins.

Sanders’s program may cost a lot of money. It may be socialistic. And it may require congressional majorities that will be a long time coming. But Sanders has the loyalty of the kids because he is speaking truth. Reported by The American Prospect 14 hours ago.

Albin Lohr-Jones/Sipa/AP Images

Following her victories in the Democratic primaries on "Super Tuesday," Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at a rally for her supporters, many representing local unionized labor, at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York City. 

This article is a preview of the Spring 2016 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here. 

Political parties in the United States are typically broad coalitions that bring disparate groups together to win elections. In a two-party system, those coalitions are usually the only way the different constituencies and their leaders can hope to gain a share of power. At times, however, parties become closely aligned with social movements that shift the base of party support, or the parties themselves take on the character of a movement. Much of American history is remembered this way—as a series of movements that inspired change in parties, won elections, and transformed the nation.

But that historical memory is selective: Movements haven’t always produced electoral majorities. Their leaders have sometimes miscalculated and brought on their own defeat by driving out elements of the previous party coalition. Since movements bring new energy to parties and imperil old alliances, there is no general rule as to whether they lead to electoral success. They are indispensable to transformative change, but sometimes the transformations they bring about are not the ones they intend and come from victories they hand the opposition.

During the past half-century, the Republican Party has been transformed by the rise of the conservative movement in its various forms, including the Christian right of the 1970s and 1980s, the Tea Party of this decade, and the two insurgencies that have roiled the party this year: Donald Trump’s nativist and protectionist campaign and Ted Cruz’s evangelically based conservatism. If Trump or Cruz and their supporters take control of the GOP, they could radically alter America’s direction from the Obama years and redefine what kind of country this is—or drive enough Republicans out of the party’s coalition in 2016 to hand Democrats a victory.

As the Republicans have moved to the right under movement pressure, the Democrats have shifted to the left, though not to the same degree. To be sure, the party has old ties to the labor, civil rights, and women’s movements and newer ties to movements representing immigrants and LGBT people. Each of these is a distinct constituency with its own agenda. In recent decades, there has been no equivalent on the progressive side to the decisive ideological influence the conservative movement has had on the GOP. Believing they need moderate support to win, state and national Democratic leaders have sought to occupy the middle ground that the GOP’s rightward shift has opened up.

In 2016, however, just as the Republicans face pressure from a party base disappointed with its leaders, so the Democratic Party faces pressure from Bernie Sanders’s surprisingly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton. Clinton is the candidate of center-left party continuity. She falls in the direct line of her husband’s and Barack Obama’s presidencies and has the backing of most of the party’s elected leaders, including most of the progressives in Congress who have endorsed a candidate. Sanders is a movement candidate, an outsider to the party who has throughout his career identified himself as a socialist rather than as a liberal. He’s a man of the left rather than the center left. Until this election, he had always run for office as an independent, frequently denouncing the Democrats as corrupt and beholden to corporate interests and the “ruling class.”

Although many observers have downplayed the difference between Clinton’s and Sanders’s positions, the gulf is considerable. The two candidates’ tax proposals are the clearest measure. To finance free health care, free public college tuition, and other programs that would, in total, expand the size of the federal government by about 40 percent to 50 percent, Sanders has called for 11 different tax increases that would bring top marginal rates on income and capital gains to levels higher than in the two countries he frequently mentions as models, Sweden and Denmark. Clinton wants to extend the Affordable Care Act and other recent Democratic achievements, but she has been cautious on taxes, saying she would favor tax increases only for those making more than $250,000 a year.

As I write in mid-March, Clinton seems likely to be the Democratic nominee. But regardless of how this year’s election turns out, Sanders and his campaign have raised a question about the future beyond 2016—whether the Democrats, like the Republicans, are going to become more of a movement party and what that would mean for American politics.

 

-Movement, Party, and President-

The barriers to transformative political change are exceptionally high in the United States. In a parliamentary democracy like Great Britain, a party that wins an election can generally carry out its program because it controls the executive branch as well as the legislature and will not face the voters again for four or five years. In the United States, the separation of powers, the midterm elections for the House, the staggered election of senators, and the role of the Supreme Court all create additional obstacles to large-scale reform. A party intent on transformative change has to win congressional majorities as well as the presidency—and not just once, but repeatedly, in order to carry out a program and, if necessary, shift the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. Control of state governments may also be critical, not least of all because of their power to set rules for elections, gerrymander legislative districts, disempower unions and other bases of opposition, and entrench the status quo.

If the obstacles to transformative change are so great, how have Americans ever brought it about? In “The Broken Engine of Progressive Politics,” a brilliant article published in these pages in 1998, Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman argued that “the American change machine” has historically had three moving parts. The first has consisted of political movements that “catalyzed sweeping transformations,” from the expansion of democracy in the early republic to Reconstruction, the New Deal, and the civil rights revolution. Second, movements have been linked to parties. Early in American history, rising movements organized new parties—“movement-parties,” Ackerman calls them—from Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans and Jackson’s Democrats to the Republican Party before the Civil War and William Jennings Bryan’s Populists. The third key element has been the presidency as the focus of transformative leadership.

The central mechanism of political transformation in the 19th century, according to Ackerman, was the combined “movement-party-presidency,” but after the defeat of Bryan and the Populists in 1896, insurgent movements no longer developed into new parties. Instead, the turn-of-the-century Progressives and the feminist, labor, civil rights, and other movements in the 20th century sought influence through one or the other of the major parties, and often both. The role of parties as agents of change diminished. “As parties have grown weaker,” Ackerman writes, “the change engine has worked mainly with two parts—movements and presidents. Today only conservatives seem capable of recreating the classic movement-party-presidency. Progressives will continue to lack a comparable engine for change unless they learn how to put movement, party, and presidency back together again.”

