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

Asian Americans Could Lose the Most from an Obamacare Repeal

$
0
0
Asian Americans may suffer the greatest loss in private health insurance coverage if the Affordable Care Act -Obamacare--is ended. The available data suggest that Asian Americans have obtained health insurance through the marketplaces created by Obamacare at a higher rate than other groups. Thus, if Obamacare were repealed, Asian Americans might see their dramatic gains in health insurance coverage reversed.

The data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey do not indicate whether the people who purchased her health insurance directly from an insurer did or did not use a marketplace established by the Affordable Care Act. However, there is reason to believe that most of the insurance purchased directly from a health insurance company from 2013 to 2014 was bought through a marketplace, or, at the very least, spurred by the implementation of the Act.

Figure A shows the rate of enrollment in directly purchased health insurance for adults by race from 2008 to 2014. Asian Americans have the highest rate. For all groups, direct-purchase insurance rates were on a downward trend until 2013, when the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act went into effect. In 2014, the rates rose for all groups, but Asian Americans' rate had the steepest growth. Figure B shows that the percentage-point increase from 2013 to 2014 for Asian Americans, at 2.5, was higher than that for of all of the other groups.

It is not clear why Asian Americans might use the Obamacare marketplaces more than other groups. It could be because of the high rate of small business ownership among this group. As small business owners, many of them may not be able to afford a company health insurance policy, but they may have enough income to purchase health insurance as individuals. Others (see here also) argue that Asian American community organizations have had particularly effective outreach on Obamacare.

Although the Affordable Care Act has provided health insurance coverage to roughly 20 million Americans, Republicans are determined to dismantle it. They received a victory last week, when a Federal District Court judge supported one of their challenges. If Donald Trump is elected president, it is likely that Obamacare will be repealed and Asian Americans will suffer a huge loss.

This post first appeared on GlobalPolicy.TV. Algernon Austin is the author of America Is Not Post-Racial: Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, and the 44th President which is the only book to analyze the 25 million Obama Haters in America.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

The Collateral Source Rule and Obamacare

$
0
0
The Collateral Source Rule is a legal doctrine holding that the damages being asked for by a plaintiff should not have payments coming from a source other than the defendant deducted from the damages the defendant would otherwise have to pay. The origins of this rule lie in the common law whereby the jury was forbidden from considering evidence of the plaintiff's health insurance in covering some of the future medical expenses emanating from the defendant's negligence.

It seems like this rule would allow the plaintiff who has health insurance to get a windfall if he wins the malpractice suit. The insurance and the defendant would both be paying for the same projected future health care costs which were due to the injuries. As a physician, this rule seems to be, on its face, unfair. A look at the history of the rule is warranted.

The Collateral Source Rule comes from common law which dates back to the nineteenth century. At that time, health insurance was rare and those that had it paid for the premiums out of their own pockets. The courts felt that there was a strong public interest in having health insurance and they did not want to penalize people who had the insurance by decreasing their medical malpractice damages by the amount paid for by the insurance. The problem with the common law was the potential for the plaintiff obtaining a double-recovery for the future medical expenses calculated in the damage claim of the malpractice suit.

As more people obtained health insurance, especially from employer plans, the strong public interest in getting people to get coverage became less of an issue. In a quest for fairness, some states passed collateral source statutes which aimed to prevent the double-recovery of damage claims. Under these statutes, the jury was still prevented from hearing evidence of health insurance coverage when deciding on the damage award. However, after the jury verdict, the defendant was allowed to present evidence of collateral sources of payment before the judge. The judge would then be allowed to reduce the jury award by an amount that was "reasonably certain" to be covered by the insurance policy.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, the near universal health coverage mandates takes away the need of the Collateral Source Rule. Juries should now be allowed to hear evidence of health care coverage when evaluating the damage award in a malpractice action. The public interest of incentivizing individuals to purchase their own health care insurance is now gone; the ACA now requires the purchase of health care insurance and those who do not are subject to penalties (a tax?).

Although the Collateral Source Rule still stands, it is likely that future litigation will attack the Rule. There is a case on point. In Aidan Ming-Ho v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, a medical malpractice case, the jury gave the plaintiff the verdict and awarded damages which included future medical costs. On appeal, the hospital argued that it should have been allowed to present evidence of the plaintiff's health insurance coverage to rebut the claims for future medical expenses especially in light of the ACA whereby "the availability of such federally mandated available insurance options makes the prospect of future health insurance coverage for plaintiff anything but speculative." Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, 2013 WL 221654 (CA Ct. App., 2013)

The Leung court was not convinced. The court held that "such evidence, standing alone, is irrelevant to prove reasonably certain insurance coverage...because it has no tendency in reason to prove that specific items of future care and treatment will be covered, the amount of that coverage, or the duration of the coverage."

In the past, health insurance policies would differ as to what was covered, how much would be paid for the health care, and the duration of the coverage. There were caps to some policies and the court recognized this. Both the duration and the quality of health insurance policies were variable and could be changed by the carrier at any time. The fact that the patient had medical insurance did not guarantee that his future medical expenses would be met. It made sense to keep this information from the jury. Rather than penalize the patient with poor health care coverage, the jury would be better off not knowing that the patient even had coverage.

However, under the ACA, there is a certain minimum amount of coverage that must be in the policy. Also, the policy has no ceiling of benefits and the policy can attach to the patient forever. As such, it makes sense to argue that the coverage that must be provided under the law should now be presented to the jury prior to making their deliberations. The strong public policy of encouraging patients to obtain health care is fast becoming a non-issue as most people are now required to get a policy or be covered under Medicare or Medicaid.

The issue addressing the necessity of the Collateral Source Rule will likely be litigated in several courts in the near future. Plaintiffs will argue that the Rule is still needed as the long-term viability of the ACA is still unknown. Insurers are leaving the market as their losses are significant, people are going without health insurance as their co-pays and premiums are going up, and there are only minimal penalties to holding off on buying insurance until an illness or injury strikes.

At this time, there is uncertainty that the ACA will survive both from a financial and a political standpoint. If there is a Republican elected to the Oval Office, the ACA may be overturned. This is especially likely if the House and Senate remain in republican hands. If the insurers continue to leave the market due to financial losses, there will be a complete collapse of the system. As long as the future of the ACA is uncertain, it is unlikely that the courts will see fit to revisit the Collateral Source Rule. Perhaps it would be best to keep the knowledge of a health insurance plan in the hands of the judge anyway.

Dr. Weiman's website is www.medicalmalpracticeandthelaw.com

-- 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 14 hours ago.

Build A Culture of Health

$
0
0
Build A Culture of HealthJohn A. Quelch & Howard K. Koh
Every company, large and small, has an impact on health. It does so in four ways. First, through the healthfulness and safety of the products and services it sells. Second, through its attention to employee health and well-being in its work practices and benefits. Third, through contributions to the broader communities in which it operates. Fourth, through the environmental impact of its operations.

In every company, decisions are made every day in these four areas, wittingly or unwittingly, that impact public health. Almost no companies integrate their health efforts, include health as a corporate value or calculate their total public health footprint.

Typically, product design and quality assurance managers attend to the health and safety of products. Benefits managers in a human resources department offer employee wellness programs. A Vice President for community relations or the head of the company's foundation may allocate some funds to community health projects. A director of sustainability seeks to reduce the company's carbon footprint and water use. These worthy efforts are rarely integrated across corporate silos.

Mention health in most companies and the cost of health insurance is what comes to mind, not how the company can invest to prevent further escalation in societal health care costs. Even companies in the health care industry, who should know better, don't measure their public health footprints. They may include the word health in mission statements but the CEO does not stress health as a core value that should be considered every time an employee makes a decision.

Let's look at each of the four components of a company's public health footprint:

Consumer Health. Indra Nooyi boldly challenged the nutritional value of PepsiCo's product portfolio when she became CEO in 2008. Since then, her performance with purpose philosophy prompted large research and development investments which have led to new and redesigned products and have taken billions of calories out of the food system at the same time that profits have increased.

Employee Health. Johnson & Johnson has been investing in employee health and wellness programs - mental as well as physical - for over thirty years. The famous J&J credo encourages this employee focus and the current CEO, Alex Gorsky, models these behaviors in his own lifestyle. But employee health also applies to the employees of upstream subcontractors. Following the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh, apparel company Primark broke ranks with industry peers to assess and provide compensation way beyond what was legally required to those injured and to the families of those killed in its subcontractor's factory.

