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

Invidasys, Inc. Named A "Cool Vendor" By Gartner

0
0
Leading Analyst Firm Selects Innovative Companies in the Healthcare Payers Market

Mesa, Ariz (PRWEB) June 08, 2016

Invidasys, Inc., offering the first fully cloud-based administrative processing solutions for health payers, today announced that it has been named a “Cool Vendor” based on the April 20, 2016 report, “Cool Vendors in Healthcare Payers, 2016” by Jeff Cribbs, Robert H. Booz, and Constance Sjoquist at Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT).

The report evaluates vendors bringing innovative products in support of core administration, cloud security, analytics, and care management in the Healthcare Payer market. Gartner’s report points out, “Cloud adoption in healthcare has long been hindered by security concerns, and this has opened a market opportunity for healthcare-specific cloud security and access support. The report also provides recommendations for Healthcare Payers to take advantage of the products offered by new and existing technology providers who are introducing cloud-native products, even in the heaviest application spaces like core administration and care management.

“We consider our designation as a Gartner Cool Vendor to be recognition of Invidasys’ mission to provide viable, next generation solutions to address the many challenges that are heavily impacting the payer marketplace,” said Sherwood Chapman, founder and CEO of Invidasys. “Being in the cloud, payers have immediate access to our solutions which can readily be integrated, in real-time, to payer’s existing technology stacks.”

The information provided in the Cool Vendor 2016 report is of value to all Healthcare Payer professionals who are seeking new ways to transform their core administrative platform strategy.

Disclaimer:
Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in our research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

About Invidasys, Inc.
Pioneered in 2009 by healthcare and IT experts with years of industry experience, Invidasys delivers agile, cloud-based, health information management component solutions and services to the complex healthcare payer and provider market.

The Arizona-based software engineering firm develops software components and services for healthcare payers and providers that are primarily focused on Medicare, Medicaid, and Health Insurance Exchange product offerings, and subject to strict government compliance.

Invidasys identifies the specific administrative pain points of healthcare payers and providers, and offers strategic solutions via the VIDASuite™ family of software components. These components assist payers in maximizing the value of their IT investment. For more information, please visit our website and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

###

Media Contact:
Kent LeFebre
Vice President of Sales & Marketing
Invidasys, Inc.
+1 (480) 792-1950
Kent.LeFebre(at)invidasys(dot)com· See more at: http://www.invidasys.com Reported by PRWeb 17 hours ago.

Why 'Robbing Peter' To 'Pay Paul Something-For-Nothing' Doesn't Work

0
0
Why 'Robbing Peter' To 'Pay Paul Something-For-Nothing' Doesn't Work Authored by Bill Bonner of Bonner & Partners (annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum),

-*From Subject to Citizen*-

On June 5th, the Swiss cast their votes and registered their opinions: “No,” they said. We left off yesterday wondering why something for nothing never works. Not as monetary policy. Not as welfare or foreign aid. Not in commerce. Not never, no how. But something for nothing is what people most want.

 

The future Switzerland just managed to dodge… for now

 

*The Swiss voted against awarding all citizens a “universal basic income” of about $30,000 a year, regardless of whether they have work or not. But the idea is unlikely to go away.*

Two-thirds of British voters say they are in favor of the idea. And Canada’s Ontario province is set to try something similar. If you’ve been following these Diary entries, you know how and why we have a welfare state.

It’s not because our leaders are more thoughtful and caring than those in the past. *Instead, the French and American Revolutions showed the relative greater value of “citizens” over “subjects.”*

When people thought they were in charge of a government, rather than merely subject to it, they no longer found it absurd to ask not what the government could do for them, but what they could do for it! *The elite, who control the government, had a quick response: You can pay higher taxes!*

And you can get yourself blown up in one of our self-serving foreign wars. Instead of being dragooned to serve in the king’s army, in other words, citizens enlisted, willingly.

And because their money was now used for only projects that benefited them – as selected by their elected representatives – they’d pay more for them. At least, that was the theory.

 

Finally free! Sort of…

*Yes, the voters are a nuisance*. Still, it pays to let the masses think they are in charge; you can get more out of them that way.

 

-*Birth of the Welfare State*-

But the new 19th-century citizen now had a rifle as well as a ballot. And if he could take down George III or Louis XVI, he could bring down any government. So, it was that, roughly a century after Louis’ head rolled, Germany’s first chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, figured out how to keep the new citizen docile:* Give him something for nothing. Give him a pension!*

*Through a series of acts in the 1880s, Bismarck’s Germany put in place the world’s first social welfare state – including health insurance and a public pension program. If people depended on the feds for their retirement financing, they would go along with almost anything the feds got up to.*

 

Bismarck, his stern Teutonic gaze fixed on some point in the distance… he invented the welfare state because he figured it was the best way to maintain the political system and keep the German emperor and elites in power.

 

*This was the origin of what we know as the welfare state – whereby the government collects money from the people and then returns a substantial portion of it to them. Some get jobs. Some get healthcare benefits. Almost all get pensions.*

Today, most governments operate on some version of Bismarck’s model – taking money from citizens, but also providing “public” benefits to them. The model worked beautifully for 100 years. Politicians, bidding for votes, continually sweetened the deal. Both “liberal” and “conservative,” they realized that they had to promise the voters more and more “benefits” to get elected.

*Real conservatism (favoring small, limited government) practically disappeared, *as the bidding heated up. Politicians promised voters unemployment compensation, medical care, drugs, subsidized housing, and other handouts. But the more something-for-nothing they were promised, the more they wanted.

 

-*“Advance Auctions”*-

*Fortunately, populations and economies were growing fast.* The young worked… and were promised benefits – drugs and pensions – that they could enjoy when they got older. As long as populations were growing and economies were expanding, the only problem was deciding who should get what.

*That’s why elections were so important. They were “advance auctions of stolen goods,” as Baltimore newspaperman H.L. Mencken famously put it. But they were auctions of goods that hadn’t even been created – let alone stolen.*

 

H.L. Mencken, who has left us with a treasure trove of trenchant and humorous political analysis (a sense of humor is a sine qua non if one doesn’t want to fall into deep depression over the reality of politics). Unfortunately, the likes of him don’t come around very often….

 

*And now, giving older people something for nothing is running into a problem*: There isn’t so much to give anymore, and there are a lot more people with their eyes on it. Public pension systems – such as Social Security in the U.S. – had relatively few beneficiaries before World War II. Now they are swamped by them.

*The math no longer works.* Instead of getting more out of the welfare state than they paid in, citizens now expect to get less. Maybe a lot less. Not only are there more old people, but also the feds have damaged the economy that supports them. How?

 

Dumb, pettifogging regulations, special privileges and payoffs, licensing, subsidies. Everybody’s got an angle!

 

-*Snake in the Woods*-

“Bill, I’d like to take away your trees,” said Tommy in this Tidewater drawl. Tommy, as we recently reported, has been working with his bulldozer on our farm in Southern Maryland.