To put “movement, party, and presidency back together” means revitalizing the missing element—party— and giving it the impetus of a movement. There is little hope for transformative change from electing a president alone without also electing a congressional majority and winning control of major states. Although presidents have considerable power to determine foreign policy, they have little capacity on their own to institute new domestic policies and no power to do so if those involve new taxes. The sustained power necessary to effect change in the American political system—and to avoid devastating midterm reversals and state-level opposition—requires more than campaigns built around an individual presidential candidate. Yet the rise of freelance candidacies and diminished organizational role of parties encourages a focus on building up individuals rather than building institutions.

The preoccupation with personalities and presidents is so strong in America that it even affects those who ought to have a more institutional understanding of politics. Progressives have been prone to magical thinking about the presidency, imagining that presidents can effect change if only movements put enough pressure on them. Activists often illustrate how movements work by telling a story about a delegation of movement leaders who presented their case to Franklin D. Roosevelt while he was president. Sometimes the story is told about labor leaders, sometimes civil rights leaders. Supposedly, FDR responded: “I agree with everything you have said. Now, make me do it.” The quotation is almost certainly fictitious (there do not appear to be any references to it before the 1990s), but like other oft-told tales, the story says more about those who tell it than about its subject. The assumptions are presidentialist. The key word in the line “Make me do it” is “me”—the idea that Roosevelt would urge movement leaders to focus pressure on him rather than Congress and that the president would be the one with the power to do whatever needed doing.

With the benefit of overwhelming Democratic congressional majorities, Roosevelt did bring about a great deal of lasting change. Nonetheless, the New Deal went only as far as Southern Democrats in Congress allowed it to go; when they deserted Roosevelt and allied with Republicans, he was stymied. FDR’s failed purge of conservative Southern Democrats in 1938 ended the possibility of thoroughly remaking the party and recreating the full “movement-party-presidency” Ackerman talks about.

In the next transformative era, the civil rights revolution depended on support from moderate and liberal Republicans in both the judiciary and Congress. When conservative Republicans overreached and nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964, they handed liberals a transformative opportunity, enabling Lyndon Johnson to win a landslide that brought in a large enough Democratic majority in Congress to pass the major programs of the Great Society. Of course, as a previous Senate majority leader, Johnson had a singular ability to get what he wanted out of Congress, and as a Southern successor to John F. Kennedy, he had a lot to prove about his liberal bona fides.

The productive relationships of Roosevelt and the labor movement and of Johnson and the civil rights movement provide the main models for today’s understanding of how progressive movements and presidents bring about change together. But it was only because of big Democratic congressional majorities in 1935 that Roosevelt could pass the Wagner Act and enable industrial unions to organize. It was only because of the breadth of the Democratic landside in 1964 that LBJ was able to pursue the War on Poverty. If recent Democratic presidents haven’t delivered comparable reforms, their personal qualities aren’t the primary explanation, nor is it because movements haven’t made them do it. They haven’t had the sustained congressional majorities they would need, much less the partisan mobilization in the states that would make reform a reality throughout the country. The hopes that ride on presidents are destined for disappointment if there isn’t a party capable of carrying them to fruition.

 

-Building the Party under the Presidency-

Despite winning the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, the Democratic Party has been in decline for the past two decades. In their first midterm elections, Bill Clinton in 1994 and Obama in 2010 both lost control of Congress and major states to the Republicans and were severely hamstrung from then on. In his second term, Clinton was able to secure some modest but important policy goals, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But Obama has faced resolute GOP obstruction, and on his watch Democrats have suffered big losses at both the federal and state levels.

Barring a major Democratic sweep, Republican control of the House may be baked into congressional districts until at least 2022, when states will redistrict in the wake of the 2020 census. Currently, of the 99 state legislative chambers, Republicans control 69, a historical record (I count the unicameral legislature in Nebraska as Republican, though it is officially nonpartisan). The GOP has undivided control of 24 state governments, Democrats of only seven—and Republicans are using their power in the states to enact voter-ID and anti-union laws, stack the judiciary, and adopt other measures that will make it difficult to reverse what they have done.

This is the reality that Democrats confront. Electing a president obviously matters for foreign policy, Supreme Court and other judicial appointments, budget appropriations, and the interpretation and enforcement of environmental, civil rights, and other laws. Given the huge gulf between the parties and their presidential candidates, no one should minimize the significance of those differences. But if progressives want large-scale institutional change, the prerequisite is rebuilding the Democratic Party under the presidency and animating it with a progressive agenda.

That is not what’s happening, however, at least not yet. If 2016 were a genuine transformative moment comparable to those in the past, we would be seeing a lot more than a contested presidential primary. We would be seeing more progressive candidates running for Congress and state government; indeed, some of those progressives would already have won office and used their states as “laboratories of democracy” to test out new policies. There are some examples of progressive innovation in cities, but not many in the states. Democrats with those ambitions have yet to show in significant numbers that they can win statewide office, carry out an expansive program, and—in the critical test—get re-elected.

While Sanders and some of his followers are clearly interested in building a movement that lasts beyond 2016, movement-building and party-building are not the same thing. Throughout his career, Sanders has taken pride in not having anything to do with party politics. “Outsider” is his self-description in the title of his autobiography; for decades, he described Democrats and Republicans as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. As recently as 2013, he told The Progressive magazine, “I am not a Democrat.” The writer Ignazio Silone once said the crucial political judgment is “the choice of comrades.” Sanders has had his comrades, but they haven’t been in the Democratic Party. He initially planned to run in 2016 as an independent for president, but in an interview on MSNBC on March 14 he said he became convinced to run as a Democrat because of the media coverage he would get. “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party,” Sanders told Chuck Todd.

That history of not just standing apart from the Democratic Party but frequently denouncing it helps explain why Sanders has had so little support from elected Democratic leaders. On a practical level, they owe him nothing. He hasn’t raised money for Democrats, and the same arguments he uses against Hillary Clinton for her fundraising would apply to most of them, too.

