Independence Blue Cross, the Philadelphia region’s largest health insurance, has added a new executive who will focus on supporting the needs of the growing aging population in southeastern Pennsylvania. Dr. Heidi J. Syropoulos, who specializes in geriatric medicine, was hired to serve as medical director of government markets. Government markets is an area within Independence that focuses on medical offerings, prescription drug coverage, and special state-subsidized programs for Medicare recipients. Her… Reported by bizjournals 15 hours ago.

Taavi Kotka is the government of Estonia's chief information officer. One of his responsibilities is the ongoing development of eGovernance, Estonia's sophisticated system of public digital services. When asked, he will tell you emphatically, "eEstonia is the way we refer to our eGovernance system. If you want to talk about eEstonia, I am the right guy!"

Mr. Kotka's official title is deputy secretary at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. He plays a key role in information technology and new digital services for the benefit of Estonian society. He says that the work he does for eGovernance involves "finding new paths where there is no previous experience. No one else in the world has ever done it."

He may well be right.

Far from the traditional centers of high-tech innovation, Estonia is a pioneer in the development and implementation of integrated digital government services. A small, young northern European country on the Baltic Sea, Estonia shares borders with Russia to the east and Latvia to the west. Now a democratic republic, it was once part of the Soviet empire but became independent in 1991 as the Soviet Union faltered and fell.

Estonia has created one of the most successful systems of its kind in the world, offering its people streamlined, online access to services in healthcare, education, banking, elections and business. With a vision as bold and brash as the engineers and government officials who created its Information Technology infrastructure, Estonia brings a degree of integration to its online administrative offerings unmatched anywhere else in the world.

Here is an example of integration at a very practical level, involving medical and administrative digital services: When applying for a driver's license, individuals must pass a medical examination. The results of the exam are automatically sent to the department of transportation, and if the individual is deemed physically able to drive, the doctor signs off electronically. In addition, in the spirit of transparency, the individual can see in his or her data online and see that the doctor has shared the medical decision with Transportation officials.

Estonia's technological achievement impacts many aspects of everyday life, but it is best viewed in two main areas: eGovernance - the administration of government services and regulations; and eHealth - the digital joining together of patients, their medical records, their doctors, hospitals, and other health care professionals.

*eGovernance*

Estonia, according to Kotak, is creating a nation without borders. To this end, the country allows a measure of citizenship to foreigners living anywhere in the world. The program is called eCitizenship, and benefits to eCitizens include making it easier to start a business or open a bank account. eCitizenship provides access to many other government services, but not voting. Kotak describes eCitizenship as a "digital identity" supported with fingerprint and facial recognition security features. Individuals attempting to create a false identity, however, need not apply - "we authenticate the person on a high level compared to what the bank is doing. We are more secure."

A key component of digital identity in Estonia is the electronic personal identification card. Every citizen is issued a card, and government mandates its use. Artur Novek, implementation manager and architect at the Estonian eHealth Foundation, explains its use: "Wherever I need identification, I can show this card. It has a chip that I can use for electronic services and to identify myself safely." Users are required to enter their PIN (personal identification number) when using the card to access services.

Adds Novek, "I lose my card, nothing happens because the person has to know the pin to use it. I can close down this card. I can call the police to do so." He notes that individuals also apply for the card at the police department.

According to Novek, almost everyone in Estonia uses the identification card. With one million three hundred thousand citizens the nation boasts one million two hundred thousand card users. About twenty percent of the population will use the card on a given day.

A seemingly revolutionary idea, eCitizenship, along with many other innovations, has been invented and implemented in an effort to solve the many problems facing Estonia. Taavi Kotak says, "Estonia's economy is decreasing. We have a negative birth rate. Our population is yearly decreasing by five thousand people. At the same time, we always want to be wealthier and catch up with Sweden and Finland."

eCitizenship is an attempt to encourage new people to come to Estonia, grow the population, and find new trade partners. "Immigration", Kotak asserts, is not the solution. "No one wants to come to Estonia. They either go to Sweden or Norway, because of social benefits. Estonia has no benefits, so it is an obvious choice. We have a limit [one thousand two hundred] on how many immigrants can come to Estonia every year and we never reached that limit."

The goal, he says is to increase the population up to ten million. He believes that by doing so, Estonia's Gross Domestic Product will double. One specific digital innovation cited by Kotak that has helped Estonia's bottom line is the ability of the government to track sales, a program resulting in millions of Euros in revenue flowing into the government's coffers. Through the system, companies declare all sales and purchases over one thousand Euros: "The companies gave all their business secrets to the government. This shows the maturity of the companies and the information culture in Estonia."

Kotak admits, however, that fraud still exists to some degree in cash businesses. "Cash is a problem. We use this system for sums over one thousand Euros. Taxi drivers and hairdressers are not over one thousand Euros. We let them be. Today, most people pay with credit card. We plan to introduce a cash free society."

Another benefit to the economy is the effect of transparency that the eGovernance system promotes. "There is no corruption in Estonia," claims Kotak. Technology, he believes, prevents corruption throughout the country.

Over time, Estonians have learned to trust the eGovernance system because they have seen the results of participation. Getting things done is much easier - even to the extent that, as Kotak tells us, no queues exist in the country. Imagine going to the DMV for a driver's license and not having to wait in line! Estonians have become comfortable with eGovernance, as have entrepreneurs who have seen it working well in the private sector, with eBanking, Facebook, and Instagram. One feature of the system that Kotak believes puts Estonia far ahead of most countries is the practical use of digital signatures for signing off on documents such as applications, medical reports, and business agreements. In fact, according to Kotak, digital signatures have become so commonplace in Estonia that, "If you approach an Estonian with a business contract in paper, they are suspicious. It's all digital. I only sign physically when I have contracts with foreign companies. The rest of Europe has not seen the benefits of digital signatures. They have only seen governments struggling to spend money on huge reforms."

*eHealth*

eHealth is the other major initiative in Estonia's system of integrated digital government services. eHealth focuses on the collection and maintenance of patient records, the processing of digital prescriptions, and the collection of health data. The largest eHealth project by far is the electronic health records system. All healthcare providers are required to send medical reports to the system, and the system is accessible to all providers and patients.

eHealth is an outgrowth or extension of the eGovernance system. According to Dr. Ain Aaviksoo, deputy secretary general for eServices and Innovation, Ministry of Social Affairs, and a key player in the strategic development of eHealth, Estonia already had six years of experience with digital services in 2008 when eHealth was introduced. Individuals were already filing their taxes and doing their banking electronically. To the already existing system, engineers added secure logins and IDs.

Initially, just one hospital connected into the system. Others followed, and by 2012 about ninety five percent of inpatient care was covered - plus forty percent of outpatient care. There is less participation, however, among small-scale providers, such as small dental practices where the investment in technology may be prohibitive.

"We built a system based on trust and transparency," says Dr. Aaviksoo. "The public controls their personal data....Users can see who has accessed their data. Users see the name of their doctor or the police officer who has viewed their data. That transparency gives Estonian citizens the feeling of security that their data cannot be misused. I would categorize the eHealth system of Estonia as a trustworthy entity."