Community Health. Univision reaches out regularly to all Hispanic communities in the US. Through its Contigo program, it helped many thousands enroll for health insurance via the Obamacare exchanges. IBM has long been committed to the communities in which it operates, following the precepts as of its founder, Thomas Watson Sr. Through its On Demand Community, IBM's Foundation encourages tens of thousands of employees to help nonprofits in their communities, providing them with free software.

Environmental Health. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines has led its industry by applying its ABC (above and beyond compliance) philosophy to on board waste water recycling and reduced CO2 emissions. Many RCCL executives populate industry standards committees, not to hold back regulation but to push the industry towards better environmental performance in new ship design. Levi Strauss has likewise moved the needle on environmental safety in apparel manufacture, establishing a restricted chemical list (to protect workers from needless exposure to toxins) that is strictly applied to its subcontractors as well as in its own factories.

Some companies have focused and done a good job on one of the pillars but ignored others. Other companies have initiatives on two or three of the four dimensions but they are not integrated. For example, the meaning of sustainability is being broadened from a focus on environmental impacts to embrace healthful products and the well-being of direct and indirect employees.

Why is a joined-up approach important? First, businesses are already doing much, individually and collectively, to improving public health but receiving little or no credit for doing so. Second, an audit across the four dimensions of a company's health footprint will reveal gaps in the company's efforts that can be addressed. Third, there are some interactions across the four elements that are going unrecognized and under exploited. Fourth, integration of a company's health contributions goes hand-in-hand with elevating the culture of health as a core objective.

One company that has pushed further forward on integrating a culture of health into its organizational philosophy is Target. As a retailer, Target is embedded in many communities. Target has also implemented many innovations to advance employee wellness, mindful of the fact that many employees take their first jobs with Target. Target's sustainability office tries hard to reduce its environmental footprint through store design and intelligent product selection. Healthful products are highlighted in Target store flyers, but Target admits that its main challenge remains the consumer health pillar; with over 50,000 stock keeping units, it's hard to maximize healthfulness while insuring sufficient consumer choice.

Fifteen years ago, Dow Chemical was a poster child for environmental irresponsibility. Today, Dow has not only cleaned up its own act, it has environmental impact criteria built into its product design process and is even selling its expertise in environmental impact area to other companies as a value-added service. Dow has also invested in employee wellness and safety programs and in reducing diabetes in the communities where its factories are located.

We recently surveyed corporate executives regarding the progress their companies had so far made on the four dimensions and their perceptions on investments in these areas to benefit the companies. The results (see sidebar) show that companies are further along in understanding the value of embracing employee and environmental health than they are consumer and community health.

So what should companies do to establish a culture of health? We offer the following seven step plan of action.

1. View health as an investment, not an expense. Understand the benefits that corporations can enjoy...increased revenues, lower costs, better reputations among consumers and employees...if they embrace the culture of health.

2. The initiative must be championed by the CEO if health is going to become part of the corporate value system. The CEO must model healthy behaviors and demonstrate that health impacts are integrated into his/her everyday decision-making.

3. Appoint a chief health officer to oversee the company's health, safety, and environmental impacts across all four pillars, not just employee and environmental health.

4. Develop a network of line managers who volunteer to champion the culture of health throughout the organization.

5. Measure impact across the pillars and collate these metrics into a single net benefit or net deficit number that scores the company's population health footprint.

6. Broaden today's annual sustainability report into a health impact report that covers all four pillars of the company's population health footprint.

7. Tie executive bonuses in part to improvements in the population health footprint. Lego ties only 25% of senior executive bonuses to financial performance with the remaining 75% allocated to contributions to planet, people and (children's) play.

These recommendations are not just for big businesses. The CEO of any small company can create a volunteer culture of health task force to brainstorm ideas for making a difference. And just as small businesses collaborate with their peers through local chambers of commerce to get behind local education-related projects, so they can partner to put community health strategies into place.

Whether big or small, companies looking for a place to start should target one or two areas under the four pillars that they can impact relatively quickly. They can then later extend their efforts into other areas. The point is to get started. America's health depends on all businesses, not just healthcare companies, to do their part.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

Americans Are Better Off Than We Were Eight Years Ago

$
0
0
Right now, Democrats appear to be at each other's throats. However, it's highly likely that a month from now, the party will come together just as it did in 2008. The fight this fall will be between two candidates, yes, but also two vastly different understandings of our national narrative, of the course of our development over the past several decades and, in particular, the last eight years.

In two recent commencement speeches, one at Rutgers and the other at Howard, President Obama deftly laid out the differences. He defined a progressive understanding of our collective path that has the virtue not only of being accurate, but also of being one that will help progressive candidates win election this fall and beyond.

The president's take may be more nuanced than that of Mr. Trump, but that's more about Trump than anything else. In a nutshell, the Obama argument is this: Although we've got more work to do to improve opportunity and increase justice for all Americans, we have made real progress, we're moving in the right direction, and we are significantly better off than we were in the past.
In fact, by almost every measure, America is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, or 30 years ago, or even eight years ago.

And he's right. Digging into the details, he continued:
And by the way, I'm not -- set aside 150 years ago, pre-Civil War -- there's a whole bunch of stuff there we could talk about. Set aside life in the '50s, when women and people of color were systematically excluded from big chunks of American life. Since I graduated [from college], in 1983....crime rates, teenage pregnancy, the share of Americans living in poverty -- they're all down. The share of Americans with college educations have gone way up. Our life expectancy has, as well. Blacks and Latinos have risen up the ranks in business and politics. (Applause.) More women are in the workforce. (Applause.) They're earning more money -- although it's long past time that we passed laws to make sure that women are getting the same pay for the same work as men. (Applause.)

Meanwhile, in the eight years since most of you started high school, we're also better off. You and your fellow graduates are entering the job market with better prospects than any time since 2007. Twenty million more Americans know the financial security of health insurance. We're less dependent on foreign oil. We've doubled the production of clean energy. We have cut the high school dropout rate. We've cut the deficit by two-thirds. Marriage equality is the law of the land. (Applause.)

Note that even as Obama highlighted progress on gender equity, he also reminded us that progress is not perfection, and called for continued efforts to achieve full equality. There's one other thing the president did not mention, but which is of crucial importance in understanding the achievements of his administration in terms of progressive economics. The federal tax code has become significantly more progressive than it was eight years ago, and is overall more progressive than it has been since before Reagan's presidency, with the top 1% paying their highest effective tax rates since 1979.

On income taxes, we've brought rates on the top couple of percent back to where they were in the 1990s (where they were after being raised in 1990 and 1993), while locking in the income tax rate cuts for those below that level put in place by George W. Bush. In 1989, the top income tax rate was 28 percent. Starting January 1, 2013, it stood at 39.6 percent.

On capital gains taxes, Obama increased the rate paid by those in the top bracket by 5 percent, and also added a separate 3.8 percent increase--the funds from which go to Medicare--to the rate paid by those in the top three brackets. Additionally, Obamacare included a separate, broader income tax surcharge of 0.9 percent on higher-income households. And those Obamacare-related tax increases don't go into the general budget--a good chunk of which gets spent on things like defense and corporate subsidies--it goes right back out the door to lower-income families in the form of premium subsidies that help buy health insurance. As Paul Krugman pointed out, Obamacare represents "an important redistributionist policy -- the biggest such policy since the 1960s."

Finally, three days after the President's Rutgers speech, the administration announced new overtime rules that will make an estimated 12.5 million working Americans eligible for overtime pay if they exceed 40 hours of work in a given week. Going back to Krugman, he called them "a pretty big deal."

It will take a long time to undo the increases in income inequality that we've seen since Reagan took office. The Obama tax changes, however, are unquestionably a step in the right direction, one that should have a real impact over time. Moreover, recent data shows that, in addition to overall wage growth improving, wage growth has been even stronger at lower-income than higher-income levels. According to one measure: "On a rolling twelve-month basis, [the past year] marks by far the best relative performance among non-college educated workers going back to 1997."

To return to the larger narrative of progress, let's start with the obvious: Anyone who wants to go back to the 1950s either likes the idea of a society dominated by straight, white, Protestant men, or is forgetting about that reality.

At the Howard speech, the president's presentation of the American narrative included more of a focus on how life for African Americans has improved over time. He cited the importance of the changes to law that the civil rights movement won, and continued: "those mileposts of our progress were not perfect. They did not make up for centuries of slavery or Jim Crow or eliminate racism or provide for 40 acres and a mule. But they made things better." Obama added:
America is a better place today than it was when I graduated from college.