Beyond 2016, the question is how the model of the Sanders campaign could work as a strategy for party rebuilding on a national scale. The party undoubtedly could use the grassroots-organizing capacity the Sanders campaign has developed. But winning national elections does require raising a lot of money. If money weren’t a factor in the outcome of elections, campaign finance wouldn’t be something to worry about. Sanders’s purism on campaign finance—no super PACs, no big financial donors—can work in states like Vermont with low-cost media markets and in congressional districts with lopsided Democratic majorities. It might even be enough to win a presidential nomination, thanks to all the free media coverage. But it is not feasible in most congressional and statewide elections. Candidates who follow that approach are likely to be outspent by a wide margin, and the difference will doom many of them. That’s why most Democrats who want to reverse Citizens United and see more public financing have nonetheless decided to work within the regime the Supreme Court has established.

This contrast in thinking about campaign finance highlights a broader difference in theories of change. One approach insists on observing ideal alternative rules even if they lead to defeat; the other seeks to make gains under the existing rules in order to get into a position to change those rules. If you want public financing of campaigns, you still have to get legislators elected in a world with private financing. If you want to pass laws strengthening labor and voting rights, you still have to win elections under laws that have weakened labor and voting rights. Before you can change the institutions, you have to use the available resources to your best advantage. If you get ahead of yourself, you may enjoy an initial flash of success, only to suffer a crushing defeat in the end.

The Democrats do need an infusion of movement energy to confront the deepening inequalities in American life. They also need to take advantage of the opportunities in the center that a radicalized Republican Party creates for them. Taking advantage of those opportunities in 2016 may be the best way to create the preconditions for more substantial change; Supreme Court nominations are the first and most obvious way. If one party goes to an extreme and hands the other side the chance of a big victory, the other party would be foolish to miss its chance. The precedent for 2016 could turn out to be 1964. And in the long run, it’s a close call as to whether America would benefit more if Democrats became more of a movement party or if the GOP reacted to a loss in 2016 by becoming less of a movement party.

The tumult of the 2016 presidential primary season has led to some brash judgments about the parties’ future. I am reluctant to jump to any conclusions. There isn’t enough confirming evidence from trends in congressional or state elections or public opinion surveys to demonstrate that the two major parties are moving for the long term in the directions represented by Trump and Cruz, on one side, and Sanders on the other.

But there is no doubt about how big the immediate choices are. The voters this year are not just choosing between different candidates and parties. They are choosing between different Americas. After November, we should have a much clearer idea about what kind of country we live in. Reported by The American Prospect 14 hours ago.

Wednesday marked the sixth anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — commonly known as Obamacare — being signed into law, and the battle over its various elements continues to be waged as vigorously as ever. Reported by ajc.com 12 hours ago.

LITTLE ROCK — Arkansas Insurance Commissioner Allen Kerr on Monday issued a Consumer Alert to Arkansans, warning them not to fall prey to high-pressure telemarketers selling short-term health insuranc Reported by Harrison Daily 10 hours ago.

UPMC will also raise the minimum starting wage for employees to $15 per hour by 2021.

Pittsburgh, Pa. (PRWEB) March 29, 2016

UPMC will increase minimum starting salaries for entry-level positions at most Pittsburgh facilities to $15/hour by January 2021, including its flagship UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside hospital, UPMC Mercy, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC and many other facilities and sites. Additionally, average service worker pay at these facilities will exceed $15/hour by January 2019. The pay range changes begin Jan. 1, 2017.

This action, based on UPMC’s continual evaluation of the market, solidifies its reputation as a highly desirable employer with industry-leading total compensation packages, a focus on work-life balance, and significant opportunities for career advancement. With nearly 62,000 employees across all facilities, UPMC is the largest non-government employer in Pennsylvania.

“We are very proud of our wages, generous benefits and other rewards and of the tens of thousands of jobs at UPMC that have meaning and purpose, and that fulfill an incredibly important mission for the region and the communities that we serve,” said John Galley, senior vice president and chief human resources officer, UPMC. “We review the market each year to ensure that our salary ranges are competitive and we are committed to rewarding our strong-performing employees with merit increases on an annual basis.”

The total package of salary and benefits available to employees includes a retirement savings plan with a percentage match by UPMC, a defined benefit pension plan paid entirely by UPMC, tuition assistance for employees and their families, comprehensive health insurance and generous paid time off. Those making $15/hour and taking full advantage of UPMC’s robust benefits package will earn the equivalent of $24.25/hour. For UPMC employees represented by unions, their wages and benefits will continue to be negotiated by their respective unions.

“We are particularly pleased to offer entry-level employment to those with fewer technical skills and training,” added Galley. “UPMC employees consistently demonstrate their commitment by providing superior patient care and customer service. And as part of UPMC’s dedication to our valued employees, we provide career pathways with financial support to help all employees grow and learn so that they can stretch their knowledge and skills and advance their careers. Many of our employees began their careers at UPMC in entry-level positions and have advanced into technical, professional and management roles.”

UPMC McKeesport Chief Nursing Officer and Vice President of Patient Care Services Dawndra Jones began her career at UPMC 25 years ago as a new staff nurse and with assistance from UPMC’s tuition reimbursement program, earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in nursing, and most recently, a doctor of nursing practice degree. “I am an example of how a UPMC employee can take advantage of the rich benefits offered to us and achieve a lifelong career within UPMC,” said Jones.

UPMC employs nearly 25,000 people with an annual salary of over $50,000, more than any other employer in the region.

# # #

About UPMC
A world-renowned health care provider and insurer, Pittsburgh-based UPMC is inventing new models of patient-centered, cost-effective, accountable care. It provides more than $888 million a year in benefits to its communities, including more care to the region’s most vulnerable citizens than any other health care institution. The largest nongovernmental employer in Pennsylvania, UPMC integrates 60,000 employees, more than 20 hospitals, more than 500 doctors’ offices and outpatient sites, a 2.9-million-member health insurance division, and international and commercial operations. Affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, UPMC ranks No. 13 in the prestigious U.S. News & World Report annual Honor Roll of America’s Best Hospitals. For more information, go to UPMC.com.

http://www.upmc.com/media Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.