He is also certain that patients have developed confidence in the efficacy of the system. Patients now naturally assume that their physicians will have all the medical information they need about them readily available, including the reports of previous visits, detailed diagnoses, visits to any other medical facilities, lab test results, radiology test results, and more. Indeed, doctors can see everything that has been recorded about a patient, and patients and doctors can now base their conversations on the same information.

eHealth stores detailed information on patients' medical procedures as well as laboratory data. Time critical information is also immediately available, including important diagnoses, allergies, recent prescriptions, main operations, and injuries. Pushing the concept of access to critical, time-sensitive information even further, a new emergency system accessible through iPads is available.

Artur Novek explains that each emergency vehicle is equipped with an iPad on which the eHealth program is run. Emergency personnel can obtain the patient records they need while still in the field, extracting information as they work with a patient. The program has been dubbed eAmbulance. The police and the firefighters use a similar system.

All information in the eHealth system is centralized and cannot be altered once the doctor digitally signs the patient record. According to Novek, some information does remain in the individual care providers' information systems. Some also remains in devices and systems not connected to the main system. And some, Novek adds, "is still on paper and in the head of the doctor." Billing information and medical images do not reside in the main system: the Estonian Health Insurance Fund collects billing information and the National Picture Archive collects medical images.

*ePrescription*

While other nations struggle with implementing a digital prescription system, Estonia has succeeded in setting up a very successful one. According to Novek, when the project began running in 2010, in spite of startup problems, over ninety percent of Estonians used digital prescriptions in the first full year of operation.

Taavi Kotka, Estonia's chief information officer, seems proudest of the digital prescriptions component of eHealth. "ePrescription impacts everybody. Everybody needs medicine at some time. In most countries, you need to go to your doctor to renew a prescription. In Estonia, you can call your doctor for a renewal. The doctor will send the prescription digitally to the pharmacy."

The high level of use of prescription is having a significant impact on society. Kotak cites research indicating that digital prescriptions can reduce the number of abortions being performed, as women needing renewals of their contraceptive prescriptions are more likely to call in their renewal requests than schedule a visit to the physician.

Kotak as observed many changes as a result of ePrescriptions: "The normal thing is that people get well in hospitals, and they do not heal at home. People lack discipline. At the hospital, there is discipline. You need to take your pills. The ePrescription system reveals undisciplined patients. The doctor can view if patients collect their prescription at the pharmacy. Previously, if the patient claimed that the medicine was not working, the doctor might double the dose."

Looking ahead, Kotak sees a time not far away when chips can be placed in every pill, and doctors can monitor every swallow. As he puts it, "If you take the pill, the chip tells the computer that the pill was taken. In the future, doctors can follow the pill. I see that this solves a problem of poor medical adherence. You cannot cheat this type of system. Not only will the doctor see this information. Your family can also remind you to take your medication."

eHealth contains a digital registration function with a central system for referrals and appointment booking. However, according to Artur Novek, usage is low. "I do not know why the hospitals show a low interest in digital registration systems. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that hospitals have their own booking systems. Hopefully in the future everyone will use the central systems."

*Data Collection*

eHealth allows for the collection and analysis of national health statistics. Data is coded and classified, with restrictions on access to the data and depersonalization of entries making it very secure and ensuring patient privacy. Researchers can then extract any statistics they need, looking at medications, diagnoses, and specific health problems. Artur Novek notes that the system's technologies are now being linked to the Estonian Genome Center where personalized medicine is being researched. Joining health care data with human genome information, and he sees a future where the success of treatments can be predicted and health outcomes improved. He adds, "In five to ten years, we may integrate healthcare statistics with environmental indicators. This can improve our predictive capability. We will be able to analyze how environmental factors impact health on a national level."

Novek believes that the next step to take is to develop and provide decision support systems to patients. Support can include recommendations about appropriate diet, exercise, and other lifestyle choices based on their current health conditions. Patients would be able to view such information in their Patient Portals. Genetic risk assessments could also be factored in to further help patients manage their health.

He is also anticipating progress in one undeveloped area of eHealth: eldercare. Novek's goal here is to integrate social care records with healthcare records. "We work to improve the information about people who live with disabilities. We try to assess their capabilities and send that information to various governmental agencies that are involved in their care." But homecare services lack automatic access to the eHealth system. Doctors of their own volition can open records and share information, he admits, much more must be done.

Dr. Aaviksoo agrees that the elderly are not yet well served by eHealth, and he believes Estonia lacks the funds to develop an eldercare system. "Today, frail elderly people are simply allocated somewhere without thinking about the funding or the responsibility. Instead, we should focus on the patients, the services that this person needs, and how to integrate the relatives." He foresees someday using technologies to avoid institutionalizing people by finding services for the elderly within their own communities.

Along with eldercare, Dr. Aaviksoo hopes for other major improvement in the functioning and uses of eHealth. "One improvement is if we prevent diseases instead of measuring how well we treat them. Another improvement is if we stop viewing patients as objects and rather see them as masters of their own health. We need high patient engagement. These changes are the measure of true successes."

*Patient Portal*

When this writer asked for a tour of Novek's own eHealth patient portal, he was happy to oblige. The portal features a very secure log-in, with keys for signature and identification. As we view his information, we see that Mr. Novek is insured, the name of his family doctor, and the fact that he has given other family members access to his patient information. He, in turn, has been granted access to his wife's information. No permission is needed, he tells us, to enter his daughters' portals. He shows us his portal's Logbook where he can see the names of everyone who has accessed his patient record.

He has the option to close down individual documents or even his whole record to doctors, but he doesn't really explain why someone would want to do that The Portal also displays details his correspondence history. It shows a request he made for some documents from his doctor, the results from an x-ray. As he explains: "I had the x-ray at the West Central Tallinn Hospital. The hospital sent my results to my family doctor. I could view these results."

Other links from the main page allow him to consent to blood transfers and organ donations. We can see the medical certificate allowing him to have a driver's license, his reported health status, active prescriptions, vaccinations, and immunizations. Inactive prescriptions are also available, dating back to 2009.

He shows us how to add commentary to his Patient Portal dashboard. For example, if he is feeling sick, he can report the symptoms to his doctor, who can then add them to his medical record.

He mentions that one thing he cannot do is book appointments with his doctor. The portal does, however, provide links to doctors' websites where he can book appointments. Nor can Novek, on his own, correct mistakes in his medical records. As a safety measure, once the patient record has been digitally signed, the information is locked. The patient must request of the doctor to change the incorrect information.

*So Far, So Fast*

How has Estonia been about to accomplish so much in so little time?

Artur Kotak has a succinct answer: "We have no legacy policy. A legacy policy is a policy that is difficult to change because it has been a policy of the past. That is something that all the Western Europe countries and the United States are struggling with."

As Dr. Aaviksoo, explains, Estonia, upon independence from the Soviet Union, was determined to leave behind the antiquated ways of the Communist system and start fresh, building a new, modern society. "In 1991, Estonia regained independence," he tells us. "At the same time, the Internet was born. The Estonina people wanted to leave everything old behind. At the same time, everything that was new was instantly considered beneficial. We skipped checkbooks for electronic banking. We skipped copper wiring. We immediately used light cable. Mobile phones were rapidly adopted.... We had the opportunity to start anew. Many people worked in the public sector with great enthusiasm.... From the beginning, we decided to integrate information technology across different departments. We did not even have different departments when we started! Everything was managed from the Office of the Prime Minister."

The public and private sectors agreed enthusiastically that building a technologically-advanced country would benefit the whole of society. The private sector, according to Dr. Aaviksoo, even paid to train citizens how to use the new eBanking system, thus opening new business opportunities for business.