[snip] I graduated in 1983. New York City, America's largest city, where I lived at the time, had endured a decade marked by crime and deterioration and near bankruptcy. And many cities were in similar shape. Our nation had gone through years of economic stagnation, the stranglehold of foreign oil, a recession where unemployment nearly scraped 11 percent. The auto industry was getting its clock cleaned by foreign competition.

[snip] Since that year -- since the year I graduated -- the poverty rate is down. Americans with college degrees, that rate is up. Crime rates are down. America's cities have undergone a renaissance. There are more women in the workforce. They're earning more money. We've cut teen pregnancy in half. We've slashed the African American dropout rate by almost 60 percent, and all of you have a computer in your pocket that gives you the world at the touch of a button. In 1983, I was part of fewer than 10 percent of African Americans who graduated with a bachelor's degree. Today, you're part of the more than 20 percent who will. And more than half of blacks say we're better off than our parents were at our age -- and that our kids will be better off, too.

Of course, Obama recognizes that we've still got work to do on the matter of racial injustice and inequality:
Yes, our economy has recovered from crisis stronger than almost any other in the world. But there are folks of all races who are still hurting -- who still can't find work that pays enough to keep the lights on, who still can't save for retirement. We've still got a big racial gap in economic opportunity. The overall unemployment rate is 5 percent, but the black unemployment rate is almost nine. We've still got an achievement gap when black boys and girls graduate high school and college at lower rates than white boys and white girls. Harriet Tubman may be going on the twenty, but we've still got a gender gap when a black woman working full-time still earns just 66 percent of what a white man gets paid. (Applause.)

We've got a justice gap when too many black boys and girls pass through a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails. This is one area where things have gotten worse. When I was in college, about half a million people in America were behind bars. Today, there are about 2.2 million. Black men are about six times likelier to be in prison right now than white men.
Despite these continued inequities, and despite the problems that remain in our society, Obama emphasized that while the present day may not be paradise it sure as hell is better than what came before--for African Americans and for Americans more broadly:
If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100 years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)
In both speeches, President Obama took aim at the presumptive Republican nominee--without mentioning his name. On the idea that we need someone who will "make America great again:"
Point number one: When you hear someone longing for the "good old days," take it with a grain of salt. (Laughter and applause.) Take it with a grain of salt. We live in a great nation and we are rightly proud of our history. We are beneficiaries of the labor and the grit and the courage of generations who came before. But I guess it's part of human nature, especially in times of change and uncertainty, to want to look backwards and long for some imaginary past when everything worked, and the economy hummed, and all politicians were wise, and every kid was well-mannered, and America pretty much did whatever it wanted around the world.

Guess what. It ain't so. (Laughter.) The "good old days" weren't that great.

Conservatives have long attacked President Obama over his views of our historical development. Among countless other examples, on July 16, 2012, Rush Limbaugh said that the President "despises the country and the way it was founded and the way in which it became great." Having read almost every word Barack Obama published or uttered publicly through mid-2012, and much of the rest since then, I can tell you that such a patently false statement only confirms Senator Al Franken's measured, sophisticated assessment of Limbaugh.

What Obama has provided in these remarks and over the course of his public life is a truly inclusive narrative, one that recognizes the ideals at our nation's core, the ways in which we've fallen short of them, and the steps we've taken to overcome those shortcomings. Here's how he described that narrative on July 4, 2012:
On that July day [in 1776], our Founders declared their independence. But they only declared it; it would take another seven years to win the war. Fifteen years to forge a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Nearly 90 years, and a great Civil War, to abolish slavery. Nearly 150 years for women to win the right to vote. Nearly 190 years to enshrine voting rights. And even now, we're still perfecting our union, still extending the promise of America.
And in his second Inaugural Address, Obama again connected our founding values to the movements and activists who fought and bled to ensure that we lived up to them:
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.
This is the kind of nuanced understanding of our country that can appeal to Americans of every stripe. Given that being American is the only thing that connects all of us who live here to one another, the only bond with any kind of cultural and historical content that can cross all the other group lines that divide us, we need a workable concept of Americanness and of our collective history. As I've written elsewhere:
A history that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the opposite--one that presents our history as one solely bathed in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle-of-the-road Americans, in particular whites but others as well, are likely to be more attracted to the Pollyanna-ish view simply because it sounds more familiar and feels better.

We progressives have to make sure that we present a balanced picture. That way we can get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes to remember them and to commit to reversing their effects, rather than dismiss our criticisms as "anti-American" because we [supposedly] talk only about the negatives in our country. We have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast them to the values of those whom we oppose.

At Howard, Obama summarized the narrative of our history--as well as how it relates to the course of our future. He described:
The evolution of America--the course by which we became bigger, stronger, and richer and more dynamic, and a more inclusive nation.

But America's progress has never been smooth or steady. Progress doesn't travel in a straight line. It zigs and zags in fits and starts. Progress in America has been hard and contentious, and sometimes bloody. It remains uneven and at times, for every two steps forward, it feels like we take one step back.

But progress is bumpy. It always has been. But because of dreamers and innovators and strivers and activists, progress has been this nation's hallmark. I'm fond of quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." (Applause.) It bends towards justice. I believe that. But I also believe that the arc of our nation, the arc of the world does not bend towards justice, or freedom, or equality, or prosperity on its own. It depends on us, on the choices we make, particularly at certain inflection points in history; particularly when big changes are happening and everything seems up for grabs.

[snip] Isolating or disparaging Muslims, suggesting that they should be treated differently when it comes to entering this country -- (applause) -- that is not just a betrayal of our values -- (applause) -- that's not just a betrayal of who we are, it would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism. Suggesting that we can build an endless wall along our borders, and blame our challenges on immigrants -- that doesn't just run counter to our history as the world's melting pot; it contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been spurred by our ability to attract strivers from every corner of the globe. That's how we became America. Why would we want to stop it now? (Applause.)
Finally, although it does not directly bear on the discussion of our historical development, there is one other section of the Howard speech to emphasize as both especially important, and as central to Obama's take on America, in particular given Trump's disproportionate appeal to racially resentful white men. It is a call for empathy, about being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and understand that person's perspective--even if one disagrees with the policy positions to which that perspective gives rise. He was talking to African Americans directly, but my hope is that hearing him say this to African Americans encourages each of us to apply the lesson to our fellow Americans of every background:
But we must expand our moral imaginations to understand and empathize with all people who are struggling, not just black folks who are struggling -- the refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender person, and yes, the middle-aged white guy who you may think has all the advantages, but over the last several decades has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change, and feels powerless to stop it. You got to get in his head, too.
President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, but he has been the dominant political figure of the past eight years. When we go to cast our votes for president in November, the fundamental question is whether we want a president who will, by and large, share the policies and vision of Barack Obama, or one who in addition to being a hateful, uninformed, groper of a fascist who would destroy our position in the world, fundamentally rejects them--not merely on matters like the size of government, but in every imaginable sense.

Do we want to continue moving forward, continue the progress we've made, and keep fighting to make things better--or do we turn the keys over to Donald Trump? That's what this election is about.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

United States: New Amendments Grant Failing ACA Co-Op Program Access To Private Capital And Limit Special Enrollment Eligibility - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton

$
0
0
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services passed an interim final rule that amends regulations governing Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans and tightens restrictions on special enrollment period eligibility in the Health Insurance Marketplace. Reported by Mondaq 14 hours ago.

Obama, Not Trump, Has Destabilized the Two-Party System

$
0
0
America's two main political parties are in the throes of an unprecedented crisis: Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican Nominee, a candidate which neither GOP leadership nor its traditional voter base are comfortable supporting; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton remains unable to quell the insurrection of an avowed socialist who just a few short months ago had next to no name recognition.

Such widespread dissatisfaction with the standard-bearers of the two parties speaks to the dissatisfaction many Democrats and Republicans feel towards the political establishment that President Barack Obama shacked up eight years ago.

Obama's rapid ascension and widespread domestic successes have destroyed and dealt the Republican Party a death blow. His presidency has also witnessed the dilution of the Democrats' traditional power base; thus, eight years later, Obama's stunning 2008 victory appears to mark the beginning of the dissolution of America's traditional two-party system.