* Watch President Obama speak in Atlanta at 2:30 pm ET*

Today, as part his efforts to escalate the fight against the prescription opioid abuse and heroin epidemic, the President will join individuals in recovery, family members, medical professionals, and law enforcement officials at the National Rx Drug Abuse and Heroin Summit in Atlanta, Georgia.

At the event, he'll take questions from the Facebook group Young People in Recovery:

The prescription opioid abuse and heroin epidemic claims the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year. The President has made clear that addressing this epidemic is a priority for his Administration, and has escalated the fight against the epidemic on three different fronts: expanding access to treatment, preventing overdose deaths, and increasing community prevention strategies.

Here are some highlights from the new actions announced today:

- Increasing access to medication-assisted treatment-

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed rule to increase the current patient limit for qualified physicians who prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorders from 100 to 200 patients with the goal of expanding access to this evidence-based treatment while preventing diversion. The proposed rule aims to increase access to medication-assisted treatment and behavioral health supports for tens of thousands of people with opioid use disorders.

*Why this matters:* Buprenorphine is an FDA-approved drug that, because of its lower potential for abuse, is permitted to be prescribed or dispensed in physician offices, which significantly increases its availability to many patients. When taken as prescribed, buprenorphine is safe and effective. Existing evidence shows that this lifesaving, evidence-based treatment is under-utilized. Updating the regulations around the prescribing of buprenorphine-containing products, as proposed today, would help close this treatment gap. Learn more here.

- *Addressing the substance use disorder parity in medicaid*-

HHS is finalizing a rule to strengthen access to mental health and substance use services for people enrolled in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plans by requiring that these benefits be offered at parity, meaning that they be comparable to medical and surgical benefits.

*Why this matters:* These protections are expected to benefit more than 23 million people in Medicaid and CHIP.

These actions build on the President’s proposal for $1.1 billion in new funding to help every American with an opioid use disorder who wants treatment get the help they need.  Reported by The White House 6 hours ago.

The first time Oregon tried to create a health insurance marketplace, the experiment was an epic fail. After technical glitches prevented it from launching on time, the state eventually scrapped the Cover Oregon website and began using the federal health exchange. Cover Oregon is gone but not forgotten: It spawned half a dozen lawsuits and plenty of finger pointing between Oracle, which was building the site, and the state. While the litigation rolls on, Oregon's Department of Consumer & Business… Reported by bizjournals 4 hours ago.

Submitted by Jeffrey Anderson WeeklyStandard.com,

Three years ago, on the eve of Obamacare’s implementation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that President Obama's centerpiece legislation would result in *an average of 201 million people having private health insurance in any given month of 2016*. Now that 2016 is here, the CBO says that just 177 million people, on average, will have private health insurance in any given month of this year* - a shortfall of 24 million people.*

 

*Indeed, based on the CBO's own numbers, it seems possible that Obamacare has actually reduced the number of people with private health insurance.* In 2013, the CBO projected that, without Obamacare, 186 million people would be covered by private health insurance in 2016—160 million on employer-based plans, 26 million on individually purchased plans. The CBO now says that, with Obamacare, 177 million people will be covered by private health insurance in 2016—155 million on employer-based plans, 12 million on plans bought through Obamacare's government-run exchanges, and 9 million on other individually purchased plans (plus a rounding error of 1 million).

*In other words, it would appear that a net 9 million people have lost their private health plans, thanks to Obamacare*—with a net 5 million people having lost employer-based plans and a net 4 million people having lost individually purchased plans.

*None of this is to say that fewer people have "coverage" under Obamacare—it's just not private coverage.* In 2013, the CBO projected that 34 million people would be on Medicaid or CHIP (the Children's Health Insurance Program) in 2016. The CBO now says that 68 million people will be on Medicaid or CHIP in 2016—double its earlier estimate. It turns out that Obamacare is pretty much a giant Medicaid expansion.

To be clear, the CBO—which has very generously labeled Obamacare's direct subsidies to insurance companies as "tax credits," even though sending money to insurers doesn't lower anyone's taxes—isn't openly declaring that Obamacare has reduced the number of people with private health insurance or that it has doubled the number of people on Medicaid or CHIP. *Rather, the CBO maintains that Obamacare has actually increased the number of people with private health insurance by 9 million and has increased the number of people on Medicaid or CHIP by (just) 13 million. But it would seem that the only reason the CBO can make these claims is that it has moved the goalposts.*

That is, the CBO has significantly altered its estimates for what 2016 would have looked like if Obamacare had never been passed. In 2013, the CBO projected that, in the absence of Obamacare, 186 million people would have had private health insurance in 2016, and 34 million people would have been on Medicaid or CHIP. The CBO now maintains that, in the absence of Obamacare, only 168 million people would have had private health insurance in 2016 (a reduction of 18 million people from its 2013 projection), while 55 million people would have been on Medicaid or CHIP (an increase of 21 million people from its 2013 projection). Somehow the hypothetical non-Obamacare world has changed a lot in the past three years. (The CBO doesn't explain how this could have happened.)

*Even the CBO's revised figures for a non-Obamacare world, however, can't gloss over the fact that Obamacare has failed to hit its target for private health insurance by 24 million people. To see that, one must simply compare Obamacare's new tally of 177 million to its 2013 target of 201 million.*

The CBO doesn't release retroactive scoring of Obamacare. Try finding, for example, tallies from the federal government (whether from the CBO or otherwise) on what Obamacare has actually cost so far. Rather, the CBO is like a handicapper who predicts the results of horseraces, but then never bothers to publish the races' actual results.