Regarding the eHealth initiatives, he attributes their rapid development to the young age of Estonia's government ministers -- many people in high positions under the age of forty. With youth came the propensity for bold decisions. When he began working on eHealth, he says, "Estonia was the only place on the planet where the government could immediately start to work at a large scale."

"Today," he adds, perhaps thinking back to the days of Soviet domination, "we live in a transparent society. With eGovernance, no political party can take over the whole country."
___________________________
William A Haseltine is Cahir and President of ACCESS Health International. This article is based on interviews in Estonia conducted by Sofia Widen of ACCESS Health International with Taavi Kotka, Artur Novek, and Dr. Ain Aaviksoo. The full interviews are available on the ACCESS Health website www.accessh.org.

-- 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 12 hours ago.

Imagine you have two part-time jobs with two different employers. Each pays you about $1000 per month, so that all told you earn about $24,000 a year. Now one of your employers offers you a promotion: if you accept this offer, you will work full time, the work itself will be less menial and more fulfilling to you, and you will be paid $50,000 - over twice as much as you currently earn through your less interesting, much lower-paid part-time jobs.

You'll have to quit both of those part time jobs, true, but you won't need them any longer now that you'll have this single, better paid, more fulfilling job.

This offer seems worth accepting, doesn't it? You'll be at least as well off in all dimensions, and much better off in two out of three of them. You'll be working the same number of hours as before, but the work will be better and you will earn twice as much. What's not to like?

Now imagine you run home excitedly to tell your family about this offer. What would be the natural way to describe what has happened? Surely it will be something like this: "I got a promotion!""I've been offered a better job at higher pay!""I'm going to enjoy my work much more now, work the same hours as before, and earn more than twice as much as I've earned to this point!" That would be the natural way to describe your new offer. And it would be natural for you and your family to celebrate.

If instead one of your siblings said, "What? You're quitting your part-time jobs?! Mom, Bobby is quitting his jobs!" this would effectively be a lie. Not a "half-truth," which suggests there is some degree of honesty here. No, simply a lie.

Something like this is what seems to happen in many political speeches, debate "talking points," and even some newspaper articles that claim to compare current Presidential candidates' "tax plans" these days. Consider a recent Vox article, for example, which purports to enable you to compare "how you will fare" under candidates Trump's, Cruz's, Clinton's, and Sanders' "tax plans."

Vox tells us that the first two candidates will "cut" your taxes, while Clinton will essentially leave them the same and Sander will "add" to them. But this is essentially the case of your sibling crying out that you're "quitting your jobs" rather than switching to a better, higher paying one. It is effectively a lie, and here is why.

By far the largest part of Senator Sanders' planned expenditures as President is on a single-payer health care system - the kind of system that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton alike both have lauded, in their past, more honest days, as much more effective and efficient than our present baroque mishmash of multiple wasteful private insurers that leave cracks through which tens of millions of Americans continue to fall. By far the largest part of Senator Sanders' planned taxation, in turn - apart from that to be imposed upon Wall Street speculation and multimillion dollar inheritances - is to fund this fairer and more streamlined system of national health insurance.

Once we have this system - the kind that literally all of our peer nations have - we will of course be freed of the need to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars each month for inefficient private health insurance. Senator Sanders' proposed "tax" here, in other words, is an insurance premium. It is a cheaper premium for which we'll be exchanging a more expensive one.

Current estimates are that when you both add the new premium and subtract the old one as you must if you are being honest, the typical American will come out about $5,800 ahead every year under Senator Sanders' plan. You will in other words have both better health care and nearly $6000 more in disposable income each year.

But wait, there is more. For the Sanders plan doesn't only save individuals health insurance expenses; it saves employers those expenses as well. Here the estimate is that each employer will save on average $9,400 per employee per year on no longer necessary health insurance premiums. That's $9,400 more available to give employees wage or salary raises, invest in more productive activity, or both.

In effect, what we have here is the health insurance equivalent of the job promotion story considered above - a straightforward improvement in all dimensions, such as renders it effectively a lie simply to speak of "the tax." Doing the latter is like saying that you've only "quit" jobs in the job story, rather than exchanging two bad jobs for one good, better paid one.

Now it is true that sometimes a putative "news" story discussing these matters will tell us the essential "rest of the story" down toward the bottom. Indeed the Vox story does something like this, finally getting round to the "rest of the story" in the final couple of paragraphs. But that is no saving grace here. For the headline, the first paragraphs, and indeed the great bulk of the story convey only the false impression, not the full truth. And we all know that most people don't read to the end of these stories, and that most people form their beliefs on the basis of headlines and lead paragraphs alone.

If I published a story headlined "Hillary Clinton hasn't stopped kicking her dog," and only at the end of the story explained that the reason she hasn't stopped kicking her dog is that she never started doing so, I would effectively be slandering Clinton. Much the same is true of "tax plan" stories like Vox's. It is lying of the most despicable sort in a democracy that depends upon accurate information. And it must stop at once.

-- 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 10 hours ago.

A brand is brought to life by its character. It guides how the brand speaks, looks and behaves, and should be consistent across all communications. Below are some tips for winning with brand character to ensure consumer appeal and competitor distinctiveness.

* Think beyond the obvious*
Every category has its dominant archetype - whether that's Nurturer in baby care, or Ruler in banking. Character offers you a way to think beyond category norms to truly differentiate. Take Oscar, the new insurance start-up that aims to simplify the entire health insurance experience. The brand is operating in a Sage-dominant category and creates disruption with its dual use of Regular Guy and Innocent. Regular Guy: It's Oscar: he has a name, he talks to customers in a down-to-earth, straight-forward way. Innocent: he has a simple playfulness that makes him instantly likeable. That's character well done.

*Live the character*
When it comes to your brand, you should always be in character. It should guide the way you talk about and execute things. Take The North Face, for example. The brand is named for the coldest, most unforgiving side of a mountain and the notion of 'extremism' is implicit. This idea however, could be dramatized in many different ways - all determined by character. The brand's choice of an Explorer/ Ruler duo keeps North Face's interpretation of this idea in the realm of the radical and deliberate, and away from a more Innocent expression which could lean further towards, say, wonder.

*Dial up dial down*
Just like human beings, each character is myriad. For example, there's not one way to be a Lover - just look at Axe and Tiffany. Axe has typically (although this is definitely changing) pivoted on the physical attraction and passion angle of the archetype, whereas Tiffany (by virtue of their product line) leverages its romantic, commitment-orientated qualities. The lesson? Archetypes give you the ability to pull on different elements of character to create your own unique identity.

*Appeal to attitudes*
Character can help you appeal beyond demographics to the attitudes of your target. What does your audience look for in the things they interact with? Are they drawn to disruption? Or do they seek the secure? In what context is that true and how might it differ when it comes to your category? Take these learnings and feed directly into your character definition process. You won't regret it.

*Another lens on the competition*
Last but not least, character can also serve as another lens to keep tabs on (and ahead of) your competition - and indeed the most vibrant/ powerful brands in the market. How do they present themselves to customers - visually, verbally, in terms of the things they do? How can you differentiate in a positive way? You might say brand character is like a competitor radar OS.

-- 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 9 hours ago.

I have not always been a fan of Hillary Clinton. I grew up in a very Republican county in upstate New York, where I absorbed the language and posturing of those around me in a tiny farm town in the midst of Hillary's Senate campaign. The hatred, the vitriol, the ugliness lobber towards her, it was all quite normal within and across the many homes planting "Lazio For Senate" signs on their front lawns.