“But it’s not like it used to be. Now, you need a permit to take a p***, let alone cut down trees. The forester [probably a recent graduate of the University of Vermont] comes out, and he tells you which trees you kin cut. I’m not kiddin’.”

So, now we have to get in touch with the county government – the state government – and for all we know, it will soon be a federal case, too. Work will slow. Inevitably, there will be fees to pay.

 And you thought it was your tree, to do with as you like? Time for you to understand: All your trees are belong to us!

And why? Why should someone else tell us which trees to cut? How is the world a better place as a result? Most likely, it won’t be. It will just be less efficient. Productivity is now going backward – and if that continues, the welfare state is doomed.

“Man…you got some snakes down in those woods,” said Tommy. “An’ I hate snakes. I bin operating a tractor [a bulldozer] all my life. Mor’n 60 years. An’ I neva had that happ’n before. I was down in the bottom…doin’ my work.

“An’ all of a sudden, I looked aroun’ n dere was a big black snake in de cab wif me. He was right behind me, hanging from the window and lookin’ over my shoulder. Well, you ain’t neva seen an 80-year-old man move as fast as I moved.”

“What happened to the snake?” we asked.

“Oh, I settled up wif ‘im.”

And now the welfare state no longer makes sense. If a person can get more from private insurance, private health care, and private education, why support the feds? In other words, the welfare state only really worked as long as people got something for nothing.

 

Nothing personal…

 

*Nothing-for-something will not be attractive to the voters. *But wait. Why not just rob Peter to pay Paul? Tax the few rich, and give the money to the many poor. Remember, it’s a majority rule system! Why won’t that work?

Oh, dear reader, you make us laugh sometimes. Have you forgotten? The voters don’t really control the system. Peter does. Reported by Zero Hedge 15 hours ago.

Free or Low-Cost Health Insurance

0
0
Free or Low-Cost Health Insurance Patch Riverhead, NY -- Free program at Riverhead Free Library Reported by Patch 15 hours ago.

HHS Announces Plans To Curtail Consumers’ Use Of Short-Term Insurance Policies

0
0
The Obama administration on Wednesday moved to sharply limit short-term health insurance plans, which a growing number of consumers have been buying even though they offer less coverage than what the Affordable Care Act decreed all people should have. Reported by ajc.com 15 hours ago.

Top industry regulator's priority: Survival of health insurance companies

0
0
Reviewing health insurance premium increases is a matter of balance, the presumptive new top New York regulator for insurance companies told lawmakers. Maria Vullo, nominated by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to lead the Department of Financial Services, answered questions from state senators about banking and insurance issues during hearings Wednesday about her appointment. Lawmakers focused on topics including how the department has dealt with rising health insurance premiums. The Department of Financial… Reported by bizjournals 15 hours ago.

Goldman Crushes Democrat's Dreams: Shows Obamacare Has Cost "A Few Hundred Thousand Jobs"

0
0
Goldman Crushes Democrat's Dreams: Shows Obamacare Has Cost A Few Hundred Thousand Jobs We suspect Lloyd Blankfein will be receiving a call from The White House (or Treasury) very soon as Goldman Sachs' economists did the unthinkable in the age of political correctness - while investigating the state of under-employment in America, the smartest people in the room found that *ObamaCare has led to a rise in involuntary part-time employment, estimating that "a few hundred thousand workers" have been forced to cut hours and has "created disincentives for full-time employment."*

Goldman's Jan Hatzius explains that they find mixed *evidence to support the theory that the employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has contributed to the elevated level of involuntary part-time work*.



Our estimates of the effect by industry do show signs of an effect, particularly among the sectors that had the greatest gaps in required health insurance coverage prior to implementation of the mandate, but the relationship is weak.

 

It is possible that *the level of involuntary part-time workers could be a few hundred thousand higher than it would be otherwise as a result of the mandate,* which is a small share of the 6.4 million workers employed part-time involuntarily, but *potentially a much larger share of the “underemployment gap”.*



Their research into the relative slack in the labor force notes that...



*The share of workers who would like to work full-time but are only able to find part-time work for economic reasons has declined much more slowly than the unemployment rate*, raising the possibility that structural factors could be keeping the involuntary part-time rate elevated (Exhibit 1). *If true, this would suggest that there is currently even less slack remaining in the labor market than we have assumed.*

 

 

*One potential explanation of the structural rise in the ratio of share of part-time to full-time employment is the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).*

 

In principle, the *ACA should increase part-time employment as a share of total employment, from both the demand and supply side*.

 

· On the *demand *side, some employers that do not offer health insurance coverage for full-time employees may *seek to avoid penalties by relying on part-time labor instead. *
· On the *supply *side, the *ACA potentially creates disincentives for full-time employment*, as it increases the implicit tax on marginal low- and middle- income earnings by reducing subsidies as incomes rise. It also loosens the link between employment and health insurance coverage - coverage can now be purchased more easily away from one’s employer - which may allow some who previously worked full-time for the offered health benefits to now work part-time instead. However, these supply-side effects should not be contributing to the elevated level of involuntary part-time work.



As Goldman concludes...



*Overall we believe that the evidence suggests that the ACA has at least modestly elevated involuntary part-time employment. *

 

While the effect is hard to quantify given the apparently loose relationship just noted, we would estimate that *a few hundred thousand workers might be working part-time involuntarily as a result of the ACA.* We reach this estimate by multiplying the difference between the actual and estimated involuntary part-time workers in the five sectors most affected by the ACA mandate by total employment in those sectors. We can reach a similar estimate by dividing the sectors into two groups weighted equally by total employment, and subtracting the difference between actual and estimated involuntary part-time employment in the less-affected group by the difference in the more affected group. These admittedly rough measures fall in the middle of the few academic studies on the topic, and suggest that *while the effect of the ACA employer mandate is small compared to the total number of the 6.4 million workers employed part-time for economic reasons, it could constitute a more significant share of the estimated remaining “underemployment gap.”*



There goes Blankfein's invite to Hillary's inauguration. Reported by Zero Hedge 7 hours ago.

Bill to Protect the Rights and Health of Models Dead for the Year: Education and More Support Necessary to Move Forward

0
0
On Friday, May 27th, 2016, California Assembly Bill 2539 was held in the suspense file and killed for the rest of the year. The bill would have awarded models workplace protections and health standards, granting them employee status, similar to actors who are employees of the brands they represent. As well, California modeling agencies would have been licensed as talent agencies. Although we fought hard to see this bill through, the Association of Talent Agents (ATA) and specific modeling agencies lobbied violently against it, which ultimately led to the bill's death. As an executive board member of Peaceful Hearts Foundation and Project HEAL SoCal Chapter, two organizations dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse and eating disorders, I am passionate about pushing forth legislation which will protect vulnerable workers from being exploited in the fashion industry. Furthermore, as a survivor of a more than seventeen-year battle with eating disorders, trauma, other mental health issues, and as someone who experienced the darker side of the modeling industry, I want to clarify the arguments that have continuously come up over the past few months concerning the legislation. 