*Now that it's clear enough, however, that Obamacare is basically an expensive Medicaid expansion coupled with 2,400 pages of liberty-sapping mandates, it's time for a winning Obamacare alternative to emerge,* one along the lines of what Ed Gillespie almost rode to victory in the Virginia Senate race. Such an alternative should address the longstanding inequity in the tax code—between employer-based and individually purchased insurance—while adhering to four basic notions:



1. It shouldn't touch the tax treatment of the typical American's employer-based plan.

 

2. It should close the tax loophole on the employer side—which says that the more you spend (on insurance), the more you save (in taxes)—by capping the tax exclusion at $20,000 for a family plan (while letting anyone with a more expensive plan still get the full tax break on that first $20,000).

 

3. It should offer a simple tax break for individually purchased insurance that isn't income-tested and thus doesn't pick winners and losers (in marked contrast with Obamacare, which is all about picking winners and losers.)

 

4. It shouldn't provide direct subsidies to insurance companies like Obamacare does. (The federal government provides a tax break for mortgage interest paid—it doesn't directly pay a portion of people's mortgage bills. Likewise, it shouldn't directly pay people's health insurance bills as if it were some kind of "single payer.")



In addition, anyone crafting an Obamacare alternative should keep this important point in mind and express it publicly: *Far from being the gospel truth, the CBO's scoring is more like a wild guess that will never be checked against future reality.* Reported by Zero Hedge 4 hours ago.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare if you prefer) has probably had a significant impact on your health insurance. Did you realize that Obamacare has had an effect on your taxes as well? Here are a few of the tax ramifications of the ACA.

*Individual Mandate -* If you are aware of only one ACA-related impact on your taxes, it is probably this one. You are required to have a qualified health insurance plan through some source -- the federal exchange at healthcare.gov, a state exchange, employer, or direct purchase from an insurer. Qualified plans are those that meet minimum criteria as outlined by the ACA.

The penalty for not having insurance for the 2015 tax year is the greater of $325 per adult in the household and $162.50 per child up to $975 for a family, or 2% of household income above the threshold to file a tax return for your filing status. In 2016, this will rise to $695 per adult and $347.50 per child up to $2,085 for a family, or 2.5% of your household income -- so it is important to sign up during the open enrollment period. Every month without suitable insurance coverage incurs one month's worth of the penalty.

To verify your status, you will receive a 1095 form -- either A, B, or C depending on the source of your insurance. 1095-A forms are supplied by the federal exchange and are necessary to fill out tax forms if you purchased coverage through the exchange. Insurers provide 1095-B forms, while employers supply 1095-C forms. Neither B nor C forms are necessary for you to fill out your taxes.

*Premium Tax Credit -* This is another name for the subsidies that help low-income families who purchased health care through healthcare.gov. The subsidies are tax credits that can be taken when you file your tax return or taken in advance and sent to your insurance provider to help with the premium costs.
If you take the premium tax credit in advance, it will be based on an estimate of your income for the year as well as your family size. If things change during the year such as the birth of a child, divorce, loss of a job, or an increase in salary, the actual subsidy for which you qualify will be different from what you have received. You could end up owing on your taxes effectively to refund an excess subsidy. Notify the exchange as soon as any of these changes takes place to limit the effect on your taxes.
*Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) -* To partially pay for ACA provisions, a 3.8% surtax was added to various earnings on investments above $250,000. This has subtle implications for wealthier taxpayers. The calculations are not at all straightforward. See the IRS webpage "Questions and Answers on the Net Investment Income Tax" for details.
*Medicare Tax -* Further funding for Obamacare is provided by an increase in the Medicare tax on higher-income taxpayers who earn $250,000 with married filing jointly status that took effect in 2013. (Limits are $125,000 if married filing separately or $200,000 if filing single). For those with incomes beyond that mark, a 0.9% tax was added to the employee component of your tax contribution (the employer's portion does not change).Other changes are to come, such as the "Cadillac Tax" on health care spending beyond a prescribed upper end on health insurance plans starting in 2020. The rules change often, so keep an eye out for future tax impacts of the ACA.Verify your web searches with multiple sources, as the articles at the top of your search may not have the most recent information.

Keep on top of the tax ramifications of the ACA, and you will be less likely to receive nasty surprises at tax time. You wouldn't want an unexpected tax bill to trigger a need for medical care!

This article was provided by our partners at moneytips.com

To Read More:Cadillac Tax DebateChanging Jobs Under The Affordable Care ActNew 2016 Tax Laws

Photo ©iStock.com/dina2001

-- 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 3 hours ago.

The case, heard last week, tests the religious liberty claims against the Obamacare mandate for birth control in all health insurance plans. Reported by NPR 34 minutes ago.

Washington D.C., Mar 29, 2016 / 04:42 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked for parties in the Little Sisters’ case to submit alternative means, if possible, of ensuring contraceptive coverage while maintaining religious freedom.

“This is an excellent development. Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters' concern that the government's current scheme forces them to violate their religion,” Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters, stated on Tuesday.

The Court instructed both the plaintiffs in the case – the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Archdiocese of Washington, the group Priests for Life, and several Christian colleges – and the administration to submit supplemental briefs answering whether employees can receive contraceptive coverage while maintaining the religious freedom of the employers who object to providing such coverage. If a way exists, the brief should explain how it works.

At the heart of the case Zubik v. Burwell is the administration’s mandate that employers provide cost-free coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and drugs that can cause abortions, and the so-called “accommodation” offered to objecting non-profit employers.

This accommodation involves the employer sending the government a form stating its objection to providing the coverage. The government notifies their insurer (or third-party administrator for self-insured parties) of their objection and the insurer provides the coverage separately.

The plaintiffs like the Little Sisters – as well as many other non-profits – argue that this still forces them, under threat of heavy fines, to cooperate with practices they believe are immoral.

They say they are still facilitating access to these drugs in their health plans by sending the form to the federal government because they know the coverage will ultimately be provided. Furthermore, they argue the government is unlawfully “hijacking” their health plan which is between them and their insurer.