By that point in my life, I had been involved in the world of public health for quite some time, helping to initiate and finalize a grant proposal for a group called the Delaware County Ash Kickers, an anti-smoking group, and rising to serve on Governor Pataki's Adolescent Tobacco Use and Prevention Advisory Council, as the only youth voice on the committee.

At the national level, I worked hard to empower youth to take on the tobacco industry directly, via my work at the American Legacy Foundation in D.C. Along with a handful of other young activists, I was to be honored in New York for my work in public health. The keynote speaker was set to be Senator Clinton.

I was still feeling the grip of my Republican upbringing, and complained about having to meet Senator Clinton to anyone who would listen. But in the green room, Senator Clinton hugged me, and said simply, "Thank you. I am so proud of you, and the work you have done."With college came the awareness that maybe I wasn't actually a Republican after all. As I learned more about myself, my positions, the issues that mattered most to me, I realized how much I had in common with Hillary Clinton, and how many of our policy positions were completely aligned. And on the issues where we did not have total agreement, I reminded myself of something: There is no perfect politician, with whom I will forever be in lockstep.

I blame my 10th grade U.S. History teacher, Matt Roberts, for my love/hatred/obsession with politics. He guided our class through the 2000 Bush v. Gore election and subsequent Supreme Court battle in real time. Mr. Roberts was an exceptional teacher. He stoked the flames of political fascination in me, and pushed me to work hard to defend my own positions, and to make a logical and fact-based opinion count. It's a lesson I will pass onto my son Gabe as he gets older.

My love of politics stayed with me after meeting Senator Clinton, and I began to support her outwardly, much to the regret of my friends and family at home. As we approached the 2008 election season, I decided to work to elect Hillary as President.

I was proud of the work she did as First Lady, working across the aisle to expand healthcare coverage through the Children's Health Insurance Program, facilitating health care for 8 million children. As a senator, she worked to get 9/11 first responders the care that they need in the wake of a heinous terrorist attack. So in the nascent phases of her 2008 presidential primary campaign, I started a fundraising group called "Hockey For Hillary", and worked to raise as much money as possible for her campaign.

As the 2008 campaign slogged on, there was increased pressure for Hillary to drop out, to concede the race to (then) Senator Obama. I was so offended by Senator Obama's surrogates and leadership team, who were speaking daily about the mathematical impossibilities of Hillary's continued candidacy. I felt that Hillary deserved to stay in the race until the last vote had been counted, to honor those supporters across the country, like me, who had worked tirelessly on her behalf.

And in the end, Senator Clinton supported Senator Obama. I voted for Hillary in the primary contest in New Jersey. From a young Republican in a very red county, I had now cast my very blue vote for a woman to become our President. It's safe to say, when it came to Hillary, I had evolved.

And you know what? It's okay to change your mind. It's okay to think one thing, get more information, and then realize you feel a different way than you've expected. It is a sign of strength to seek knowledge and allow it to change your thinking. Evolution is the natural order of things.

I get asked almost daily by Bernie Sanders supporters how I can support Hillary for president, with her history on LGBT issues, with my husband and son sitting at home. The focus on Hillary's positions here is exclusive, and doesn't discuss in any way that Senator Sanders, too, has evolved on this issue. But I don't begrudge the senator his past non-support of same-sex marriage, because like any rational person, he's given the issue a considerable amount of thought, and is now in full support, as is Hillary Clinton. What matters most to me is that they are both on the right side of the issue now.

And so we find ourselves now looking in a mirror that feels too much like 2008, with the Clinton and Sanders campaigns working hard for every state, every county, every vote. And yes, every delegate, pledged or otherwise. Informed by the bitter taste in my mouth left by the assault of Hillary's 2008 campaign, I would never pressure the Sanders camp, or its adherents, to exit the campaign. I think it is within reasonable expectations that Bernie wants his supporters to have an opportunity to vote for him.

But friends, with the respect afforded to a candidate who represents an essential voting bloc needed to capture the Presidency, it is important that we look at the remaining states with nothing but the clearest of eyes; Bernie Sanders cannot win the nomination. I am unequivocal on this, I love Bernie Sanders. He has forced the dialogue to the left, and has pushed my candidate into solid footing for a general election; loving someone does not mean that he or she is the most qualified to be President, and it doesn't mean that the mathematics of the thing suddenly change. Love can move mountains, but it can't make one plus one equal three.

I have taken the time between the 2008 election and this one to check within myself, to be sure that my respect for Hillary has not turned to blind devotion. These reassessments are important, and prevent us from becoming the Trump people.

Recently the trend has focused on the super-delegate system, with Sanders supporters expressing outrage that these individuals are able to cast a weighted vote that isn't coupled with or married to state voting outcomes. I argue that this is the way our party has run since long before this election started, that each candidate knew the rules of the game before they sat down to play. But if we look at the voting results at this point in the election, we see that the outcomes to this point do not even warrant an argument about the super-delegate system: Hillary is pulling both the popular vote by 2.5M, with votes from marginalized groups whose voices and votes matter. It leaves me to wonder what the Sanders camp is really asking for.

Railing against a rigged system is noble, but defying the will of the popular vote and asking super-delegates to vote for you reflects an obtuse understanding that our country is a diverse one, and that comes with voting outcomes that may reflect beliefs and priorities that are different from our own. Super-delegate outrage is only appropriate if the system isn't aligned with what the public wants.

We are at a crucial intersection of ideologies in our political process, with the power the Tea Party has wrenched from the hands of well-meaning but often misguided Republicans now threatening to force upon our nation a candidate whose racist, misogynistic, xenophobic and bigoted philosophies represent the greatest threat to free-thinking democracy, national security, and economic stability that we have faced in generations.

Bernie Sanders supporters, please hear me. We need you. Not as Hillary supporters, but as supporters of the Democratic Party at what is a precipitous time in our nation's history. Our Supreme Court hangs in the balance, my very marriage, the reproductive rights of half of our population, all of this is at stake if we allow the Republicans to win this election. Why are we wasting time savaging each other over the preferences of superdelegates?

After these votes have been cast, there needs to be a coming-together of both camps. The #NeverHillary hashtag scares me so deeply, because I know this emotion, a deep indignation and a feeling of disenfranchisement. Your candidate didn't win, so you're going to sit on your hands or write-in your candidate. But this election isn't 2008. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination and Bernie does, you can bet your ass that I'm running to a voting booth in November to cast my vote for Bernie Sanders.

I urge you to defer to facts over feelings. Bernie Sanders lives in the world of facts, where income inequality isn't politicized, it is an immutable issue of numbers that do not work for folks like me and my family. Facts are basic, and they are more important than anything. It's that sense that I appeal to.

Internet memes do not a reality make. If independent committees on Benghazi have proven that Hillary isn't guilty of wrongdoing, it trumps your feeling that she did. If a reporter who has covered Hillary's career for over two decades has shown Hillary to be honest and trustworthy, it weighs more than your suspicion that she is not.

Facts matter, they do. And if we allow facts and logic to govern our actions instead of fear-mongering and lies, we are able to define a clear line in the sand between ourselves and the Republicans who seek to roll back the progress of the Obama administration, to distinguish ourselves in both principle and practice.

When I met Hillary at the beginning of her book tour for Hard Choices, I had an opportunity to finally return the gratitude that she had shown to me a decade ago. As she signed my book, I was able to look her in the eyes and say, "Madam Secretary, thank you. I am so proud of you, and the work you have done."