*Argument #1: Males and females should avoid getting into the business if they don't want to be exploited.* Wrong. The issue here is that it is never okay for any worker in any industry to be exploited. Take, for example, the action that was brought against the exploitation of nail salon workers in New York City. It was definitely not acceptable to exploit a largely immigrant female work force, and it is certainly not acceptable to exploit a mostly young, vulnerable population in the modeling industry. How many stories do we have to hear about truly, criminal activity happening before any action is taken? Does the latest article about Bill Cosby ring a bell? Or what about BBC News - they recently reported on a modeling website's avoidance to notify users about rapists posting on the site. Telling the models to "go work somewhere else" or "grow a brain," just enables the perpetrators and further belittles largely adolescent models, who are already being exposed to a ton of abuse, both sexually and financially. So when the government and the public fails to stand up for the rights of those working in the modeling industry, they are essentially complicit in this abusive behavior.

*Argument #2: A bill like this would waste taxpayer's money*. Think again.
First of all, the bill would help to create more positive images for society by implementing healthy standards for models - it's a win-win. The multi-billion-dollar advertising industry and the modeling agencies currently control how models are supposed to appear, which in turn, creates the beauty ideal for society. But since most agencies are only interested in exploiting models don't you think it's time we create a positive change in the system? In other words, the cost of the bill is trivial when the gain will be healthier images that our youth will see every day in advertisements. The latest statistics show just how large of an effect magazines have on American elementary school girls - 69% reported that the photos influenced their notion of the classic body shape, and 47% expressed that the images made them want to lose weight. Second, the approximate $532,000 cost of the bill is nothing when compared to the long-term costs of eating disorder treatment, let alone the effects and financial consequences of PTSD from sexual abuse and rape.  Per person, eating disorder treatment ranges anywhere from $500 a day to $30,000 a month; on average, individuals need at least three to six months of treatment, yet most insurance companies will not cover these fees. Models are not afforded health insurance currently because they are not treated as employees, merely independent contractors. Wouldn't it be better if, as Californians, we came together and supported a legislation that would protect those who are mentally suffering, and saved billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars in the process? I want to clarify that not only would models be protected, but also the young people who aspire to look like models who, as we know, cannot naturally attain these weights and appearances in the first place. A report from the California Health Care Foundation shows that in 2012 -2013, public spending on mental health services totaled over $7.76 billion. *Argument #3: We shouldn't try to rescue everyone and control human behavior.* We were never trying to control anyone. We were merely trying to regulate a severely unregulated industry; a multi-billion-dollar business that gets rich off of exploiting young talent. Models deserve to work in a safe and health environment where their rights are being exercised. It's not too much to ask for models to be paid on time, for agents to stop withholding pay for weight gain, or for agents to stop asking models to lose weight when models are already at a healthy weight or underweight. Also, by ensuring models are treated fairly and not abused, the images that our youth see would be healthier because models would not be required to starve themselves. Eating disorders are grave mental illnesses that have complex origins and require a diverse, dedicated support team to treat them. We were never trying to supervise anyone's lifestyle; let's get educated here - eating disorders are not lifestyle choices. I will state again that *eating disorders are life-threatening, often fatal illnesses.* Because the industry is an aggressive, highly uncontrolled business, we want to provide standards, support and protection for the vulnerable workers (who are often far away from home, and some, who are suffering from a serious psychological condition), which will in turn impact the images our youth are exposed to, and therefore, impact our youth.

-- 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 5 hours ago.

Insurance Agent Brandon Shreves Walks for MD and Alabama’s Fallen Heroes

0
0
Brandon Shreves, of Shreves Insurance, participates in MDA Muscle Walk and Blue Star Salute 5K Run/Walk.

Mobile, AL (PRWEB) June 09, 2016

Brandon Shreves, founder and owner of Shreves Insurance, is proud to announce Team Shreves Insurance, he, along with his wife and daughter, recently participated in the MDA Muscle Walk of South Alabama Gulf Coast, which raises funds for muscular dystrophy research and treatment, and anchored several sponsorships for the walk, in addition to his own. “The abilities that most of us take for granted, such as the ability to walk, run, even breathe, are taken away from children and adults who suffer from muscular dystrophy,” said Shreves. “Most people don’t even realize what muscular dystrophy is or the effect that it has on an individual and their family unless they are personally affected by MD. I like to help raise awareness any way I can.”

Shreves also recently participated in the Blue Star Salute 5K Run/Walk for Alabama’s fallen heroes since 9/11. Blue Star Salute of Alabama is a concerted effort by local, state and national military, political, veteran and caring citizen groups and organizations and sets aside a day for particularly significant appreciation and honors for America’s military of all branches. “There are men and women that spend months, even years, away from their families risking their lives for American citizens to be able to live our lives,” said Shreves.

Shreves adds that he looks forward to seeing this event, which is in its twelfth year, continue to grow each year. “If participating in an event like this can make just one more person realize the sacrifices these men and women make for us and honor their service, that is fantastic,” said Shreves. “There are so many great organizations and events in our community, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed diving into the events that I have had the privilege to be involved in and look forward to continuing my work with these organizations as well as others.”

About Brandon Shreves, Shreves Insurance
Born and raised in Mobile, AL, Brandon Shreves offers a variety of products and services, which include auto, home and property, life and health insurance, as well as banking products. He also offers a wide array of plans that can build cash back and cover financial service needs. For more information, please call (251) 219-7800.

About the NALA™
The NALA offers small and medium-sized businesses effective ways to reach customers through new media. As a single-agency source, the NALA helps businesses flourish in their local community. The NALA’s mission is to promote a business’ relevant and newsworthy events and achievements, both online and through traditional media. For media inquiries, please call 805.650.6121, ext. 361. Reported by PRWeb 53 minutes ago.

Is It Time for a New “New Deal?”

0
0
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Hsingii Bird holds up a sign for supporters to take a selfie with it before a campaign rally with Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, Tuesday, May 17, 2016, in Carson, California. 

Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, thanks in part to a leftward policy shift that many attribute to Bernie Sanders. Sanders does deserve some credit for Clinton’s moves to the left, which include her proposal to let those 50 and older buy into Medicare; her promise not to cut Social Security, and her pledge to sign any $15 minimum wage bill passed by Congress.

But Clinton’s increasingly liberal tilt comes not just in response to the Sanders insurgency, but to burgeoning demographic and economic trends that will last well beyond the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, emerging economic and electoral forces are poised to move the political boundaries of public policy from decades of center-right prescriptions—defined by privatization, deregulation, and devolution—to more center-left policies.

In short, the era of small government is over. It may even be time for a new ‘New Deal’ that expands and reinforces the existing social safety net. Historically, Americans have only embraced social welfare investments for such “deserving” populations as the elderly and the working poor. But a variety of factors is forcing policymakers on both sides of the aisle to respond to an electorate that is increasingly young, diverse, and economically strapped.