A young Barack Hussein Obama overcame many obstacles just within the Democratic Party to win elections and join Congress as the junior Senator from Illinois in January 2005. After completing less than half of his six-year term, Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Shockingly, the Democratic establishment was unable to impose its preferred candidate, favorite daughter Hillary Clinton -- wife of the most successful Democratic politicians in recent history -- as the party's nominee. Without the enthusiastic support of millions of youths, white progressives, and minorities -- many of whom made frequent small donations of only $1 to $5 dollars to Obama's campaign and, by American standards, believed they were participating in a political revolution -- Mr. Obama would not have been able to withstand and overcome Empress Clinton's significant financial advantage. Ultimately, Obama's open rebellion against the Democratic establishment, defeat of Clinton in a rugged primary campaign, and arrival to the White House have significantly diminished the role of party politics.

Republican Party leadership immediately attacked Mr. Obama upon his ascension to the presidency, with GOP members of the House and Senate promising to obstruct Mr. Obama at every turn and make him a one-term president. Many even resorted to adopting anti-Obama policies, rhetoric and conspiracy theories that created a dangerously racist, intolerant and Islamophobic national dialogue. For example, the so-called "Birther" movement has incessantly questioned Mr. Obama's American citizenship due to the fact that he was born to a Kenyan immigrant father. Clearly and quite deplorably, the color of Mr. Obama's skin has played a significant role in much of the Republican Party leadership's racist invectives directed towards the president.

Today, as the end of his presidency nears, Mr. Obama's record of domestic policy success is striking, particularly with regards to the destructive affect his tenure in office has wrought upon the increasingly intransigent Republican Party. We must also remember that, when President Obama began his presidency in January 2009, he was confronted with the global financial crisis, the worst such disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Faced with an economic catastrophe that threatened to collapse the international financial system, President Obama deftly guided the U.S. through the crisis during his first few weeks and months in office, while incurring only minimal losses.

Though an adversarial and obstructionist Republican Party has sought to stymie Mr. Obama at every turn, the President was able to pass the most comprehensive overhaul of the American healthcare system in more than a half century. By far his most important domestic achievement, "Obamacare" granted health insurance to more than 21 million American, decreasing the amount of uninsured Americans from more than 20 percent of the population to less than 10 percent. Moreover, President Obama has successfully introduced significant changes to the United State's energy sector, substantially reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil while overseeing unprecedented growth in the use of clean and other renewable energy sources. Lastly, Mr. Obama has repeatedly adopted and supported fair and equal pay initiatives to ensure that women are paid the same as men across a range of professions and sectors.

Initially, Republican anger and obstructionism appeared to pay off: fringe, right-wing elements of the GOP coalesced to form the Tea Party movement, which claimed extensive victories in 2010 Midterm Elections, the first elections held after Obama's triumph in 2008. Traditional elements of the GOP were shocked that Tea Party candidates who employed aggressive, racist, and at times even fascist rhetoric scored such overwhelming triumphs in the House and Senate. Absent central leadership, the Tea Party operates as more of a widespread, extreme philosophy of political conservatism that seeks to drastically limit government spending, rigidly opposes any increase to taxes, and claims to repel the "Islamization" of America. Tea Party iconoclasts, including such individuals as former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, routinely adopt the kind of racist rhetoric that reflects the Republican Party's general attitudes and disposition towards President Barack Obama and all the racial and civic progress that he stands for.

The Republican establishment has repeatedly lied about and distorted Mr. Obama's record to promote the conceit that America power is on the decline vis-à-vis other nations and the country as a whole is on the verge of collapse. Clearly, these divisive and radical policies backfired against the GOP establishment, paving the way for the rapid rice and stunning success of its now presumptive nominee Donald Trump. In this analysis, the racist, right wing vitriol spewed by "The Donald" isn't anything new or exclusive to the Trump brand; rather, Trump has merely articulated, in terms wildly popular with the most dissatisfied segments of American society, the types of policies and positions that the GOP has relentlessly pursued since Obama's arrival to power and his initial success in office. That the Democratic contest improbably carries on as a result of Bernie Sanders' insurgent campaign, modeled after the president's own victorious 2008 operation and which has shaken the very foundations of the Democratic Party, proves that the destructive effects of Mr. Obama's presidency reach far beyond just the Republican party to the include the entire two-party system as we know it.

Mohamed Elmenshawy is Washington Bureau Chief for Alaraby Television Network, and a columnist for the Egyptian Daily Alshorouk. He can be reach on twitter @ElMenshawyM / or email mensh70@gmail.com

-- 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.

ObamaCare Isn't Working - These Five Charts Show Why

$
0
0
Submitted by Melissa Quinn via TheDailySignal.com,

Six years ago, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. Since then, *Americans have seen their premiums increase, a dozen nonprofit insurers have closed their doors and the number of people on the Medicaid rolls has expanded.*

Americans nationwide have both praised and cursed the law since the federal and state-run exchanges launched in October 2013.

Many credit the president with giving them access to coverage—the result of Obamacare’s provision prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Others, meanwhile, have reported high premiums and deductibles, with the cost of their coverage increasing annually.

*And for some, the cost of premiums has increased enough to leave them choosing between paying for insurance or paying the fine and going without.*

Here are five graphs charting Obamacare’s six-year history.

**1) The Cost of HealthCare.gov**

Obamacare’s implementation in October 2013 came with the launch of HealthCare.gov, the federal health insurance exchange.

Just six people successfully signed up for health insurance on HealthCare.gov on Oct. 1, 2013, because of massive glitches and failures with the site. In the months that followed the disastrous launch, the Republican-led House of Representatives held numerous hearings to determine why the Obama administration decided to launch the website.

The Department of Health and Human Services fired CGI Federal, which was originally tasked with building HealthCare.gov, after the website’s launch and signed a new contract with Accenture to rebuild the exchange.

Though the Obama administration hasn’t formally said how much HealthCare.gov cost the taxpayers, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said last May that the website cost $834 million. Similarly, a report from the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General put the cost of the exchange at $800 million.

An analysis by Bloomberg Government, though, put the total cost at $2.1 billion. Bloomberg Government took into account budgetary costs for the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies, as well as contracts reworked to pay for the website.

 

**2) Obamacare’s 2014 Enrollment Numbers**

According to the Obama administration, 9.25 million consumers enrolled in coverage in 2014 on the federal and state-run exchanges. An analysis of enrollment figures conducted by Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, and Drew Gonshorowski, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of those enrollees qualified for Medicaid under Obamacare’s loosened eligibility requirements.

 

**3) Obamacare’s Failed Co-Ops**

The Affordable Care Act allowed for the creation of consumer-operated and oriented plans, or co-ops, that were intended to inject competition into areas where consumers had few choices. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services awarded $2.4 billion in start-up and solvency loans to the 23 co-ops that were eventually created.

Now, 12 of the 23 co-ops that opened their doors in 2013 have shuttered, and Republicans in Congress are questioning whether the taxpayers will see the $1.2 billion loaned to those failed insurers repaid.

 

**4) Obamacare’s 2015 Enrollment Numbers**

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that nearly 8.8 million Americans had “effectuated” coverage at the end of 2015, meaning they were paying their health insurance premiums.

The agency praised this number as a sign of Obamacare’s success in expanding access to coverage.

However, health policy experts noted that there was a significant drop in the number of consumers who selected plans at the start of 2015—11.69 million—when compared to those who continued paying their premiums through the end of the year—8.78 million.

 

**5) Insurer Participation in Each State Declined**

Though Obama credited the Affordable Care Act with expanding access to health insurance and increasing competition among insurers, insurer participation in each state and the District of Columbia found that participation in the exchanges declined from 2015 to 2016.

When compared to 2015, 22 states and the District of Columbia have fewer insurers offering coverage on the exchanges in 2016. Just 10 states have more insurers offering coverage on Obamacare’s exchange.

Among the states that saw insurer participation decline from 2015 to 2016, the number of choices consumers have on the state-run or federal exchanges varies.

In Alaska, for example, just one insurance company is selling insurance to consumers in the state for 2016.

In Colorado, though, consumers can choose from eight different insurers selling coverage on the exchange this year. Both states saw fewer insurance companies selling coverage from 2015 to 2016.

Find out how many insurers are selling coverage in your state here. Reported by Zero Hedge 12 hours ago.