Here's to continued evolution.

#ImWithHer
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

There are currently more than 120,000 people on the waiting list for an organ in the United States. Twenty-two people a day die waiting.

But today, we’re taking one step forward to change that. In honor of National Donate Life Month, the President issued a Proclamation that solidifies his Administration’s commitment to shortening the organ waiting list, emphasizing that “across government, industry, academia, private organizations, and the medical and philanthropic communities, we must all do our part to lift up donors, donor families, and patients by supporting efforts to shorten the organ waiting list.”

Today’s Proclamation builds on the action this Administration has taken to improve outcomes for individuals waiting for organ transplants and support living donors.

Each year, approximately 6,000 Americans make the selfless decision to become a living organ donor, facilitating life-saving kidney and liver transplants. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, individuals who have donated organs have access to health insurance without worrying whether their donation will be considered a pre-existing condition.

The HOPE Act signed by President Obama in 2013 laid the groundwork for the first HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplants in the United States. This week, surgeons at Johns Hopkins announced that they had performed the first-in-the-world HIV-positive to HIV-positive liver transplant and the first-in-the-U.S. HIV-positive to HIV-positive kidney transplant. These medical successes will pave the way for as many as 1,000 people a year in the United States to have access to life-saving transplants that would not have been possible before.

But there is still more we can do. The vast majority of the organ waiting list is made up of people waiting for a kidney transplant. These Americans are hoping for a life-saving transplant that can add more years to their lives. In addition to the tremendous human cost, the kidney waiting list carries a huge cost to the public purse; Medicare pays more than $34 billion per year – more than the entire budget of the National Institutes of Health – to care for patients with end-stage kidney failure.

A recent transformative innovation called kidney paired donation (KPD), which pools living donors and recipients to increase the likelihood of matches, can improve this. In order to increase the number of potential transplants, the Department of Health and Human Services launched a nationwide KPD program in 2010 to build on this practice.

Drawing on the spirit of innovation that President Obama spoke about in this year’s State of the Union, seven government agencies have now invested nearly $3 billion over a 3-year period in the future of bioengineering to advance our understanding of wound repair and organ and tissue regeneration and preservation.

Part of the answer will be continuing to invest in scientific breakthroughs that redefine what is possible in bioengineering. Just a few generations ago, living without kidneys was unimaginable. But that changed thanks to Dr. Willem Kolff, a Dutch immigrant who brought his invention of the dialysis machine to the United States after World War II. As we seek to create the future we want to live in, we must harness this spirit of hard work and creativity to help shorten the organ waiting list.

Towards that end, in the coming months, senior Administration officials will host a Summit at the White House to highlight the role of innovation in organ donation and transplantation, discuss the challenges we face, and lift up commitments to meet them. As the President said in his Proclamation, “we recommit to supporting the researchers, innovators, advocates, and medical professionals working to reduce the number of people awaiting vital organ transplants.”

But there is still a simple and profound part that Americans across the country can play in this challenge to reduce the organ waiting list. More than ninety percent of Americans support organ donation, but only a fraction are registered to donate themselves. Helping ensure that more people are aware of donation opportunities is a crucial first step. To register as an organ donor or learn more, visit www.organdonor.gov.

Mary Wakefield is HHS Acting Deputy Secretary. Reported by The White House 39 minutes ago.

The Internet of Things (IoT) Revolution is picking up speed and it will change how we live, work, and entertain ourselves in a million ways big and small.

From agriculture to defense, retail to healthcare, everything is going to be impacted by the growing ability of businesses, governments, and consumers to connect to and control their environments:

· “Smart mirrors” will allow consumers to try on clothes digitally, enhancing their shopping experience and reducing returns for the retailer
· Assembly line sensors will detect tiny drops in efficiency that indicate critical equipment is wearing out and schedule down-time maintenance in response
· Agricultural equipment guided by GPS and IoT technology will soon plant, fertilize and harvest vast croplands like a giant Roomba while the “driver” reads a magazine
· Active people will share lifestyle data from their fitness trackers in order to help their doctor make better health care decisions (and capture discounts on health insurance premiums)

No wonder the Internet of Things has been called “the next Industrial Revolution.” It’s so big that it could mean new revenue streams for your company and new opportunities for you. The only question is: Are you fully up to speed on the IoT?

After months of researching and reporting this exploding trend, John Greenough and Jonathan Camhi of Business Insider Intelligence have put together an essential briefing that explains the exciting present and the fascinating future of the Internet of Things. It covers how IoT is being implemented today, where the new sources of opportunity will be tomorrow and how 17 separate sectors of the economy will be transformed over the next 20 years, including:

· Agriculture
· Connected Home
· Defense
· Financial services
· Food services
· Healthcare
· Hospitality
· Infrastructure
· Insurance

· Logistics
· Manufacturing
· Oil, gas, and mining
· Retail
· Smart buildings
· Transportation
· Connected Car
· Utilities

 

If you work in any of these sectors, it's important for you to understand how the IoT will change your business and possibly even your career. And if you’re employed in any of the industries that will build out the IoT infrastructure—networking, semiconductors, telecommunications, data storage, cybersecurity—this report is a must-have.

Among the big picture insights you’ll get from *The Internet of Things: Examining How the IoT Will Affect The World*:

· IoT devices connected to the Internet will more than triple by 2020, from 10 billion to 34 billion. IoT devices will account for 24 billion, while traditional computing devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc.) will comprise 10 billion.
· Nearly $6 trillion will be spent on IoT solutions over the next five years.
· Businesses will be the top adopter of IoT solutions because they will use IoT to 1) lower operating costs; 2) increase productivity; and 3) expand to new markets or develop new product offerings.
· Governments will be the second-largest adopters, while consumers will be the group least transformed by the IoT.

And when you dig deep into the report, you’ll get the whole story in a clear, no-nonsense presentation:

· The complex infrastructure of the Internet of Things distilled into a single ecosystem
· The most comprehensive breakdown of the benefits and drawbacks of mesh (e.g. ZigBee, Z- Wave, etc.), cellular (e.g. 3G/4G, Sigfox, etc.), and internet (e.g. Wi-Fi, Ethernet, etc.) networks
· The important role analytics systems, including edge analytics, cloud analytics, will play in making the most of IoT investments
· The sizable security challenges presented by the IoT and how they can be overcome
· The four powerful forces driving IoT innovation, plus the four difficult market barriers to IoT adoption
· Complete analysis of the likely future investment in the critical IoT infrastructure: connectivity, security, data storage, system integration, device hardware, and application development
· In-depth analysis of how the IoT ecosystem will change and disrupt 17 different industries

*The Internet of Things: Examining How the IoT Will Affect The World* is how you get the full story on the Internet of Things.

To get your copy of this invaluable guide to the IoT universe, choose one of these options:

1. Purchase an ALL-ACCESS Membership that entitles you to immediate access to not only this report, but also dozens of other research reports, subscriptions to all 5 of the BI Intelligence daily newsletters, and much more. >> *START A MEMBERSHIP*
2. Purchase the report and download it immediately from our research store. >> *BUY THE REPORT*

The choice is yours. But however you decide to acquire this report, you’ve given yourself a powerful advantage in your understanding of the fast-moving world of the IoT.

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 1 day ago.

New data from Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests that people who have enrolled in health insurance since the... Reported by Deseret News 15 hours ago.