First, there is an upward swing in the number of Americans who call themselves liberal. When Bill Clinton was first elected in 1992, only 17 percent of the electorate identified ideologically as liberal. For decades, many Americans associated the term liberal with anti-war and civil rights radicalism. However, as the ‘60s-era fades from the public consciousness, one out of four voters identifies as liberal.

Younger voters with no stake in the political battles of the 1960s are driving the rise in liberal self-identification. These Millennials were battered by the Great Recession and are deeply suspicious of capitalism—a system that they associate with rising income inequality and with living in their parents’ basements. These new voters do not associate the term socialism with the Red Army, but rather with the red soccer jerseys from the Nordic countries they like to visit during their semesters abroad.

The 2016 presidential election will be the first in which Millennials will make up the same proportion of the U.S. voting age population as the Baby Boomers. Younger voters who drove the Sanders campaign are not content with a Democratic Party that functions as a collection of somewhat progressive interest groups. These voters want an ideologically liberal Democratic Party that pushes an aggressive agenda of national redistribution.

Moreover, the electorate is not only growing younger but also more ethnically and racially diverse. When Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984, the electorate was 80 percent white. By the time Obama won re-election in 2012, white voters were down to only 72 percent of the electorate and nonwhite voters comprised a record 28 percent of all voters. In 2016, the electorate will be even more diverse, and one out of three eligible voters will be Asian, black, or Latino. This growth is primarily being driven by increases in the Hispanic electorate. Racial and ethnic minorities primarily vote on economic issues and tend to demand higher social spending and a more activist federal government than white voters.

The increasing diversity of the voting age population will be especially important in Sun Belt swing states. An interactive model by Aaron Bycoffe and David Wasserman shows that the white share of eligible voters will dip below 70 percent in 2016 in Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Florida. According to Census Bureau projections, people of color will represent 37.2 percent of all U.S. adults in 2020, and 54.8 percent by 2060.

These demographic trends are not lost on Republican leaders struggling to tamp down the furor over presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s claims that a federal judge’s Latino heritage should disqualify him from presiding over a lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump University. This latest controversy underscores the ethnocentric nature of his campaign, which he opened by comparing Mexican immigrants to rapists and drug dealers. It is no coincidence that this election cycle is prompting massive numbers of Latinos to register to vote and seek citizenship.

 

*Demographic changes are only part of the story,* of course. Developing economic trends also are poised to drive policymakers from both political parties to move to the left. The Republican Party has spent 40 years expanding tax breaks for the wealthy and cutting public spending for the poor. Yet, Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican nomination has shown that a large swath of the GOP’s base wants to protect entitlement spending and potentially even raise taxes on the rich.  

Income inequality has been on the rise for 40 years, and the wealthy are projected to continue to claim an ever-larger share of the economic pie for the next two decades. Average Americans have responded to rising inequality by calling for more redistributive policies, and by blaming the wealthy for the lack of equal economic opportunity. These public opinion changes create political incentives for more populist policy offerings—the kinds that have helped both Sanders and Trump gain traction with disaffected white voters.

The great wage stagnation has pushed more people from the middle class to the working class. Historically, working-class voters have been the most vocal advocates of redistributive policies such as a higher minimum wage, and universal health care. Since the mid-1970s the hourly wages of most workers have been stagnant. Middle-class wages have been completely flat through the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s (the only exception being the late 1990s). The salaries of low-wage workers have fared even worse, falling 5 percent over the same three decades.

The decrease in union jobs and the transition from a manufacturing to a service economy has meant not only dipping wages but also a loss in employer-provided health care and pensions. According to the Employment Benefit Research Institute, low-skilled workers are enrolled in company pensions at half the rate they were in 1987. Trump’s promise to bring back good manufacturing jobs is in part a pledge to create an economy that produces low-skilled jobs that offer respectable pay and employment-based benefits—a promise he realistically can’t keep.

These economic trends, along with increased globalization and automation, not only make such seemingly ultraliberal ideas as free college and national health care more palatable to workers being pushed out of the middle class. They also make popular conservative policy prescriptions look increasingly unrealistic.

The Republican Party has tried to mollify angry, white working-class voters by proposing tax subsidies that would ostensibly enable them to invest in and set aside savings for their own social welfare needs. These include recent Republican plans to expand Health Savings Accounts and Individual Retirement Accounts, proposals that ring increasingly hollow because the average blue-collar household is living paycheck-to-paycheck. Moreover, the average American worker has not experienced a real pay raise in 30 years, is not employed in an occupation that offers generous employer-provided benefits, and has a household savings rate that is less than 5 percent.

Recent reports show that half of families have saved nothing for their retirements, and even Americans older than 55 are financially unprepared for their retirement years. President Barack Obama just last week announced his support for generously expanding benefits to both current and future Social Security beneficiaries. The population of Americans older than 65 is projected to double between today and 2050. Retirees are not just growing as part of the electorate, but they also vote at the highest levels in American politics.

More importantly, the politically active elderly of tomorrow will be more liberal than older voters today. The majority of older voters, in the past decade, have been reliable Republican voters who have played an especially important role during off-year elections. However, the Baby Boomers who came of age during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations are more liberal than previous elderly cohorts.

In addition, future 65-and-older voters will be more racially and ethnically diverse than today’s older voters. Social Security and Medicare are much more important to the financial security of black and Latino retirees—key constituents of the Democratic Party. Social Security, for example, makes up 90 percent of the total retirement income for half of the racial minorities older than 65, but only one-third of the retirement income for whites.

The vast majority of voters know and trust Social Security and Medicare. Therefore, as the nation grows older, and as economic insecurity presumably continues to grow, any effort to replace these programs with private alternatives will meet with stiff political resistance.

 

*So what would a new “New Deal” for these new and disaffected voters* look like? First, workers in the modern economy need generous and portable social insurance. This starts with health care. A natural evolution of Obamacare would be the formation of a national health-care exchange that would allow workers to shop and buy health insurance over state boundaries and harness the buying power of the federal government in negotiating lower prices for health-care services and products. A federal health-care exchange along with expanded Medicare and Medicaid would effectively create a piecemeal but universal American health-care system.

American workers who are relying more and more on Social Security and lack access to private pensions could benefit from an expansion of a new federal program known as “myRA.” The program right now is only available to workers who are not offered 401(k)s through their employer. This program could be mandated so that all workers are automatically enrolled and employers offer matching contributions. This could be paid for, in part, through eliminating tax subsidies for private pensions. In contrast to current private pensions, the myRA has no fees, stays with a worker when they change jobs, and is backed by the U.S. Treasury. This program would not only increase household savings but also release some of the pressure on most workers who currently have to rely exclusively on Social Security for their retirement income.

Next, the federal government could take a number of steps to reduce the cost of college. President Obama’s American College Promise plan to make the first two years of community college free would target the families most in need of assistance and access to a college education. The federal government could also use its power as the largest lender of student assistance to force states to reinvest in their public universities after years of reduced state-level financing and tuition hikes.