Meanwhile, the administration argues that contraception coverage in employer health plans is in the common interest and that any other method of the government separately providing this coverage on the public exchanges or through Medicaid or Medicare would be insufficient to achieve the universal coverage that Congress envisioned in its health care law.

An alternative method – if it exists – of ensuring the contraceptive coverage while not implicating objecting parties in facilitating access to this coverage should be found, the Court stated Tuesday.

“The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners,” the order stated.

“For example,” it added, “the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds.”

“Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees.”

The insurer, aware that the employer has a religious objection to the coverage, would then take care of setting up “cost-free contraceptive coverage” for the employee independent of cost to the employer and independent of the employer’s health plan.

The order comes after oral arguments in the case took place at the Supreme Court on March 23. The question of an alternative method being possible was raised during the arguments by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked if any “acceptable” method of “notification” existed for objecting employers while ensuring that women still receive “contraceptive coverage.”

“I'm asking whether there's any accommodation that would result in the women employees getting contraceptive coverage seamlessly through an employer-¬based plan that you would find acceptable,” Justice Kagan asked Noel Francisco, who was arguing for the petitioners.

“Your Honor, possibly so, possibly not,” he replied, adding that “we've not been offered that kind of alternative to consider.” The “more distance” there is between the objecting employer and the contraceptive coverage, he added, the “less problematic” it would probably be for the plaintiffs.

Justice Kagan followed up, asking what scenarios might exist with an “acceptable” distance.

“Enough distance is we file the notice of objection, and the government furthers its interest in the same way it furthers its interest with respect to all of the other employees who don't get coverage from an employer-¬based plan,” Francisco replied, referring to the large corporations like Visa and PepsiCo that are exempt from the contraceptive mandate because their pre-existing health plans have been “grandfathered” in to the law’s regulations.

Another scenario Francisco floated would be if the government paid for an “uber-insurance policy” where one carrier provided all the mandated contraceptive coverage and the plaintiffs used that carrier without having to notify them of their objection. The coverage would be provided separately.

He concluded that “it's quite clear that the government has alternatives because it's the same alternatives that it uses for everybody else. And if all of those alternatives are fine with them, they at least need evidence explaining why they're not fine for us as well.”

  Reported by CNA 1 day ago.

WASHINGTON -- The landmark health care reform law known as Obamacare appears to be succeeding in its twin goals of extending health coverage to the uninsured and enabling people to access life-saving treatments.

But this humanitarian success also underscores the newness and fragility of the remade health insurance market, as a new report issued Wednesday by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association shows. The customers who flocked to the exchanges are sick and are using a lot of medical care, a trend that could jeopardize Obamacare's gains by destabilizing the health insurance system.

Greater access to health care for people with pre-existing conditions who were shut out of the old market and those whose low incomes made health insurance too expensive before the Affordable Care Act's subsidies became available in 2014 was one of the core goals of the law President Barack Obama enacted six years ago.

And health insurance exchanges are growing, with nearly 13 million enrolled as of Jan. 31, when the most recent sign-up period ended. Subsidized coverage from these marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare in 31 states and the District of Columbia are the main reasons why an estimated 20 million more people have health insurance this year than before the Affordable Care Act became law and the uninsured rate declined to a historic low.

But the sicker population making up these exchange marketplaces doesn't seem to be getting balanced out by healthier customers who pay into the insurance risk pool without drawing down as much in benefits. Absent that balance, health insurance companies will raise rates further in future years to cover their costs, which could price out consumers -- especially those who are healthy and who need coverage least and thus are the least costly to insure.In key respects, this shouldn't be surprising, and reflects the dire need for health care access that persisted in the pre-Obamacare health care system.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies could turn away people with pre-existing medical conditions, offer them coverage that cost much more than for healthier people, or sell them a policy that expressly didn't cover health problems with which they'd been diagnosed.

Others were among the ranks of the uninsured because they couldn't afford health insurance, and being poor is associated with being less healthy. And people in both categories may have had ailments that weren't discovered until they gained coverage and visited medical providers.

"We're seeing here the consequences of a very complex insurance system and the fact that now, people who need the care have a chance to find the care," said Donald Berwick, a physician who founded the Massachusetts-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement who now serves as president emeritus and senior adviser.

In the insurance business, it's referred to as "adverse selection" when a disproportionate share of expensive customers sign up. Given that the purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to enable more Americans to get health care, Berwick suggested another way of looking at it.

"We call it 'adverse selection.' You might call it 'proper selection,' because people who need the care are getting the care," said Berwick, who led the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2010 and 2011 during Obama's first term and oversaw early aspects of Affordable Care Act implementation.

"What would we want other than that? Would we want these people not to be getting insurance? Of course not. They're the people who need it the most," he said. Berwick had not read the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association report, which the industry group shared with news organizations under an embargo in advance of its publication Wednesday.


Would we want these people not to be getting insurance? Of course not. They're the people who need it the most.
Donald Berwick, former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Still, covering all those people and paying for their medical expenses is a financial burden on insurance policyholders and on taxpayers who finance Obamacare's health insurance premium tax credit subsidies, which will cost $43 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a Chicago-based entity that licenses the Blue brand to insurers that cover 8.9 million people in 46 states and the District of Columbia, reviewed those companies' claims data from 2014 and 2015 to conclude there's something different about the new entrants to the insurance system.

The organization found that people with Obamacare coverage are more likely to have chronic medical conditions like HIV, Hepatitis C and diabetes than the customer based they served before Obamacare.

Naturally, these customers in the so-called individual market -- comprising the exchanges and people who buy directly from an insurance company or through a broker -- are going to doctors, hospitals, emergency rooms and pharmacies more, too. Average monthly costs per enrollee rose in 2015 above where they were in 2014, suggesting the trend isn't abating.