Pacific Resources' Survey Shows Large Employers Not Confident in Private Health Exchanges as a Viable Alternative for Providing Healthcare Benefits to Active Employees

$
0
0
Third annual survey of primarily Fortune 1000-ranked companies finds 'unproven cost savings' as top reason why interest and confidence in private exchanges is down among large employers

Chicago, IL (PRWEB) May 24, 2016

A national survey of primarily Fortune 1000-ranked companies shows that fewer large employers are interested or confident in private health insurance exchanges as a viable method for providing healthcare benefits to their active employees. The top reason for that lack of confidence is “unproven cost savings.”

The survey, conducted by Pacific Resources during the first quarter of 2016, is the third annual survey focused on capturing the current perspective on private exchanges from some of the largest employers in the United States. In 2016, in response to marketplace dynamics, smaller employers were invited to participate in the survey. In addition, questions were added to capture the ways employers view exchanges for their various employee groups, differentiating between active employees and retirees.

“In 2014, we saw that large employers were taking either a ‘wait and see’ approach to exchanges or were conducting feasibility studies to assess the viability of private exchanges. Just two years later, the majority of large employers have made up their minds, and they are not confident that private exchanges, in their current form, will be able to provide meaningful improvement to healthcare benefits for their active employees,” said Paul Rogers, President and COO, Pacific Resources.

“With that said, we expect the market will continue to evolve and private exchanges may also evolve to a point where they meet the needs of a greater number of large employers,” Rogers added.

Nearly 60% of respondents (57.8%) indicated that they are “not confident” that private exchanges will provide a viable alternative to current methods of providing health coverage to active employees, and just over a quarter (26.7%) are “somewhat confident.” Zero respondents indicated that they were “very confident.” In contrast, nearly half of last year’s respondents (46.3%) were somewhat or very confident in exchanges for active employees.

Cost is still the top reason that an employer would move to an exchange to provide healthcare benefits, with 64.4% of employers choosing “reduce company costs” as the top reason to consider moving to an exchange.

However, of those employers who conducted an evaluation of exchanges for active employees, 84.6% listed “unproven cost savings” as the primary reason why they did not move. One respondent, a senior executive at a large financial services company, added that it would be “difficult to un-bundle once you move to an exchange if the programs are not working.”

“It is interesting to note that employers selected multiple carriers, benefits administration and a defined contribution strategy as the top three attributes of a private exchange. All of these features are available to employers without moving to an exchange,” said Sean Clem, Vice President, Technology, Marketplace and Engagement Solutions at Pacific Resources.

“However, these results do not mean that exchanges are going away. They are still a valid option for many employers, particularly those that don’t already have a robust benefit administration capability in place,” noted Clem. “As the market has transitioned, we are seeing fewer employers that are on the fence about moving to an exchange. In addition, employers who are considering a move to an exchange have stopped asking IF they should move to an exchange and instead are asking WHICH exchange is right for them.”

Key survey findings:

1.    Most employers have a good understanding of private exchanges. More than 80% of employers (82.6%) indicate that they have a thorough or basic knowledge of the opportunities, challenges and decisions required to move to a private exchange; however, this number is down from 2015 (96.2%) and 2014 (90.7%).

One possible reason for this decline in understanding is the changing vendor landscape. As the vendor marketplace evolves, it may be difficult for employers to differentiate between vendors. A senior human resources executive at a large employer with more than 10,000 employees acknowledged, “we have more than a basic knowledge, but not thorough. We have reviewed at least five private exchanges.”

Rather than maturing, the marketplace is getting more complicated and new vendors with no established protocol (other than choice and technology) are entering the market and creating more ambiguity for employers.

2.    Fewer employers are interested or confident in exchanges as a strategy for active employees. Almost a third (28.9%) of respondents have conducted an evaluation and decided not to move active employees to an exchange; this number has more than doubled since 2014 (13%). Forty-two percent have no plans to evaluate private exchanges; this number has increased slightly, from 37% in 2014.

As indicated above, nearly 60% of respondents (57.8%) indicated that they are “not confident” that private exchanges will provide a viable alternative to current methods of providing health coverage to active employees, and just over a quarter (26.7%) are “somewhat confident.”

3.    Cost is still the driving factor for considering a move to an exchange. Nearly 65% of respondents (64.4 %) chose “reduce company costs” as the top reason to consider moving to an exchange. This is down from 81.5% in 2015 and 84% in 2014, perhaps because of the “unproven cost savings” that 84.6% of respondents list as the primary reason why they did not move.

Additional reasons to consider an exchange include giving employees more choice to better meet their coverage needs (44.4%) and administrative ease (37.8%).

4.     Employers are more interested in exchanges for retirees. As expected, a private healthcare exchange model is much more appealing to employers who provide healthcare benefits to retirees, particularly Medicare-eligible retirees. For non-Medicare eligible retirees, 34.5% are somewhat or very confident in exchanges; for Medicare-eligible retirees that number increases to 44.4%.

5.    Employers want help evaluating exchanges. Survey results show that 80% of respondents want help evaluating exchange vendors, with nearly half (48.9%, nearly double the 2014 result of 24.5%) indicating that they would engage an independent consultant whose firm does not sponsor an exchange to help evaluate a private exchange vendor.

The survey was conducted online February through April, 2016. Respondents were senior human resource or benefits executives with decision-making authority within their organizations. The companies surveyed represent more than 1.2 million active or retired employees and 2.8 million covered members.

To download the Executive Summary, click here.

About Pacific Resources
Pacific Resources, a part of the Brown & Brown family of insurance brokerage and related services companies, is a leading independent employee benefits advisory firm that works with Fortune-ranked and other large companies. For four decades, Pacific Resources’ evidence-based insights have shaped innovative employee benefit solutions, helping companies get the most value from their benefit plans, and positively impacting the lives of millions of employees and their families. http://www.pacresbenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.

CaliforniaChoice® Launches MyCalChoice Website for Employers

$
0
0
CaliforniaChoice® Launches MyCalChoice Website for Employers ORANGE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CaliforniaChoice® launches all new website for small businesses. Mycalchoice.com allows employers to get access to better health insurance options by getting a quote from a CaliforniaChoice broker. Reported by Business Wire 11 hours ago.

Next Up For Exploding Health Insurance Premiums: New York

$
0
0
Next Up For Exploding Health Insurance Premiums: New York When we warned recently that thanks to Obamacare, insurance companies would be unveiling significant price shocks one week before the presidential elections, we knew it was *only a matter of time before the 2017 proposals would start to be released and double digit increases would be unveiled to the public.*

 

Sure enough, we were proven right when the first two states to release proposals, Oregon and Virginia, showed that insurers were indeed asking for significant double digit increases.

Now, another state has made the 2017 proposals public, and the results aren't any better. *In New York, health insurers have proposed an average 17.3 percent increase for individuals, and an average 12 percent increase for small groups*. In the individual market there is a wide range of increases, from MVP Health asking for a 6.1 percent increase, to *Crystal Run Health Plan asking for a whopping 89.1 percent increase*. For small groups, Healthfirst Health Plan has proposed a 5 percent increase on the low end, while Crystal Run has proposed a 61.9 percent increase on the high end.

"*The 2017 rate submissions reflect increases that are the direct result of the underlying cost of care and marketplace changes that continue to impact health plans' operations,*" said Paul Macielak, president of the New York Health Plan Association.

Other proposed rate increases for individuals include 45.6 percent increase by United Healthcare of New York, 29.2 percent increase by North Shore-LiJ CareConnect, and 15.9 percent by Excellus.

While on average a 17.3 percent increase has been proposed for individuals, it's important to note that in 2015 the Department of Financial Services only approved an increase of 5.7 percent even as the companies proposed a 12.5 percent increase.

*Obamacare now finds itself at an interesting crossroads. *On one hand, as evident in the proposed increases, very few companies can make a profit while participating in Obamacare with rates at current levels. Companies set up specifically under the Affordable Care Act have started to shut their doors (losing taxpayers billions) because there is simply no profit to be made, and now the government is even walking back promises to compensate firms that agreed to participate for their losses. Indeed, if the higher rates are not approved, firms will continue to exit the healthcare exchanges. However, if rate increases are approved, another problem is presented. Increased costs would put further pressure on already financially strained individuals and small business owners who would have to come up with ways to absorb the additional costs.

*Ironically, the guy primarily responsible for creating such a mess won't have to deal with any of this come January 20, 2017. * Reported by Zero Hedge 10 hours ago.

Block the Aetna Humana Merger

$
0
0
Last week, the Missouri Department of Insurance held a hearing on the proposed merger of Aetna and Humana. The hearing was not widely noticed, but it could not be more timely or important - the proposed merger threatens to raise premiums of over 300,000 older Missourians who depend on Medicare Advantage. History demonstrates a simple and compelling truth - when insurers merge premiums go up.