Finally, the federal government could pass a universal basic income (UBI) that would write an annual check to every adult for $10,000 and give every child $2,000. This started out in the 1970s as a conservative option to existing welfare policies, has gained traction with policy analysists, and was recently voted on in Switzerland. Since the UBI would be given to everyone, it would allow the federal government to eliminate some existing and ineffective welfare policies and severely cut back on tax benefits that accrue to the rich—such as the home mortgage interest and capital gains deductions.

The big challenge, of course, is how to pay for all this. Younger voters want national health care and free college. Older voters want to protect Social Security and Medicare. By some estimates, Sanders’s “College for All” and universal health-care plans would cost $33 trillion. For policymakers on both sides of the aisle, another challenge going forward will be to balance the demands of younger voters who are attracted to ideas such as national health care and free college, with the determination of older voters to protect Social Security and Medicare.

The most obvious mechanism to pay for these new programs is by raising taxes on the wealthy, who have captured most of the gains from economic growth over the past four decades. An obvious first step would be to eliminate the more than $1 trillion of tax breaks, mainly benefiting the rich, that currently riddle the tax code. Another proposal from Robert Schiller is to change the tax laws so that increases of income inequality would trigger a subsequent rise to the top marginal income tax rate. This policy would actively address income inequality by not only tethering the highest tax rate to rising inequality levels but would also create a new revenue stream that could be used for public programs that help the poor and middle class.

Tax hikes on the rich would not fully pay for the programs at the heart of a new “New Deal.” Middle- and working-class Americans, who have had their income taxes cut for decades, would also have to pay more to the federal Treasury. Political resistance is inevitable. The answer may lie in a new consumption tax that, although regressive, would be less visible to the public, and could be traded off for income tax reductions. Whatever form tax increases take, recent polls show that most voters do not feel overburdened by their federal tax bills.

A new “New Deal” will invariably excite opposition in some quarters, and will not be enacted overnight. But as younger, more diverse, more liberal voters rise to become the largest cohort in the electorate, and as more Americans psychologically associate with the working class, policymakers must begin to respond to their calls for economic equity, income security, and a more sustainable social safety net. Reported by The American Prospect 1 day ago.

The Secret Washington Battle Determining Drug Prices

0
0
Part B drug payment policy. Boring. Obscure. But an ongoing battle over these policies will affect you -- especially what you pay for drugs.

Everyone is outraged over exorbitant -- and ever-rising -- prescription drug prices. Over the last two years drug prices have gone up double digits even when general inflation -- and even health care inflation -- has been historically low. Politicians have proposed many ideas to curb them: Drug importation from Canada; Medicare drug price negotiation. And in California voters will decide on an initiative that ties what state agencies pay for drugs to the price paid by the Veteran's Administration, which are among the lowest in the country.

Most of these ideas are political non-starters. And even if they were enacted, they won't solve the drug-price problem. For instance, Medicare's negotiating authority would be hollow without a drug formulary and the ability to not carry a drug. Plus, if Medicare lowered its prices, drug companies would raise prices for private insurers, as they do with hospital payments.

To respond to the public's demand for action, CMS, the government agency that runs Medicare, came up with pilot programs -- limited experiments -- to curb what the government pays especially for high-cost drugs like those for cancer, multiple sclerosis, and immune suppression for organ transplantation. It would also lower what seniors have to pay for the drugs. The Part B program accounts for slightly over $20 billion in payments, which is less than 5% of the estimated $457 billion the United States spends on all drugs.

Currently, for those part B drugs, doctors and hospitals are paid the average sales price (ASP) of a drug plus 6%. Just as a car salesman working on commission has an incentive to sell a Mercedes rather than a Fiat, the part B "plus 6%" payment formula encourages the use of high-cost drugs. For instance, an oncologist makes $600 for prescribing a $10,000 a month brand-name chemotherapy (like the drug Abraxane, for which the price tag exceeds $13,000) but makes only $6 for a $100 generic drug that is just as effective. You don't have to be rapacious scoundrels like the CEOs of Valiant and Turing Pharmaceuticals to be tempted to prescribe the $10,000 drug. Indeed, studies show that, in the aggregate, oncologists do succumb to these perverse incentives by prescribing more expensive drugs. This drives up Medicare spending and burdens millions of seniors with higher co-pays for their drugs.

A few months ago, Medicare proposed pilot programs that would institute changes to see if they could lower costs and improve quality. First, instead of paying the "plus 6%," Medicare would pay a flat fee of $16.80 plus 2.5% of the average sales price. (The 2.5% is to account for variation across the country in the ASP.) This program pays physicians more for drugs costing up to $440 per dose and less for more costly ones. Crucially, the Medicare plan does not prohibit use of any drug. It simply leaves physicians to make prescribing decisions based on clinical need rather than their own financial interests.

Medicare proposes to test other incentives to promote the use of high-value drugs. One would be to eliminate seniors' co-payments or cost sharing for high-value drugs. Another would be "reference pricing," paying the same low price for all drugs with the same clinical effect. Yet another would allow Medicare to pay drug companies based on outcomes -- paying only for those patients in whom the drug works.

Both AARP and Consumer Union support the pilot programs. But the drug companies are apoplectic.

Why? Obviously they want to stave off policy changes that might result in a loss of sales. But what they really want to do is draw a line in the sand. If the drug companies can defeat the Part B experiments, they will use the victory to scare off any future attempts to regulate drug prices.
The fate of the Medicare proposal is in the balance. Strangely, key stakeholders who normally denounce high drug prices are supporting the drug companies. Politicians are objecting. Hypocritically, oncologists who complain about their patients' "financial toxicities" from high-cost chemotherapies are against the plan. And some so-called patient advocacy groups are also objecting.

Not surprisingly, all of these stakeholders have financial interests aligned with the drug companies. Politicians get significant campaign contributions from the drug companies. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 election cycle big Pharma spent over $50 million in campaign contributions. In the 2014 cycle they contributed $32 million, and so far in 2016 their contributions have exceeded $30 million. Oncologists make more money from prescribing high-cost drugs. And the vast majority of those patient advocacy groups are fronts for drug companies, receiving hefty donations from them.

The Medicare Part B proposals are quite modest: They are experiments, testing new ideas to control high drug costs, not mandated policies for the whole country. And they are reasonable: Why should we pay physicians more for prescribing a more expensive drug? Why shouldn't we encourage physicians and patients to use cheaper clinically equivalent drugs?

If the drug companies win this fight over Part B, the entire country will be the loser. Drug costs will continue to rise with impunity -- and drive up health insurance premiums. Medicare will pay more, and all of us -- especially the six million seniors who have large co-pays for Part B drugs -- will pay more out of pocket. And their new-found political muscle would prevent any future laws or regulations to limit drug prices.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 21 hours ago.