The inability of large players in the insurance industry to make a profit on the health insurance exchanges has raised questions about whether the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate creates a strong enough incentive for healthy people to enroll and whether the price of exchange coverage is too high, especially for those whose incomes are too high to qualify for financial assistance or who are eligible for only small subsidies.These findings are consistent with the financial losses reported by companies including UnitedHealth Group, Anthem, Aetna and Health Care Service Corp. on their exchange business. UnitedHealth Group has publicly weighed pulling out of these marketplaces, and several insurers have cut or halted fees to insurance brokers who send them new customers as a way to reduce their exposure.

"There's no question there's a problem. If this persisted, the individual market would become more unstable," Berwick said.

"It's a problem we need to solve in the context of seeking universality, not in the context of throwing that idea away," he said. "Where do we want go as a nation? Backward, so that these people with diabetes and chronic diseases again find themselves adrift?"

The association's report doesn't include calls for changes to federal policy, but Fox emphasized insurers are concerned the Obama administration isn't doing enough to prevent people from gaming the system by using so-called special enrollment periods -- intended for consumers in situations such as moving to a different state or getting married --  to sign up for coverage only after they become ill. 

Federal authorities have narrowed the circumstances when these special enrollment periods can be used and begun to require documentation, but insurers don't think the new standards are strict enough, Fox said.

The government, insurers and medical providers need to work faster at remaking the health care delivery system itself to reduce waste, promote efficiency and better coordinate care, especially people with chronic conditions, Berwick said. The Obama administration has made some strides in these areas using authorities provided by the Affordable Care Act, but whether its initiatives will succeed on a large scale remains an unknown.

Private insurers are taking similar steps, Fox said, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association report emphasizes the importance of programs that encourage patients to keep track of their medical conditions.

Because so many of the people who signed up for Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 2014 and 2015 are new to health insurance, companies must do better at consumer education and assistance for patients to encourage them, for example, to seek care at a doctor's office rather than a hospital emergency department, Fox said.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.

Investment bank seeks an experienced insurance deal-maker to lead its insurance capital advisory practice.

Seattle, Washington (PRWEB) March 30, 2016

InvestmentBank.com, a division of Merit Harbor Group, LLC, has initiated a search for an experienced insurance investment banker to lead its insurance capital advisory practice. The desired candidate will be someone with the expertise, experience and leadership required to oversee the firm’s established insurance investment banking team whose clients include property, casualty, life and health insurance firms.

In 2015, after many years of slow growth, mergers and acquisition activity started to pick up again across the insurance industry. Indeed, 2015 was the most active year ever for M&A activity in the insurance sector. It also represented a significant spike in activity over 2014 when total deal values where 37% lower. “The insurance industry is experiencing major growth at the moment, and this is why we are looking for a senior advisor to lead and expand our insurance practice,” says Nate Nead, Director of InvestmentBank.com. Nead adds, “While there are several factors driving merger and acquisition activity in the insurance industry at this time, global investment the most obvious driving force. In 2015, a growing number of foreign investors, especially in China and Japan, started to invest in US-based insurance firms.” For this reason, InvestmentBank.com’s ideal candidate to lead its insurance capital advisory practice is someone with a solid background advising on M&As and someone with specific experience supporting foreign investors, including but not limited to those in the Asian market.

In addition to its insurance capital advisory practice, InvestmentBank.com has divisions focused on oil, gas and electricity, software and technology, shipping and logistics, and real estate. InvestmentBank.com offers a full suite of services to its clients from raising capital and providing buy-side and sell-side M&A assistance to supporting public offerings and succession planning. Its insurance capital advisory practice is known for its transactional and technical expertise and established network, which includes top insurance firms across the nation. “Closing deals in the insurance industry, especially in the current market, can be complex,” says Nead, “We offer expert advice based on our substantial industry experience, which includes a strong track record of closing high value deals. Whoever joins our team at this time will have the experience and leadership required to continue growing this part of our operation.”

About InvestmentBank.com
A subsidiary of Merit Harbor Group, LLC, InvestmentBank.com is an investment bank for mergers and acquisitions, working across the middle market. Based in the United States but with a global reputation, InvestmentBank.com has offices in Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, Princeton, Las Vegas and Chicago. The firm’s experienced advisors provide clients’ with strategic advisory on selling companies, expansion through acquisitions and raising capital. InvestmentBank.com works across sectors including healthcare, oil and gas, real estate, consumer goods, media, software, web-based enterprises and the insurance industry. Reported by PRWeb 17 hours ago.

Being attentive and completing thorough research before hiring a landscape contractor provides necessary protection to homeowners.

Bedford Park, Illinois (PRWEB) March 30, 2016

“Hiring a landscape contractor can give a homeowner the professional help needed when dealing with the area surrounding their home," began Dave Schroer, President, Hallberg Commercial Business Insurance and Group Health (Hallberg Commercial). “Selecting a landscaper, whether it is for weekly lawn maintenance or an exterior home beautification project, requires spending time upfront researching a contractor. In addition to budget, focus on factors such as ensuring the landscaper has the proper licenses, insurance and customer service track record.”

Hallberg Commercial provides the following tips for hiring a landscape contractor:

1.     Seek referrals and ask for references. Consumers should talk to friends, family members, or neighbors whose landscape they admire and ask for a referral. The Better Business Bureau and local business chambers are excellent resources to find a landscaper in the area that is accredited, in good standing, and has little to no complaints. Ask the landscaper to provide a list of references from previous jobs. Ask the reference about their experience, if the job was done to satisfaction, and if the estimated cost reflected the final cost.

2.     Check for documentation. It is important to first ensure the landscaper has an up-to-date business license and proper business insurance for a Landscaper. When hiring a contractor to perform work, it is important to always ask for proof of insurance. Business Insurance for a Landscaper should cover General Liability Coverage, Commercial Vehicle Coverage, Commercial Equipment Coverage and Workers Compensation Coverage. Selecting a landscaper that possesses the necessary insurance coverage reflects that they are proactively focused on properly protecting their business, employees and equipment, as well as the customers they will serve.