Faced with this daunting truth, the merging companies presented the best economists money can buy to muddy the issue and bring confusion to simplicity. But as John Adams once said "facts are stubborn things" and the simple facts are that the Aetna-Humana merger will eliminate competition and increase consumer costs.

The evidence is overwhelming: health insurance mergers lead to higher premiums and costs. After the Aetna Prudential merger in 1999 premiums went up 7-12%. A study of a major merger in Nevada found similar results. No study - not a single one--has found that consumers benefit from health insurance mergers.

Competition matters a lot in health insurance, especially in the Medicare Advantage (MA) markets. A comprehensive study by the Commonwealth Fund last year found that there was a clear relationship between the level of concentration - how many choices consumers had - and premiums. A similar report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) looking specifically at competition between Aetna and Humana found that premiums are lower in markets where the two companies compete.

The MA market in Missouri is already highly concentrated with Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth accounting for approximately 83 percent statewide. The combination of Aetna and Humana would make it the king of the castle with over a 90 percent market share in eight counties, 80 percent in 19 counties, and 70 percent in 11 counties.

Today, competition between the two insurers lowers Aetna's annual premiums by up to $302 and Humana's annual premiums by $43. This merger would eliminate that competition and drive up consumer costs.

Moreover, Aetna has recently been expanding its MA business and competing more directly on MA products in Humana markets. The CAP report found that number of counties where the two companies overlap increased from 82 to 562 in just the past three years.

In Missouri, Aetna and Humana already compete for MA in approximately 67 counties. The merger would destroy that existing competition and eliminate substantial future competition as well. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that extinguishing competition would hit consumers hard in their pocketbooks.

And the "don't look behind the curtain" effort of Aetna's high paid hired guns can't change these basic facts. President Truman may have wanted a one-armed economist, but consumers deserve one who knows the antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, not competitors. Aetna's hired guns say that, even though the mergers will give Aetna over a 50% share of the MA market, there is no risk of higher prices because consumers can always switch to traditional Medicare. That's like saying Starbucks cannot increase prices because Instant Postum is an alternative. They are both coffee but Postum isn't going to restrain Starbucks - the two aren't genuine alternatives.

The Justice Department has already found that MA is a distinct market from traditional Medicare. This is confirmed by multiple independent studies that focus on the richer benefit package of MA and the fact that, when MA plans expire, consumers switch to other MA plans and not to traditional Medicare because they like these additional benefits.

The hard facts are that if this merger is approved Aetna will become the dominant MA provider in the state and consumers will pay dearly in increased premiums and weakened service. That's why the Department of Insurance should just say no and block this merger.

-- 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.

Gusto Builds on Payroll Foundation, Launches Integrated Platform to Simplify Health Benefits for Small Businesses

$
0
0
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today Gusto launched a benefits offering to simplify and demystify health insurance for small business employers and employees. Gusto, already processing annual payroll for over 30,000 businesses, is using technology to create an integrated payroll and benefits platform to bring efficiency and simplicity to an industry that’s currently mired in paperwork, manual data entry, and errors. “Employers and employees rely on health insurance to protect themselves and th Reported by Business Wire 10 hours ago.

The National Children’s Cancer Society Highlights Long-Term Health Care Needs for National Cancer Survivors Day

$
0
0
To highlight National Cancer Survivors Day coming up on June 5, The National Children’s Cancer Society (NCCS) is calling attention to a critical issue facing survivors of childhood cancers.

St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) May 24, 2016

To highlight National Cancer Survivors Day coming up on June 5, The National Children’s Cancer Society (NCCS) is calling attention to a critical issue facing survivors of childhood cancers: the importance of taking over the management of their healthcare as they move into adulthood.

For young adults whose parents have overseen every aspect of their pediatric cancer treatment and recovery during childhood, finding doctors to properly care for their ongoing health needs as they move on to college and beyond is challenging.

“We frequently talk with pediatric cancer survivors who ask us for help finding doctors who understand their needs and can properly manage their ongoing health care issues,” said Pam Gabris, director of the Beyond The Cure program at the NCCS. Beyond the Cure prepares survivors and their families for life after cancer by educating survivors through an extensive web-based information center, conferences and free publications so they can gain a better understanding of the late effects of their treatment.

“Survivors of childhood cancer have very specific needs,” added Gabris. “Most survivors have a high risk of medical late effects following cancer treatment, yet many do not receive screenings for late effects or long-term follow-up care. And those who do often struggle to identify the best place to get that care.” The NCCS offers a Late Effects After Treatment Tool that give survivors a personalized assessment of their potential late effects based on their diagnosis and treatment. Because it is challenging to find doctors who understand late effects, this is valuable information so survivors can advocate for optimum care.

Pediatric cancer survivors also are at higher risk for second cancers, heart disease, body weight issues and psychosocial disorders, further necessitating the need for regular screenings and health monitoring.

National Cancer Survivors Day is an annual celebration that is held in hundreds of communities nationwide and around the world on the first Sunday in June. It is designated to celebrate those who have survived, inspire individuals recently diagnosed, provide support for families and outreach to the community. The day provides an opportunity for all people living with a history of cancer – including America’s more than 14.5 million cancer survivors – to connect with each other, celebrate milestones and recognize those who have supported them. It also is a day to draw attention to the ongoing challenges of cancer survivorship in order to promote more resources, research, and survivor-friendly legislation to improve cancer survivors’ quality of life.

The National Cancer Survivors Day Foundation, Inc., identifies a number of challenges that cancer survivors may face numerous during and after treatment:·     Limited access to cancer specialists and promising new treatments
·     Denial of health insurance and life insurance coverage
·     Difficulty finding jobs
·     Economic burdens due to mounting medical expenses, lost wages, and reduced productivity

Children’s oncology hospitals now routinely educate families about late effects, a term used for the long-term medical, emotional and cognitive problems faced by many childhood cancer survivors. Some health centers are now going beyond education to also create survivor clinics specifically to help young adults keep careful records and manage their regular screenings once they are out from under their parents’ protective wings. One of those is Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“We expect 80 percent of children are going to be long-term survivors, so we hope 80 percent of the kids will eventually come to the survivor clinic,” reported Dr. Lillian Meacham, a pediatric endocrinologist, professor of pediatrics at Emory University, and chair of the Survivor Program at the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorder Center at Children’s Healthcare.

Nonprofits also are continually improving services to survivors, said Gabris. The NCCS, for example, not only provides one-on-one support for survivors but also maintains a list of long-term follow-up clinics and offers free publications about surviving childhood cancer. Survivors also can find information about employment and health insurance on the NCCS website.

The ultimate goal, said Gabris, is for everyone who works with childhood cancer patients and survivors to provide a nationwide network of survivor care professionals. “We want all survivors to have easy access to appropriate long-term healthcare for their specific post-cancer needs.”

About The National Children’s Cancer Society:
The mission of The National Children's Cancer Society is to provide emotional, financial and educational support to children with cancer, their families and survivors. To learn more about the NCCS and its support services, visit thenccs.org. The National Children’s Cancer Society is a 501C(3) organization that has provided over $62 million in direct financial assistance to more than 38,000 children with cancer. To contact the NCCS, call (314) 241-1600. You can also visit the NCCS on Facebook. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.

Bernie (and Hillary): Heed These Warnings About Single Payer

$
0
0
Bernie Sanders's campaign website states: "The only long-term solution to America's health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program." This would be amusing if it weren't so frightening.

*British single payer collapsing*
British experts and officials just reported that their National Health Service, the classic single payer approach, is "buckling under huge financial and operational pressures." It may and probably will collapse. They are beginning to "question the viability of free universal healthcare."

Sanders observes what is happening to the paradigm of a single payer healthcare system, and says he wants that for us!

*Does Sanders advocate U.S. bankruptcy?*
Even before Obamacare, the U.S. was spending twice as much on healthcare as anyone else in the world. That was why President Obama said he needed to reform our system: he said he would bend down our "unsustainable healthcare spending curve." Forget for a moment that Obamacare bent that spending curve upward, by $2.6 trillion. Consider this.

Sanders says his health plan will only cost $15 trillion--that is more than five times what Obamacare cost. Frankly, more reliable estimates put the price tag for Sanders' single payer plan at $32 trillion. That is slightly less than twice the GDP of our entire country ($18 trillion).