This exclusive report reveals the ABCs of the IoT

0
0
The Internet of Things (IoT) Revolution is picking up speed and it will change how we live, work, and entertain ourselves in a million ways big and small.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 20 hours ago.

Health Insurance Innovations downgraded to market perform from strong buy at Raymond James

0
0
Reported by MarketWatch 20 hours ago.

Health Insurance Innovations drops 20% after downgrade

0
0
Reported by MarketWatch 19 hours ago.

Biometrica Names Wyly Wade, Global Biometrics And Cybersecurity Expert, As CEO

0
0
A Board Member and Former Company Advisor, New CEO Wyly Wade Has Worked With Security Groups, Intelligence Agencies And Governments Across Five Continents

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (PRWEB) June 09, 2016

The Board of Biometrica Systems, Inc., a Las Vegas and Virginia-based SaaS company focused on creating products that link the physical to the digital in order to prevent crime and track criminals and their associates, announced on Thursday that Board member and technology maven Wyly Wade will lead the company’s multi-sector domestic and international expansion as its new Chief Executive Officer & President.

“This is an exciting time for Biometrica,” said Kawaljit “Tony” Singh, the chairman of the Biometrica board. “We already protect roughly 45% of U.S. casino revenue through our range of products. During this time, as we go from being only casino-focused to moving into the hospitality and retail sectors, and look to expand our presence from five countries to many more, it makes perfect sense to have Wyly lead that process of growth given his multifaceted background in cybersecurity, biometrics and identification, and his work with different governments, intelligence agencies, and the private sector.”

Wade, who has advised Biometrica on strategy and direction for two years, has worked with both private security groups and government agencies in multiple countries, including the United States, Japan, Brazil, Columbia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Haiti, Rwanda, Mexico, Maldives, Tajikistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Germany, and Ghana, on biometrics, benefit delivery, identification and security issues.

He was part of the original group that built the world’s largest health insurance program (called RSBY) for people below the poverty line in India, and also part of the founding core team at the Unique Identification Authority of India, which built Aadhaar, a project that, with more than 1 billion people enrolled, is now the world’s largest biometric program.

“Biometrica is a company on the cusp of changing how the world recognizes and identifies threats, tracks patterns that lead to crime, and people that commit criminal events, from thieves to traffickers to terrorists. I’m looking forward to leading the company as we grow into becoming a global leader in the security and surveillance sector across industries and regions,” said Wade.

In the two decades since the time when, barely out of his teens, he solved a bug that was obstructing what later became the release of Lotus Notes 4, Wade has worn multiple hats. He helped set up the security practice at technology consulting services pioneer, Cambridge Technology Partners, in the mid-1990s, focusing on South America and the drug cartels. In 1997, he and his team at Cambridge hacked into the Federal Reserve, with permission, on live television — for ABC’s 20/20 — to show The Fed just how vulnerable banking systems could be.

Later, as CTO of Holliston, the U.S. passport maker, he advanced product offerings to include producing passports and security documents for 85 countries, and helped develop biometric standards for the U.S. passport. In that capacity, as an advisor to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), he was instrumental in defining the requirements for the e-passport.

Wade will be based out of Biometrica's Virginia office.

About Biometrica
Biometrica Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is in the business of creating software and systems that link the physical to the digital and the digital to the physical with the intention of minimizing criminality, or events that could lead to crime.

To this purpose, the company’s range of tools enable the recording of mala fide or criminal occurrences, recognize threats, identify politically enhanced personnel and their associates, track individuals or groups that have either committed a misdemeanor or felony, or have contributed to breaking the law, and finally, help security and surveillance teams of all stripes link all of the above.

Private Investigator License # 1295 [Nevada PILB]
http://www.biometrica.com Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

SCAN Health Plan Senior VP to Discuss “Value Through Innovation” at the AHIP Institute and Expo June 15-17

0
0
SCAN Health Plan Senior VP to Discuss “Value Through Innovation” at the AHIP Institute and Expo June 15-17 LONG BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--#medicareadvantage--Eve Gelb, SCAN Health Plan’s sr. vice president of healthcare services, will be among the featured speakers at the America’s Health Insurance Plans’ (AHIP) Institute and Expo June 15-17 in Las Vegas. Reported by Business Wire 18 hours ago.

Damning Report Reveals Palm Oil's Human Cost

0
0
Palm oil: useful and ubiquitous, it also happens to be one of the most destructive ingredients on the planet.

The industry has been linked to mass animal die-offs, widespread razing of rainforests, displacement of indigenous communities, climate change and pollution. Now, according to a new report, the palm oil industry may also be guilty of exploiting some of its labor force, allegedly exposing workers to hazardous chemicals without adequate protection and turning a blind eye to the use of child labor on plantations.

Even more, these alleged violations may be occurring in the production of “sustainable” palm oil -- a product supposedly certified as transparent, ethical and environmentally sound, and produced by employees who are “responsibly considered.”

“Unfortunately, these results were not shocking to find because they represent the tip of the iceberg of widespread and systemic exploitation and labor rights abuses taking place throughout the Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil sector,” Robin Averbeck, senior palm oil campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network, told The Huffington Post in an email this week.In September and October, an international team of researchers from RAN, the Indonesian labor organization OPPUK and the human rights advocacy group International Labor Rights Forum conducted an on-the-ground investigation into the conditions of workers on two palm oil plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia.

Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of palm oil, responsible for more than half of the global supply. Malaysia is the second-largest producer, with about one-third of the pie.

About 70 percent of Indonesia’s palm oil is reportedly grown on Sumatra.

The two plantations the researchers visited -- both of which are certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil -- are owned by Indofood, Indonesia’s largest food company and a joint venture partner of food giant PepsiCo. Indofood produces all of PepsiCo’s products from Indonesia, including popular snack brands like Lay’s and Cheetos.

RSPO certification requires growers to be environmentally responsible and also to adopt fair working conditions for employees. According to the report, the two Sumatran plantations flouted not just RSPO principles, but also those detailed in PepsiCo’s latest palm oil policy, which was released in September, and Indofood’s own 2015 annual report -- both of which, as an example, specifically condemn the use of child labor.

Mark Wakeford, Indofood’s CEO, told National Geographic this week that the company complies “with all Indonesian law and regulations regarding our workers.” Wakeford added that the company had requested RAN to provide “evidence to substantiate their claims, so that we can investigate,” but said the group had “not provided us with any further facts or evidence, other than a draft report with unsubstantiated allegations, hence we are unable to follow up on their specific allegations.”

Both Indofood and PepsiCo did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.Here are some of the key findings from the report:

Indofood allegedly relies heavily on casual and other precarious forms of labor on its plantations.

Of the 41 workers interviewed, 20 were employed as either casual workers, limited-duration contract workers or so-called “kernet” workers, informal workers who have no direct employment relationship with the company.

“These [casual and kernet] workers had no job security, earned as little as half or less the pay than permanent workers, sometimes paid for their own safety equipment and health care, and faced increased health and safety risks,” the report said.