3.     Get at least three estimates. Have each landscaper provide a written estimate on what the desired job requires. The estimate should include a specific list of all materials being used, equipment needed, and completion timeframe. Landscapers with more experience or that use higher quality materials may charge more for the job. Make sure you have a clear understanding of the materials each contractor is proposing to be used.

4.     Find a company that cares about customer service. Investigate the landscaper’s company policy on redoing work that does not meet the customer’s satisfaction. Make sure the landscaping maintenance service is willing to fix mistakes and are willing to go the extra mile to ensure superior customer service.

5.     Get everything in writing. Once you hire landscaper, even if it is for weekly lawn maintenance, make sure all of the details of the job are included in a written contract. Read everything thoroughly before signing.

About Hallberg Commercial Business Insurance and Group Health:
Headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois, Hallberg Commercial Business Insurance and Group Health (Hallberg Commercial) was founded in 1986 to provide commercial insurance and risk management consultation to small businesses in the Chicagoland area. Hallberg Commercial has direct contracts with a variety of regional and national property and casualty companies, and access to all major health insurance markets. Our arsenal of insurance markets makes partnering with Hallberg Commercial the best choice for your business insurance and risk management strategy. Hallberg Commercial has extensive experience in tailoring a wide range of business insurance products to the individual needs of each business. Hallberg Commercial has consistently grown over the past 20 years to become a predominant agency in the Midwest. The Hallberg Commercial Benefits Team will provide every resource needed to give your company a competitive edge, while securing the best possible coverage at the best possible premium. Hallberg Commercial agents have the experience, knowledge and contacts needed to represent your company to the Group Health Benefits Market Place. Hallberg Commercial Business Insurance and Group Health, 120 W. 22nd Street #101, Oak Brook, IL 60523-1557, (630) 574-2022, http://www.hallbergcommercial.com. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.

Bruce Feinstein, Esq., a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Queens, discusses top five ways to prepare for divorce to make the process easier and more financially manageable.

Queens, NY (PRWEB) March 30, 2016

Divorce can help struggling couples regain their independence, but it is not without its pitfalls. And the physical and financial repercussions of divorce can be harder on women than men. A recent Duke University study of over 15,000 people found that “women who had been divorced once were 24% more likely to have a heart attack. Women divorced at least twice were 77% more likely to have a heart attack.”

Men, on the other hand, were found to have an increased heart attack risk only if they have divorced two or more times, and remarrying negated the higher heart attack risk. These health risks for women led Bruce Feinstein, Esq., a divorce and family law attorney in New York with nearly 20 years experience, to shed light on ways women can prepare for divorce. “For many couples, divorce is the only reasonable option, so it’s especially important for women to come into this life change properly prepared for the financial and emotional changes involved,” says Mr. Feinstein. “If we can empower women with the tools they need during the divorce process in New York, we can help them transition into this next phase of their lives.”

Mr. Feinstein is sharing top five ways women can prepare for divorce in New York. Divorce can disproportionally impact women’s income, insurance, credit standing, and more, so Mr. Feinstein is helping his clients understand these issues and how they can affect them. The first step is to choose the proper legal counsel. Using a lawyer who is properly versed in family law can help women get a better settlement for them and their families. “An experienced family law attorney in New York will know the details of alimony, custody, visitation, and other legal issues that can come up in the divorce process,” explains Mr. Feinstein. “It may also be helpful to hire a financial planner if both spouses have more complicated combined assets like a shared business. This will ensure that both key issues - finances and family - are covered.”

The second issue at hand is joint finances. Mr. Feinstein recommends that women prepare as much financial information as possible before the divorce proceeding. This can include obtaining details of financial institutions, bank account information, investments, and savings. “It’s often not enough for a spouse just to know that ‘X’ amount is in ‘X’ account. Save information on account numbers, passwords to online banking, and which accounts have automatic payments. But don’t obtain information illegally; consult your divorce attorney if you have questions about the proper actions to take,” says Mr. Feinstein.

The next step is anticipating unexpected costs. These may arise while gathering financial information, or pop up during the divorce proceeding. For example, a spouse may remove his wife from his health insurance plan, passing on an additional cost or health insurance penalty to the other spouse. One way to avoid unforeseen expenses is to request a one-time payment outside of alimony. This can cover added costs before alimony payments begin, and relieve unneeded stress during a delicate transition period.

Moving into the more emotional aspects of divorce, Mr. Feinstein warns against trying to hurt an ex-spouse. Emotions are raw during a divorce, and taking things into ones own hands often seems like a way to feel more powerful or gain back control. “A woman may want to expose a spouse’s philandering to his boss, but if he gets fired then both spouses – and their children – are affected by the financial loss. Even taking your emotions to social media may seem harmless, but they become permanent, public displays of aggression that children and family members can read,” says Mr. Feinstein.

Finally, Mr. Feinstein underlines the complicated reactions children have to divorce. Parents need to monitor the actions of their children during the divorce in order to understand how they are coping, and then take the appropriate steps needed to help them adjust to this new life. Younger children may regress into childlike behavior, while adolescents may react with anger or rebellion. Children often feel responsible for the breakup even if they are told they are not the cause. Mr. Feinstein recommends addressing issues early on as a family unit. This way, children can talk about issues together. He also suggests taking extra steps without singling out children. He says, “It may be helpful to inform a child’s teacher of divorce to help monitor changes in behavior. But don’t feel the need to start therapy immediately. Doing so can make the child feel singled out.”

The Law Offices of Bruce Feinstein has nearly two decades of experience in divorce and family law, helping clients and families resolve their issues and move forward with their lives. If you are thinking of getting married or divorced and want more information visit feinsteindivorcelaw.com or call (718) 475-6039 to reach the New York office.
### Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.