If spending on healthcare were "unsustainable" before Obamacare, how much more unsustainable will it be under single payer? Are Bernie Sanders (and Hillary Clinton for that matter) competing to see who can put the U.S. into bankruptcy court the fastest?

*Single payer doesn't save money*
Before people start shouting about all the money we would save with single payer, consider one fact and answer one question. Fact: The NHS is so costly that the Brits cannot afford to keep it going. Question: Can you name a single government program that is dollar-efficient? If so, show us the proof.

Single payer advocates see all the money that goes to insurance companies and they think, "Well, under single payer, we won't have to spend that. That money will go to care." Wrong. All the administration, eligibility, verification, follow-up, compliance, and regulatory review will still take place, and that is the major cost. While you might save the profit that insurance companies now take, the inefficiency of government-run programs will consume that saving and then some.

*And when single payer does save money...*
Bernie also seems to believe single payer systems work to the benefit of patients. He probably did not notice that British doctors went out on strike twice in the past five months. What were they striking for? More pay and better working conditions. Better working conditions means safer care and more timely care. But the government won't do that.

Remember, single payer doctors do not work for their patients. They work for the government. Is that what American patients want? Is that something American physicians will accept?

*Single payer pushes grandma off the cliff*
Finally, remember the campaign to smear Republican attempts to create Medicare or Medicaid block grants by saying, "they would push grandma in her wheelchair off a cliff?" Ask anyone who knows about single payer systems how they cut costs?

Single payer systems ration care, typically by age. In Great Britain, they save money by not authorizing dialysis for patients in kidney failure over the age of 55 years. The NHS claims the process is "not cost effective," and so, the patient in renal failure, who could be saved ... well, he dies. Single payer systems DO push grandma off the cliff, even before she needs a wheelchair.

People like Bernie Sanders and groups like Physicians for a National Health Plan believe fervently that single payer is the answer. They believe with almost religious fervor. They may believe in the single payer solution with all their hearts, but that don't make it so. Reality has a way of trumping (forgive the pun) fantasy."Dr. Deane" Waldman MD MBA is the author of NIE Award winnner The Cancer in the American Healthcare System; and Amazon Bestsellers Our Allies Have Become Our Enemies, and Washington's BARRC Is Its Bite. Dr. Deane is host of www.wecanfixhealthcare.info; Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology and Decision Science; and Adjunct Scholar (Healthcare) for the Rio Grande Foundation, a public policy think tank. Dr. Deane serves as "Consumer Advocate" Director on the Board of the New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange. Opinions expressed here are solely his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Board.

-- 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 7 hours ago.

Email from President Obama: Elkhart

$
0
0
This evening, President Obama wrote the below message to the White House email list to announce his trip to Elkhart, Indiana on Wednesday, June 1st and reflect on the economic progress we've made in both Elkhart and across the country since he originally visited there in the first weeks of his presidency.

If you didn't get the email, make sure to sign up for updates -- and check back right here for updates on President Obama's trip to Elkhart.

--------------------

Just three weeks into my presidency, I made a promise to the people of Elkhart, Indiana.

It was the first city I visited as President. Folks there had been hit harder by the recession than almost anywhere else in America. The unemployment rate was on its way to nearly twenty percent. Companies that had sustained that community for years were shedding jobs at an alarming speed -- and hardworking families were losing their homes and health care along with those jobs.

When I spoke to the people of Elkhart in February of 2009, I promised them that if we worked together, we could pull that community and this country out of the depths of recession -- that we could not only recover, but put ourselves on a better, stronger course.

Today, thanks to the hard work of people in Elkhart and in communities across the country, America has recovered from crisis and we’re on the cusp of resurgence.

That's why I'm going back to Elkhart next Wednesday -- to highlight the economic progress we’ve made and discuss the challenges that remain.

The story of Elkhart's recovery is the story of America's recovery. 

Today, Elkhart's manufacturing industry is back, and the town has regained nearly all of the jobs it lost during the downturn. The unemployment rate is lower than it was before the recession, and lower than the national average. In Indiana, more people have health insurance, and fewer homeowners are underwater.

This progress is thanks to the effort and determination of Americans like you. And it’s a result of the choices we made as a nation.

We still face some tough economic challenges, there’s no doubt about it. And all of us have to make some very important decisions about where we go from here. 

That’s what I’m going to talk about when I return to Elkhart on Wednesday. I hope you'll tune in.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

  Reported by The White House 3 hours ago.

Zane Benefits Releases New eBook: The Nonprofit Guide to Individual Health Insurance Reimbursement

$
0
0
New eBook Helps Nonprofits Successfully Switch to Individual Health Insurance

Salt Lake City, Utah (PRWEB) May 25, 2016

Zane Benefits, the leader in individual health insurance reimbursement for small businesses, announced today the publication of a new eBook, "The Nonprofit Guide to Individual Health Insurance Reimbursement." The guide helps small nonprofits switch to individual health insurance reimbursement to offer affordable, sustainable health benefits.

According to Zane Benefits, small nonprofits face unique challenges in hiring and retaining employees. With limited resources, leadership teams must be strategic about how to allocate compensation and benefit dollars.

When it comes to health benefits, controlling costs has become a major challenge. To gain control, nonprofits are switching from group health insurance to individual health insurance reimbursement.

The new eBook outlines how small nonprofits can save 20 to 60 percent on healthcare costs by reimbursing employees for individual health insurance.

The 16-page eBook is available for free download at the zanebenefits.com website and covers the following topics:

-Why reimbursing employees for individual health insurance is cost-effective
-The 3 new advantages of individual health insurance
-2 ways to reimburse employees
-How to transition employees to individual health insurance

About Zane Benefits, Inc.

Zane Benefits was founded in 2006 with a mission to consumerize employee benefits for small business. We have a vision for the world where employee benefits are actually employee benefits rather than employer benefits. "Consumerize" is the word we use to describe that vision. When small businesses offer Zane Benefits instead of traditional benefits, they save time and money by empowering employees with tax-free dollars. Using our online software platform (PeopleKeep®), small businesses help employees purchase their own benefits with real dollar contributions. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

Can Affordable Health Insurance Happen in 2016? BeniComp Has a Solution

$
0
0
Studies show that by coupling a high deductible health plan with outcome-based deductible incentives, employers will see a jump in employee participation and, thus, a sustainable financial future.

Fort Wayne, IN (PRWEB) May 25, 2016

BeniComp Insurance Company, a leading national provider of supplemental group health insurance, has seen a significant spike in their clients' employee participation for their wellness initiatives. BeniComp clients experience nearly 100% participation in their annual biometric health screening by implementing a high-deductible health plan with outcome-based deductible incentives. As a result, BeniComp clients have been able to cut their healthcare spending and offer lower premiums in exchange.

"Companies need to identify, realign, and manage their risk in order to truly control the cost of health insurance premiums," says Doug Short, President and CEO of BeniComp Insurance Company. "When a company invests in the health of their employees they are not only saving dollars, they are investing in their most valuable asset. The results are a win-win for everyone."

By coupling a high deductible health plan with outcome-based incentives, employers will be able to manage rising premium costs while encouraging employees to take ownership of their health. With deductible incentives, employers are able to offer thousands of dollars in incentives without going in the red. For employees, they see significance in one of two ways: either they have low health risks and will enjoy the safety net of a low deductible, or they have high health risks and are motivated to change their health outlook or look for money-saving strategies to manage their healthcare costs.

A recent white paper by Quest Diagnostics took aggregate, de-identified health screening data from 20 employers and approximately 58,000 participants. The analysis showed that "when participation rates are over 50% or more, [we see] 79% more employees at higher risks for health conditions than [we] would at 30%. When participation is at 70% or more, [we see] 167% more employees at higher risks for health conditions than [we] would at 30%." Imagine the results when participation is pushed to 95% or greater.

At a time when companies are seeing double digit increases in their health insurance premiums, companies are looking for a solution. Shifting cost to employees with higher deductibles does not address the long term effect of rising claims; however, pairing outcome-based deductible incentives with a high deductible health plan represses rising premiums and addresses the claims that are contributing to the future costs of the plan. The result is a plan that is sustainable for the future. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

Ez1095 Software Has Just Been Released Enabling XML Validation Before Submitting To IRS

$
0
0
Businesses can now use the XML validation feature when utilizing ez1095 software before submitting forms to the IRS. Test drive the 30 day no cost or obligation trial at http://www.halfpricesoft.com.