Indofood itself has admitted that half of its workers are employed on a casual basis. The company does not, however, report on the presence or number of kernet workers on its plantations.

Indofood allegedly sets unrealistically high daily quotas for its employees, forcing them to enlist the help of these informal kernet workers.

According to the report, plantation workers often engage the help of kernet workers in order to meet their quotas. These kernet workers are allegedly often children or employees’ wives.

One of the kernet workers interviewed for the report was a 13-year-old boy. He said he’d stopped attending school so he could earn some money on the plantation.

At least three harvesters told researchers that their daily quota was 2 or more tons of fresh fruit bunches per day. “To achieve their quota, harvesters must often walk long distances, particularly during the low-yield season, to cut and collect the necessary amount of fruit bunches,” the report said. One harvester said he had to collect between 140 and 160 fruit bunches per day, each weighing between 30 and 45 pounds.

Indofood is also accused in the report of keeping its workers at "unethically low wages," paying both permanent and casual workers below the district’s minimum wage.

Casual and kernet workers reported regularly making between 20 percent and 75 percent less than the district monthly minimum wage.

One harvester said he paid a 16-year-old kernet worker just $1.50 a day plus food and cigarettes. (The district minimum wage is $6.10 per day.) 

“What kind of adult person would want to get paid that much? [But] that’s how much I can afford,” the harvester is quoted as saying.

Though no evidence was found of Indofood directly hiring child laborers, at least three children under the age of 17 were allegedly found working as kernet workers.

A fourth boy, a 19-year-old kernet worker, said he'd been working at the plantation since he was 12. Several harvesters also said they'd hired children to help them on the job. 

According to the International Labour Organization, working in agriculture is one of the “worst forms of child labor,” as it exposes children to extreme hazards, such as dangerous tools and harmful pesticides.  

*Workers on the plantations were exposed to hazardous chemicals, including paraquat, a toxic herbicide banned in many Western countries. *

The report alleges workers were often not provided with adequate health care and safety equipment despite this exposure. 

Casual and kernet workers reported having no health insurance and limited access to the on-site company clinic. The company allegedly did not provide any protective gear to kernet workers.According to National Geographic, this report is one of the first to be published in English that details, firsthand, the working conditions of Indonesian palm oil plantations.

Illegal and problematic practices on palm oil plantations have been highlighted in the past. In 2015, for instance, news reports revealed human rights and worker rights violations on palm oil plantations in both Indonesia and Malaysia. The year before, a report by the Environmental Investigation Agency called “Permitting Crime” said an estimated 80 percent of palm oil cultivation areas in Indonesia were guilty of illegal practices. 

“Generally speaking, the level of legal compliance within the sector is critically low, and law enforcement is very weak due to entrenched corruption,” Tomasz Johnson, forest campaigner at the EIA, told HuffPost last year. “For consumers, this means it’s very likely that the palm oil they consume on a daily basis has been produced illegally. It almost certainly hasn’t been produced sustainably, in any meaningful sense of the word.”
Despite the myriad challenges facing the palm oil industry, RAN's Averbeck, who worked on the recent report, said consumers and corporations can make a huge impact in reducing the production and consumption of so-called conflict palm oil.

"Overwhelmingly, international consumers have made clear demands that they do not want to buy snack food that is connected to rainforest destruction and human rights abuses or labor violations," she told HuffPost. "The biggest thing consumers can do is to contact PepsiCo to tell the company that they
stand in solidarity with palm oil workers today and demand that PepsiCo urgently address exploitation in its supply chain." 

PepsiCo, in turn, “must take bold action” in addressing these allegations, said Eric Gottwald, legal and policy director at International Labor Rights Forum.

“Any serious responsible palm oil commitment must include Indonesia, the world’s largest palm oil producer and the country most greatly impacted by rainforest destruction and human rights abuses caused by palm oil plantation expansion. In light of the egregious conditions on Indofood plantations detailed in the recent report, PepsiCo must do better,” he said in a press release.

PepsiCo is said to be the largest globally distributed snack food company in the world. Its annual net revenue surpassed $60 billion last year.

*Read the full report, titled, "The Human Cost of Conflict Palm Oil," here. *-- 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.

CareSource: Obamacare exchange required adapting

0
0
CareSource's expansion into health insurance has brought it to a new population of people, which has required it to adapt its strategies. CareSource officials, along with those from several health care groups in other states, spoke at a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services forum in Washington, D.C., on Thursday about their expansion in the health insurance world and how the company is adapting as it prepares for the fourth year of the Obamacare-mandated health insurance marketplace this… Reported by bizjournals 14 hours ago.

Infrastructure: Hillary Clinton's Big Idea and Best-Kept Secret

0
0
Hillary Clinton talks about many important issues on the campaign trail including reforming the criminal justice system, immigration reform, providing affordable college education, raising the minimum wage, providing equal pay for women, protecting Social Security and Medicare and a whole host of foreign policy initiatives. All of these are worthy goals and she ought to push hard for their approval from the fractured Congress she may be facing no matter how well the Democrats do in the 2016 elections.

But what might be her one "Big Idea" that could secure bi-partisan support and make a major difference for our country now and in the future? For Barack Obama it was the Affordable Care Act which despite its limitations has provided health insurance for more than 16 million people who did not have it before. For Dwight Eisenhower it was massive interstate highways that are now more than 60 years old. For Hillary Clinton it could be her investment in America's whole infrastructure, "Building Tomorrow's Future Today".

Most of this article is taken from her plan which you can read on her website but which is rarely discussed in the media or on campaign stops. It is admittedly not a politically sexy issue but it could be the one issue that would win bi-partisan support and be her legacy accomplishment.

Building Tomorrow's Infrastructure Today

-It would increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over five years.

-$250 billion would be direct public investment.

-$25 billion would go to a national infrastructure bank which would leverage the money to make an additional $250 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees and other forms of credit enhancement.

- The bank would also administer part of a renewed and expanded version of President Obama's Build American Bonds program.

America's Infrastructure Needs

-Roads and bridges: more than half of our highways are 45 years or older and almost one in four bridges are in need of repair. The average motorist spends almost $1,000 a year in extra fuel and countless hours because of heavy traffic and another $500 in repairs due to "potholes". Consumers also pay more for food and other items due to higher shipping costs. This bill is long past due. The longer we delay the bigger and more difficult it gets. Failure to spend $1 in road repair now typically results in costs of $7 five years later. There are about 33,000 traffic fatalities each year and one third involve poor road conditions. Road repair saves money and more important, lives. REPAIR, REPAIR, REPAIR!

-Public transportation: ridership is growing each year and so are crowding and delays due to insufficient trains and buses and traffic jams at major hubs. INVEST, INVEST, INVEST!

-Freight investment: upgrades in the 25 most costly freight bottlenecks, starting with Chicago.

-Airports: the newest US airport is 20 years old and our best rated airport is ranked 30th in the world. This Clinton initiative will create several world class air hubs that also connect people to mass transit. It would also bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century.