An Amityville Village settlement offer for five former municipal officials whose village-funded health insurance was terminated earlier this year has expired with no takers, trustee Nick LaLota said. Reported by Newsday 4 hours ago.

The percentage of Georgians who don’t have health insurance has dropped slightly in recent years, in part because of the Affordable Care Act. Reported by ajc.com 2 days ago.

Reported by ajc.com 2 days ago.

Many low-income households that claim the earned income tax credit lack health insurance. That status on tax returns could provide a clue about people who would benefit from outreach. Reported by NPR 2 days ago.

Nearly a third of people without health insurance, about 10 million, live in families that received a federal earned income tax credit (EITC) in 2014, according to a new study. Reported by ajc.com 2 days ago.

Officials in Powder Springs, Ga., are considering awarding an extra day off to city workers who pass an optional fitness test. City Manager Pam Conner said the city is considering a physical fitness exam that employees on the city’s health insurance could take to receive the compensatory time off, reports Marietta Daily Journal. Mayor Al Thurman said the city is trying to help people. “Health and wellness is important for living,” Thurman said Reported by bizjournals 2 days ago.

Whether you support Bernie or Hillary, how many of you want Republicans to abolish freedom of reproductive choice?

I thought so. But here's the kicker - in much of the country, the GOP already has.

For millions of American women, freedom of choice is writ on water. And if you abandon your party's nominee, whoever that may be, millions more may suffer.

By musing aloud about punishing women once the GOP completes its relentless drive to stamp out abortion rights, Donald Trump has reminded us yet again of the stakes in this election. On the issue of choice, as with so much else, our national reckoning is now at hand and cannot be wished away.

Put simply, the President who selects Antonin Scalia's successor will determine the future of reproductive rights. That is not hyperbole - it is already graven on the American landscape.

Start with access to a safe and legal abortion. For the less privileged women in most American states, this right is close to extinction.

Across the country abortion clinics are closing at a record pace. A little over 700 remain - 43 years after Roe versus Wade, 90% of American counties have no clinics at all. In a large swath of red states 400,000 women of reproductive age live more than 150 miles from the nearest clinic. Five states - Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming - have just one.

So how did this happen?

A principal cause is GOP - sponsored state laws which shut down clinics by imposing unnecessary and onerous requirements. Some mandate prohibitively expensive renovations so that clinics resemble hospitals for no good reason - broader hallways, for example. Others demand that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital- difficult at best, and impossible in areas where the hospital refuses.

If these laws are upheld by the Supreme Court, the impact will not simply be to cement them, but to encourage the GOP to expand their reach into yet more states. And the obliteration of choice will proceed apace.

The transparently bogus rationale for such laws is the tender concern of Republican legislators for women's' health. Yet abortion is one of the safest of all medical procedures, with a complication rate below 1/10 of 1%. By comparison, a routine colonoscopy is riskier. Oddly enough, there is no crusade within the GOP to stem the nightmare of colonoscopy.

The real agenda, of course, is finding a palatable rationale for gutting Roe versus Wade. After the passage of one such law, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas tweeted a map of all the clinics which would have to close, capped with an exultant message: "We fought to pass S. B. 5 thru the Senate last night, & this is why!"

Less exultant were the poor or rural women denied access to a safe abortion. In the name of womens' health, Republicans give these women three choices - bear unwanted children, travel sometimes prohibitive distances, or run the risk of an illegal abortion. One does not have to be a keen observer to fear for women when Republicans start protecting them.

One very keen observer - a distinguished Republican federal judge - has sliced through the hypocrisy.

Judge Richard Posner is a renowned conservative legal scholar. As a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, he was faced with a similar law from Wisconsin, requiring doctors at abortion clinics to obtain admitting privileges at hospitals within a 30 mile radius - and to do so in three days. In an opinion striking down the law, Posner shredded the pretense that the Republican legislature was protecting women's health:

"Wisconsin," Posner writes, " appears to be indifferent to complications of any other outpatient procedures, even when they are far more likely to produce complications than abortions are." The alleged health concerns, he finds, are in fact "nonexistent." In contrast the impediments to abortion are very real: " [M]ore than 50% of Wisconsin women seeking abortions have incomes below the federal poverty line... For them a round trip to Chicago... may be prohibitively expensive. The state of Wisconsin is not offering to pick up the tab, or any part of it."

He then cuts to the quick. "A great many Americans are passionately opposed to abortion - as they are entitled to be.... Some of them proceed indirectly, seeking to discourage abortion by making it more difficult for women to obtain. They may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet... the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health but rather strew impediments to abortion."

Finally, Posner eviscerates the cynical pretense behind requiring admitting privileges - the usual method used to shut down clinics. This requirement, he writes, "cannot be taken seriously as a measure to improve women's health because the transfer agreements that abortion clinics make with hospitals, plus the ability to summon an ambulance by phone call, assure the access of such women to a nearby hospital in the event of a medical emergency."

As a particularly egregious example of this legislative masquerade, Posner cites the Texas law praised by its lieutenant governor for its effectiveness in shutting down clinics. Which brings us back to the judicial stakes in this election - the constitutionality of that very law is now before the United States Supreme Court.

The law reduced the number of clinics in Texas from 40 to 10, all clustered in four metropolitan areas. No clinics are located west or south of San Antonio, an area larger than California. Yet despite - or perhaps because of - the fact that it places abortion out of reach for women in most of Texas, a conservative panel of federal appeals judges upheld the law. After all, the court said, women in West Texas could always travel to New Mexico.

But the context for this law makes its impact even worse. Other Texas laws require most women to get a sonogram at least 24 hours prior to an abortion, from the same doctor, and require all abortions past 16 weeks to be done in surgical centers - the nearest of which is in San Antonio. Ironically, the inevitable overcrowding of those clinics which remain has caused delays which, in some cases, mean that women seeking an abortion pass the 16 week deadline - a nasty Republican Catch -22.

The legal test for such laws is clear: whether they impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion under Roe versus Wade. Obviously, they do - as the Texas law exemplifies, their impact is not simply "undue", but draconian.

Yet at the hearing before the Supreme Court, the justices appeared to be divided 4 -4, with the four Republican justices - Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy - in favor of upholding the law. Such a tie will leave Texas' anti- choice scheme in place. And had Scalia lived, there is no doubt that the court's ruling would have protected such laws in every state which has passed them - including the Wisconsin law struck down by Judge Posner. As matters stand, freedom of choice for millions of American women hangs in the balance, awaiting the selection of the court's ninth justice.

There could be no better illustration of how critical it is that a Democrat appoint Scalia's successor. Yet this same term provides another example - a case which threatens to limit access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act.

Under a prior ruling of the Roberts court, an employer can claim a religious exemption to the ACA's mandate to provide contraception as part of an employee's health insurance plan. To opt out, all the employer need do is notify the Department of Health and Human Services that it will not subsidize a plan that offers contraception. At that point, the government can require the insurer to offer contraception using funds not derived from the employer who objects.

One would think this would satisfy employers who object to contraception. Not so. Seven religiously affiliated employers brought suit challenging this compromise, claiming that being required to opt out of providing contraception in itself violates their religious freedom. Or, more starkly, that their concept of religious freedom entitles them to block the government and their insurance company from providing contraception to their employees.

Remarkably, the Supreme Court hearing made it clear that the same four Republican justices agree. Their sole concern was Orwellian: that by requiring the employers to opt out of providing contraception, the ACA was making them complicit in the provision of contraception by others.