Newark, NJ (PRWEB) May 25, 2016

Halfpricesoft.com developers have just released the latest version of ez1095 ACA (Affordable Care Act) software. The new release includes a brand new feature in which customers can validate XML files before submitting to the IRS. This feature will save business owners time and frustration by catching mistakes before efiling and having to send in correction forms.

“ez1095 2015 software now offers a new validation for XML files to eliminate errors prior to submitting to the IRS. ” said Dr. Ge, the founder of Halfpricesoft.com.

New ez1095 ACA form software is easy-to-use and flexible. Developers created this software to adhere to the requirements by the government to file forms 1094 and 1095 starting in 2016. ez1095 software’s graphical interface allows customers to set up company, add employees, add forms and print forms soon after download. Customers can also click form level help links to get more details regarding the software.

ez1095 software is compatible Windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, XP and other Windows systems. Potential customers can download and try this software at no obligation by visiting http://www.halfpricesoft.com/aca-1095/form-1095-software-free-download.asp

Features included in the application are:· New XML validation feature to reduce errors before efiling
· Print ACA Form 1095-C, 1094-C, 1095-B and 1094-B on white paper for recipients and IRS with inkjet or laser printer.
· PDF print 1095-C and 1095-B recipient copies
· Efile version available for additional cost.
· Support unlimited companies at no additional cost.
· Support unlimited number of recipients at no additional cost.
· Print unlimited number of 1095 and 1094 forms at no additional cost.
· Fast data import feature
· Print Form 1095 C: Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Insurance
· Print Form 1094 C: Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns
· Print Form 1095-B: Health Coverage
· Print Form 1094-B: Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Return

Priced at just $195, ($295 for efile version) this ACA forms filing software saves employers time and money. To learn more about ez1095 ACA software, customers can visit http://www.halfpricesoft.com/aca-1095/aca-1095-software.asp

About halfpricesoft.com
Founded in 2003, Halfpricesoft.com has established itself as a leader in meeting the software needs of small businesses around the world with its payroll software, employee attendance tracking software, check printing software, W2 software, 1099 software and barcode generating software. It continues to grow with its philosophy that small business owners need affordable, user friendly, super simple, and totally risk-free software. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

5 Tax-saving Tips for Entrepreneurs

$
0
0
Being employed at an organization doesn't have the costs and risks that self-employment or entrepreneurship has. For most entrepreneurs, all those risks that could adversely affect your business or might eventually lead it into the right direction going forward.

If you work for yourself, then the responsibility to get customers and generate income out of them is yours, and you must provide them with the services or products constantly. Meanwhile, you have to manage multiple expenses, employees, potential lawsuits, your telephone and internet bills, travel expenses and more, in order to get new and retain existing customers.

You need to maximize the resource usage and minimize your overall cost to enhance the profitability of your business, which means that you need to claim every tax deduction for your business.

Here are 5 Tax-saving Tips for Entrepreneurs.

*1. Tax Deductions for Self-employed*

This type of tax deduction alludes to employers' share of social security and Medicare (equivalent to health insurance), which the employer is liable to pay. Every working individual must pay tax as per the income tax breakdowns of rate, which is 15.3% for entrepreneurs and 7.65% for employees.
For a working individual or an employee, the tax filing status is based on his or her monthly income as shown below:

Tax Filing Status Income Level
Single $200,000
Married (filing jointly) $250,000
Married (filing individually) $125,000

Self-employed income along with compensation is considered as the income threshold for tax calculation.

For example, if your income from the self-employed is $160,000 and your spouse earns $100,000 in wage income, then your total household income becomes $260,000. This exceeds the $250,000 threshold by $10,000 and you have to pay 0.9% extra as Medicare tax on the excess amount.
*
2. Home Office Expenses*

To establish and operate a business regularly, a definite workspace is required, which comes under Home Office Expenses no matter whether you rent it or own it, based on its use for business operations. This is one among the deductions that you can defend during an audit. You can do this by preparing your workspace map, keeping all measurements correct, and submit it to support your deductions.
There are two effective ways to calculate your deductions: Standard and Simplified. Luckily, you are not bound to implement the same method every year going forward.

If you go with the Standard method, then you have to calculate the real home office expenses, whereas the Simplified method requires you to multiply home office square feet value to the IRS-determined rate. However, you must not be using a workspace larger than 300 square feet. Besides, no itemized deduction or depreciation related to home is considered.

*3. Phone and Internet Expenses*

The expenses incurred for phone and the Internet, irrespective of whether home office deduction claimed or not, can be claimed. It is recommended to claim only the expenses that relate to your business directly. For instance, if you own a phone that is used for both personal and business calls, then you should claim deduction only for the calls that relate to your business.

In contrast, 100% of expense can be claimed for a phone used for business exclusively. The same applies to the Internet expenses when used for both personal and business purposes, or in either of the cases.

*4. Health Insurance Premiums*

You are eligible for claim deductions on the premium payments done by you for health insurance, dental check-ups, and other long-term care insurance if any, being an entrepreneur or self-employed if not covered by your spouse's group insurance policy issued by his/her employer.

The premiums paid by you towards the policy availed by your parents or dependents, spouse, and children below 27 years of age no matter if they're dependent on you or not.

*5. Meals*

As an entrepreneur, the expenses you bear over meals as part of business meetings and client entertainment are tax deductibles. You can claim deduction max 50% of the expenses over meals that cannot be lavish or extravagant under specific conditions, in case you keep the receipts.

A deduction of 50% of standard meal allowance can also be claimed if you have the record of your business trip but not the actual receipts.

*Conclusion*

Sometimes, tax deductions are more complex than your expectation as described above. It has often seen that entrepreneurs don't know whether a particular expense is eligible for tax deduction.
If you ever face a similar problem, think twice if the particular expense is in your line of business, and then go with the result.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 17 hours ago.

Charles W. Stellar Named WEDI President and CEO

$
0
0
Interim CEO named to permanent position in leading strategic initiatives for WEDI

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. (PRWEB) May 25, 2016

WEDI, the nation’s leading authority on the use of health IT to create efficiencies in healthcare information exchange, today announced that Charles W. Stellar has been named by the WEDI Board of Directors as WEDI’s president and CEO. Stellar has served as WEDI’s interim CEO since January 2016. As an executive leader with more than 35 years of experience in healthcare, association management and organizational leadership, Stellar will continue to oversee the strategic guidance of the organization, its staff and committees.

“Charles has been an incredible asset to our organization during a transitional time and has helped lead us forward to achieve the goals and initiatives set forth by our board,” said Jean Narcisi, chair of the WEDI board. “Charles has demonstrated the dedicated strategic leadership to further WEDI’s role as a recognized leader and advocate for healthcare IT, launch new initiatives, drive awareness of healthcare’s ongoing challenges, and collectively improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare IT.”

Previously, Stellar retired as executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association representing the nation’s health insurance industry, where he was the key liaison between AHIP’s 350 plan and 400 affiliate members, ensuring consistency in messaging and shaping AHIP’s membership strategy. At AHIP, Stellar’s extensive portfolio included overseeing member services related to positioning the association and its diverse membership to a variety of national, state and local audiences.

Stellar also provided comments: “The time I’ve spent as interim CEO for WEDI has shed light on many important issues this association is working to address for the industry. The dedicated board, executive workgroups, loyal sponsors and diverse membership base are what makes the success of this organization possible. I look forward to propelling us even further so as to make incredible impacts to healthcare IT.”

Prior to his tenure at AHIP, Stellar was president and CEO of the American Managed Care and Review Association (AMCRA); executive director of Healthmaster HMO/IPA; deputy administrator of Charter Medical Services in Saudi Arabia; executive director of EyeCare Associates; associate executive director of the American Association of Foundations for Medical Care; and associate executive director of the American Association of the Professional Standards Review Association (PSRO). Stellar earned bachelor degrees in health administration and business administration at the University of North Carolina.

About WEDI
The Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI) is the leading authority on the use of health IT to improve healthcare information exchange in order to enhance the quality of care, improve efficiency, and reduce costs of our nation’s healthcare system. WEDI was formed in 1991 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and was designated in the 1996 HIPAA legislation as an advisor to HHS. WEDI’s membership includes a broad coalition of organizations, including: hospitals, providers, health plans, vendors, government agencies, consumers, not-for-profit organizations, and standards development organizations. To learn more, visit http://www.wedi.org and connect with us on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

-###-

Press contact information:
Jennifer Jennings
770-900-5456
jennifer(at)andersoni(dot)com Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images