-Internet access: President Obama has made this a priority. This initiative will commit to providing 100 percent of American households with affordable first class broadband access and connect public schools and libraries to high-speed broadband.

-Dams and levees: we have more than 84,000 dams and 1000,000 levees that protect us from floods, facilitate the movement of goods and generate electricity. This plan would provide funds to inspect and repair them.

The benefits to this investment are many, including between 2 and 3 million living wage jobs, cleaner water and air, an opportunity for advanced internet learning, up to date information for farmers and businesses, greater safety and efficiency on our roads and in the air AND borrowing at a time of low interest rates. Bernie Sanders has proposed a plan to invest a trillion dollars over five years and the American Society of Engineers estimate that it will cost 3.6 trillion by 2020 to catch up with infrastructure needs. Clinton's plan will not do the whole job but it could be a viable compromise and first step on a long road to replenishing our vital infrastructure. She could call it REINVESTING IN AMERICA.

Secretary Clinton says she wants to work across the aisle with Republicans. This could be the one to break the political log jam in the Congress and bring our country together on something we all agree needs to be done.

OH! There is one thorny issue to be resolved. Secretary Clinton says she will pay for all this by "REFORMING BUSINESS TAXES". Will she look to the big businesses that will benefit from this investment as well as bankers to pay more? Will they be willing to pay their fair share to invest in the country that has given them so much?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.

Community Focused Insurance Eligibility and Payment Plans Options Offered Through Partnership

0
0
A new partnership between Clay County Medical Center and The Midland Group works to increase access and affordability for citizens of Clay County, Kansas

Clay Center, Kansas (PRWEB) June 09, 2016

Clay County Medical Center (CCMC) and The Midland Group (Midland) have partnered to provide public healthcare benefit advocacy services that consist of Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program, Crime Victim Compensation, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, and other programs eligible to patients that might not have the resources to pay their medical bills.

Austin M. Gillard, CEO of CCMC said, “With recent changes in healthcare legislation, we saw an opportunity to further serve our patients and to increase healthcare coverage for these vital services. The need for patient advocacy is stronger today than it has ever been. We hope to have a positive impact on our community by extending affordable healthcare to those who would otherwise not have access to it.”

As consumers continue to absorb more and more of the costs associated with healthcare, we at CCMC feel an obligation to proactively work with our patients to help them find resolutions to the balances for which they are responsible. We partnered with Midland because of their excellent track record in successfully obtaining healthcare benefits for patients, as well as their ability to work with patients in a compassionate manner.

CCMC and Midland will also offer payment plan options to patients with balances after insurance has paid, or who are uninsured. According to Gillard, “Most people want to pay their hospital bill, but not all hospitals offer the flexibility people need to make the monthly payments affordable. We want to work with our patients in a way that benefits our whole community. We feel this patient payment plan does just that.”

Roger McCollister, CEO of The Midland Group, says his company is committed to helping hospitals like CCMC to make healthcare affordable. According to McCollister, “CCMC is the kind of hospital we want to work with. They genuinely care about their patients and they recognize that quality healthcare encompasses all phases of the patient experience—including post-care payment options.”

The Midland Group, a nationally recognized provider of Self-Pay Solutions® for hospitals, is owned and controlled by a non-profit charitable trust. In addition to Medicaid advocacy, they provide early out services, as well as flexible, affordable and low-interest patient payment plans to hospitals as part of their mission to improve access to healthcare for low-income and uninsured patients. For more information about The Midland Group and their Self-Pay Solutions®, go to http://www.midlandgroup.com or call (855) 890-9586 or info@midlandgroup.com.

Clay County Medical Center (CCMC), a 25-bed Critical Access Hospital located in Clay Center, Kans., serves the citizens of Clay County and the surrounding communities. CCMC boasts a comprehensive service line including acute care inpatient, intensive care and obstetrics, outpatient and ancillary services such as diagnostic imaging, respiratory therapy, cardiac catheterization and electrocardiology, physical and occupational therapy. For more information about Clay County Medical Center, go to http://www.ccmcks.org. Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.

While Congress Spends Its Time Trying to Undercut Retirement Security, a Long To-Do List Awaits

0
0
This week, the President vetoed a resolution championed by Republicans in Congress to roll back critical protections for Americans doing the hard work of savings for retirement.

Believe it or not, the rules of the road that have been in place for decades have not ensured that financial advisers act in their clients’ best interest when they give retirement investment advice. Instead, some firms incentivize advisers to steer clients into products that may have higher fees and lower returns. These conflicts of interest in retirement advice cost America’s families an estimated $17 billion a year. As the President has said, “a lifetime of hard work and responsibility should be rewarded with a shot at a secure dignified retirement.” That’s why the Department of Labor recently finalized a new rule to crack down on these conflicts of interest and to require that families get advice that’s truly in their best interest, better enabling them to protect and grow their savings.

If that sounds like common sense, that’s because it is. And the Department of Labor worked hard to get the rule right. The final rule reflects extensive feedback from industry, advocates, and Members of Congress. Through a careful, thoughtful process, it was streamlined to ensure continued access to good retirement advice, while maintaining an enforceable best-interest standard that protects consumers

But Wall Street and its Republican allies in Congress continue to stand in the way of these important protections, putting advisers’ profits over families’ savings.

This resolution was just the latest futile attempt by Republicans to roll back important protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. Republicans in Congress have relentlessly fought to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, trying to turn back the clock to when 20 million fewer Americans had health insurance. And just these past few months, Republicans have wasted time trying to block rules that would cut carbon emissions and improve public health, protect workers’ right to organize, and ensure Americans working extra hours get the extra pay they deserve.

These efforts won’t become law, and everyone knows it. So, Congressional Republicans are wasting time trying to undo important progress instead of finding bipartisan solutions to some of the biggest issues facing our country. And you might be wondering, don’t they have anything better to do? Here are a few ideas of what Congress could be spending its time on if it weren’t dead set on undermining retirement security:

· Providing $1.9 billion in funding that our public health experts say we need to fight Zika
· Holding a hearing and a vote for a Supreme Court nominee that has more federal judicial experience than any other in history
· Curbing a prescription opioid abuse and heroin epidemic that is claiming tens of thousands of American lives each year by investing $1.1 billion in treatment
· Confirming a nominee to the Export-Import Bank Board, so the Bank has a quorum and can get back up to full strength supporting Made-in-America exports and American jobs
· Raising the minimum wage so hard work pays off
· Reforming our broken criminal justice system
· Preparing for consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a high-standard trade agreement with the Asia-Pacific that will support good, American jobs
· Investing in our infrastructure to create well-paying jobs and enhance our competitiveness

The list could go on much, much longer. So, instead of letting Congress undo important rules that protect retirement savers (or working families, or Americans with preexisting conditions, or kids with asthma), the President and the entire Administration are committed to making whatever progress we can on these important priorities with the time we have left. Let’s hope Congress takes us up on that. Reported by The White House 11 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images