This narrowness of view was truly striking. Instead of focusing on a woman's right to contraception, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy accused the government of "hijacking" the objectors' insurance plans. In the name of "religious freedom", the four justices would empower the objectors to impose their religious beliefs on others- a dangerously elastic concept with implications well beyond the present case.

Again, Scalia would have been the fifth. And, again, the resolution of this issue may well depend on who appoints his successor - though a subsequent order suggests that the court is searching for an alternative to let itself, and the religious objectors, off the hook of a tie vote which would effectively uphold the opt out. Whatever the case, it is clear that a Republican president can not only narrow a woman's access to abortion, but to contraception, simply by restoring the court's conservative majority.

But the long-term impact could be even more severe. For both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, repealing Roe is an explicit litmus test for appointing the next justice. Indeed, Trump's recent lapsus linguae about punishing women obscures the fact that Cruz is even worse. Piously, Cruz responded that, far from prosecuting women, he would "affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world." Care for a translation? Here it is - Ted Cruz wants to impose this " gift" on the adolescent victims of rape or incest.

As if all this were not enough, the election of a Republican president would diminish reproductive rights more broadly yet, threatening women's health in the bargain. In the most obvious example, Republicans in Congress and state legislatures are attempting to hamstring Planned Parenthood by cutting off public funds to organizations that provide abortions - even though abortion is a small portion of services which include contraception, sex education, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

Without Planned Parenthood, these essential services could become scarce to unavailable. The proponents' list of supposed alternatives available to women smacks of dark comedy: for example, Florida helpfully specified elementary and middle schools, dental practices and, believe it or not, an eye doctor - leaving one to wonder whether Republican legislators require not only sex education, but anatomical instruction.

One struggles to locate any benefit to women. But that, of course, is not the point. The real point is this: the Republican Party is carrying out a fundamentalist religious agenda in which it is the father who knows best.

Thus the election of a Republican president in 2016 would erode reproductive rights and threaten Roe itself. The next president could appoint up to four new justices, transforming the law for generations to come. So it is time for us to ask again those fundamental questions which informed the battle for choice from its beginnings:

Should concern for fetal life cause us to order women to have children because their birth control has failed - the predicate for the majority of abortions?

Should religious opposition to contraception strip women of protection from unwanted pregnancies?

Should we force families to have more children when they can't support the ones they have?

Should the law require women traumatized by rape or incest to become mothers against their will?

Should we compel pregnant women in desperate circumstances to seek illegal abortions which endanger their life and health?

Should pregnant teenagers forfeit their future to an accidental pregnancy, thus becoming, as they often do, depressed and undereducated mothers with minimal parenting skills?

Should we consider a woman's life or health a fair exchange for imposing compulsory motherhood in high - risk pregnancies?

Should we take our moral cues from a movement which - far too often - seems to love our children most before they're born?

Should we, in short, treat pregnant women as losers in God's - or nature's - lottery?

And, finally, should we tacitly support the GOP's war on reproductive rights because our preferred candidate did not win the Democratic nomination?

That question - like the others - should answer itself.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

On March 24, 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report, Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026, that provides a treasure trove of information about the growth in federal spending for health insurance. Reported by Mondaq 2 days ago.

With presidential election season upon us, I think back to 2008, when then-President-elect Barack Obama asked me to join his administration to work on fixing what ailed American health care. His answer, as we would all learn, was the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Signed on March 23, 2010, the law has clearly done a lot of good, in spite of its rocky startup, two Supreme Court challenges and numerous other attempts to derail it. It has helped an estimated 20 million people gain insurance, it allowed people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' coverage and it eliminated denials of coverage due to preexisting conditions.

The ACA is not a perfect law but it is an important start to reforming our health care system. On the ACA's sixth birthday, it's worth stepping back to discuss what needs to be done to fulfill the promise of a more equitable, sustainable, accessible health care system. More people now have access to health care, but as an industry we need to continue improving upon the system they have access to.

Though by no means a complete list, there are a few crucial things that need to happen as health care leaders look to put the ACA on a sustainable path and build on the progress that has already been made.

Stabilize the risk pool
Through the first years of the ACA's health insurance marketplaces, the consumers that have signed up have tended to have higher rates of chronic disease and require more care than the general population, meaning their health care expenses have been higher than expected. This led to heavy financial losses for insurers as appropriate care is provided and paid for.

For the marketplaces to be stable and competitive, there needs to be broader participation - that is, from plenty of younger, healthier folks. From an insurer's perspective, that means developing insurance products that offer better value for consumers than simply going without coverage.

Aligning incentives
Payers, providers and patients must come together to realign the economic incentives that govern how the health care system works. For much of the last several decades, health care has operated as a fee-for-service system in which doctors and hospitals were paid more if they provided more services, regardless of whether those services led to better health results for patients. This has caused the cost of care to spiral out of control, while not significantly improving Americans' health.

Instead, our system has recognized the need to shift to alternative payment models - also known as fee-for-*value* reimbursement - in which providers, rather than being encouraged to pile on services, are incentivized to provide higher quality care with better outcomes while controlling costs.

Reduce waste
According to some estimates, overuse makes up from 10 to 30% of total U.S. health care spending. The high end of the range equates to roughly $1 trillion in money unnecessary expenditures.

There are numerous reasons for waste, among them that health care for patients is often not well coordinated between providers to avoid duplication of services.

Health care leaders should invest in data infrastructure that will allow for greater interoperability and more seamless information transfer between different parts of the health care system. For example, linking electronic health records and having them "talk" to one another will help us understand individual patients' journeys through the system, and potentially avoid duplicative care that could do more harm than good.

Leverage technology to make health care more consumer-friendly
A friend once said that if banking were like health care, customers, rather than going an ATM, would have to go to the bank vice president to draw a few dollars from their accounts.

The moral is this: certain types of technological innovation, such as telehealth and other types of virtual care, can make care much more convenient for patients and broaden access. In addition to making care more consumer-friendly, technology can make care more cost-effective while not compromising quality.

The Internet of things, including wearable devices and other connected consumer technology, can also generate huge amounts of patient data. If we as an industry know which signals to listen for and how to analyze them, the insights will help providers monitor their patients' conditions outside of the traditional medical environment. This could allow providers to more closely personalize care and direct them to intervene if necessary to avoid potentially costly complications before they develop.

Of all the positive consequences of the ACA, probably the most fundamental is that it gave a much-needed urgency to the cause of health reform. Following on the heels of ACA, for example, were additional laws like the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), which is creating a new framework for physician reimbursement that emphasizes quality, not volume.

For me, in a very real sense, it all started in 2003, when I met the man who would change my life. I had first heard then-State Sen. Obama's name from a fellow neurosurgeon, who mentioned the candidate to me as I was scrubbing in for a surgery. I met him at a small fundraiser - many of his were small back then - and immediately saw the future president's conviction for making this a better country with more opportunity for all. Those are the same ideals for which I served the country in the military, both in and out of war zones.

So I got involved. Now, as I did then, I continue to believe in the president's vision of a more equitable, sustainable, accessible health care system. As a company, Health Care Service Corporation will continue to support efforts to expand access to quality health care in the areas we serve.

-- 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 1 day ago.

If Republicans have a butt-clinching choice between Frankenstein and Dracula, Democrats face a less existential dilemma: Which version of idealism do we vote for? The one of a woman in the oval office or the one of how we think society should operate?

Tortured by the choice I've arrived at a compromise: I'm rooting for Bernie and hoping for Hillary. I'm giving money to one but voting for the other. Why? Because the best thing that could happen to progressives is a contested convention.

As the Republicans lurch toward their zombie apocalypse, a brokered Democratic convention would be a battle of ideas not personalities. Well, mostly. And it would plant the seeds of a certain Bernie-centric idealism that would take root in Democratic soil and eventually branch out across the country, whether he wins or not.

*Bernie's Hat Trick*
Bernie Sanders has pulled off the linguistic trick of the century: He's turned what were once political obscenities into acceptable language. Free tuition? "Medicare For All"? Higher taxes for a higher standard of living? Speaking these heresies would have ruined liberal politicians even just a couple of years ago, and now, thanks to Bernie, much of the mainstream is debating their merits.

* Bernie's Message Doesn't Require Bernie's Presidency*
A grassroots tipping point is more important than any individual leader, and Bernie's ideas are nowhere near a moment of critical mass (maybe in Democratic circles, but certainly not nationwide).

A plan of "free tuition" is as bold as social security, Medicare and universal health insurance. And each of those programs took between 30 and 100 years from initial public utterance to a passage-friendly tipping point.

Movements rarely manifest through any one political figure but with a groundswell of grassroots support. It starts with the articulation of a "heretical idea" and then absorbed into the mainstream as a logical solution. We are not going to get "Medicare for all" and free tuition in the next 4 to 8 years and that's why it doesn't matter whether Bernie wins the nomination.

What matters is that mainstream America adopts his vision. What matters is that we move closer and closer to that vision until the moment when it's possible for a future President Roosevelt, Johnson or Obama to sign and more importantly PASS the legislation manifesting the vision.

We can move closer and closer with or without feeling the Bern or climbing the Hillz. In the end, they are both important but not critical figures in building a shared vision of the country. What's critical is that the message be heard, adopted and seen as a viable solution. And for that to happen, we need the kind of public spectacle that comes from contested conventions, not runaway candidates.

If Hillary pulls away too quickly the conversation will fade. If Bernie catches up it'll soar. What we need is a horse race and it doesn't matter who crosses the finish line first. What matters is what the horserace illuminates.

Hillary? Bernie? Let's hope it's a tie.

The author founded the dating advice site, callmemaybe.us

-- 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 1 day ago.

Covering the most relevant topics and latest trends in the specialty pharmacy arena, Atlantic Information Services’ Specialty Pharmacy Trends and Strategies: 2016-2017 Edition also includes a directory of specialty pharmacy providers and related services.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 05, 2016

Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce the publication of Specialty Pharmacy Trends and Strategies: 2016-2017 Edition, a completely up-to-date resource providing a comprehensive overview of the current state of the specialty pharmacy industry. As hot-button issues continue to arise in the specialty pharmacy marketplace, Specialty Pharmacy Trends and Strategies is a convenient source for details on the latest management strategies and tactics. It includes coverage of:· Cost-control measures — Formulary exclusions, benefit design strategies and managing specialty drugs via the medical benefit.
· Hepatitis C drugs and PCSK9 inhibitors — Managing the ultra-high costs of hep C treatments Sovaldi, Harvoni and Viekira Pak, and the PCSK9s Praluent and Repatha.
· Biosimilars — The impact the launch of Zarxio — and controversies surrounding it — has had on the market, products in the pipeline and the debate over federal oversight.
· The 340B federal discounted drug pricing program — Reimbursement and distribution issues, as well as questions that linger despite recently proposed guidance.
· Personalized medicine — Payer coverage and FDA monitoring of genetic tests.
· Oncology management — Value-based models such as bundled payments, clinical pathways and oncology medical homes, as well as treatment strategies for managing specific cancer types.

For more information on Specialty Pharmacy Trends and Strategies: 2016-2017 Edition, including a full table of contents, visit https://aishealth.com/marketplace/specialty-pharmacy-trends-and-strategies.

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 1 day ago.

Some years ago, my mother broke her hip and was rushed for emergency surgery to Hillel Yaffe hospital in the northern Israeli town of Hadera.

Visiting her during her painful recovery, I was struck by the high number of Israeli Arab citizens working at the hospital at all levels of the staff - doctors and nurses as well as lab technicians, pharmacists and aides. They and their Jewish colleagues seemed to work very harmoniously together for the sake of their patients, regardless of age, gender, religion or ethnicity. It was an example of Israel at its best, the way it should be.

I was reminded of this when I read in the Israeli media this week that the health system for years has been "segregating Arab and Jewish mothers who come to deliver their babies, particularly in hospitals and maternity wards that serve mixed populations."

Apparently, there is no official policy to do this but nurses have been directing mothers to separate wards while doctors and hospital management have been turning a blind eye. Jewish mothers have been reportedly told in advance they would not have to share a ward with Arab mothers to entice them to give birth at particular institutions.

This opens the disturbing possibility of one level of treatment for Jews and another for Arabs. As if this were not bad enough, one of Israel's most extreme right-wing parliamentarians, Bezalel Smotrich of the Jewish Home Party, send out a tweet saying that it was only natural that his wife would not want to share a ward or a room with a woman who had just given birth to a baby who might want to murder her own baby in 20 years.

According to the Times of Israel, he then added that "Arabs are my enemies and that's why I don't enjoy being next to them."

His wife, Revital, later told an Israeli TV channel that she had "kicked an Arab obstetrician" out of the delivery room when she herself gave birth. "I want Jewish hands to touch my baby, and I wasn't comfortable lying in the same room with an Arab woman ... I refuse to have an Arab midwife, because for me giving birth is a Jewish and pure moment," she said.

Sadly, there's nothing new in viewing the maternity ward as another front in the endless war between Jews and Arabs. The two communities certainly see themselves in a demographic battle. When my own son Micha was born at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus almost 33 years ago, one of the nurses in the maternity room handed him to me with the words, "Another soldier for Israel. An officer." Quite a welcome into the world.

But Smotrich's words, and those of his wife, nevertheless, are deeply disturbing because they betray a level of hatred and racism that previously might have lurked under the surface in the minds of some but is now out in the open. Open racism is now a part of Israeli political discourse.

Israel's Health Ministry has denied operating a segregation policy, saying that "no separation on a discriminatory basis is allowed in hospitals. Health Ministry guidelines state that no separation by population is to be made -- not by race, ethnicity, country of origin or any other factor."

In fact, Israeli Arabs make a crucial contribution to Israel's health system, confirming my own anecdotal observations of the situation in Hillel Yaffe. According to a 2011 tally by the Government's civil service commissioner's office, 12.5 percent of Israel's doctors in the public health system are Arab, as are 11.3 percent of nurses. A 2015 study by Tel Aviv University indicated that Arabs account for 35 percent of all pharmacists.

They fulfill a crucial need. Although Israel is proud of offering universal health insurance to its citizens, its national health system is stretched. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Israel has half the nurses per capita as in the European Union. There is also a shortage of doctors because too many Jewish doctors are leaving the socialized health system for more lucrative work in private medicine or leaving the country.

What the whole incident points to is a growing fracturing of Israeli society, and growing and open racism in its ultra-nationalist stream - which can no longer be ignored or brushed aside.

In this case, the patient is Israel itself - and the sickness is getting worse.

-- 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 1 day ago.