CHICAGO (Reuters) - The first national analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act on people with HIV showed significant increases in health insurance coverage among people infected with the virus that causes AIDS, according to a report released on Tuesday.
Reported by Reuters 1 hour ago.
Obamacare significantly expanded insurance for people with HIV
↧
↧
Antitrust Rulings Put Chill on Health-Insurance Mergers
Cigna called off the roughly $48 billion merger with Anthem and filed a lawsuit against its suitor, the second such health-insurer deal to fall apart.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 15 minutes ago.
↧
Business News Roundup, Feb. 15
Health insurer Cigna announced Tuesday that it will unilaterally terminate its $54 billion merger agreement with Anthem after the deal was rejected by a federal judge. The news came shortly after insurance giants Aetna and Humana announced a mutual decision to abandon their $37 billion merger agreement. Cigna has filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against Anthem seeking a judgment that the merger agreement had been terminated lawfully and seeking a $1.85 billion termination fee and $13 billion in damages. The two mergers were proposed in 2015 and could have reshaped the health insurance landscape by consolidating four of the largest insurers in the U.S. into two companies. Both deals were blocked by the Justice Department on antitrust grounds, and two federal judges upheld those decisions in the last few weeks. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen pointed Tuesday to a solid job market and economy and said the Fed will probably resume raising interest rates in the next few months. [...] the details of Trump’s ambitious proposals — for tax cuts for individuals and businesses, greater spending on infrastructure projects, changes to trade deals and a relaxation of regulations — could remain hazy. A federal judge in San Francisco granted initial approval Tuesday to a deal worth at least $1.2 billion to compensate the owners of roughly 78,000 Volkswagens with 3-liter engines that were rigged to cheat on emissions tests. The company previously agreed to spend up to $10 billion compensating owners of roughly 475,000 Volkswagens and Audi vehicles with 2-liter diesel engines — the bulk of the vehicles caught up in Volkswagen’s emissions cheating scandal. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer congratulated attorneys for Volkswagen and car owners before granting preliminary approval to the smaller deal involving Volkswagens, Audis and Porsches. Berkshire Hathaway filed a quarterly update on its stock portfolio with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday. Besides the Apple move, Berkshire revealed a new stake in Monsanto and added to its airline investments. Investors like to look at Berkshire’s investments because of Buffett’s remarkably successful track record, although the filing doesn’t make clear who made all the investments.
Reported by SFGate 37 minutes ago.
↧
Trump administration acts to ‘stabilize’ health insurance
WASHINGTON (AP) — With a new health secretary in office, the Trump administration is proposing its first regulatory changes to the health insurance markets created by President Barack Obama’s overhaul. Among the most noticeable change for consumers: a shorter sign-up window of 45 days, as opposed to three months. Administration officials said Wednesday the new […]
Reported by Seattle Times 12 hours ago.
↧
Humana leaves Aetna marriage behind, sees EPS this year as high as $16.85; plans to exit individual health insurance market by year end
Reported by SeekingAlpha 12 hours ago.
↧
↧
Trump administration acts to 'stabilize' health insurance
WASHINGTON (AP) " With a new health secretary in office, the Trump administration is proposing its first regulatory changes to the health insurance markets created by President Barack Obama's overhaul.Among the most noticeable change...
Reported by New Zealand Herald 11 hours ago.
↧
The Trump administration just proposed massive changes to Obamacare
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced new proposals for the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual insurance exchanges on Wednesday morning.The proposals from CMS include a number of changes to enrollment periods and timelines for insurers in an attempt at "stabilizing the individual and small group health insurance markets," according to a press release.
The changes are the first administrative tweaks to the law also known as Obamacare under the new administration of President Donald Trump. They contain a combination of long considered ideas and some serious departures from the previous administration.
Perhaps the two most striking changes are cutting in half the exchanges' 2018 open enrollment period and lowering minimum standards for care to qualify for the exchanges.
The new rules propose having an open enrollment period, during which people without health insurance through their employer of Medicaid/Medicare can sign up for coverage, from November 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017. Previously, open enrollment periods have run a total of three months from November 1 to January 31 of the next year.
Additionally, the rules would lower the "de minimis range used for determining the level of coverage." Essentially, the ACA established minimum standards for coverage (here's a full breakdown from CMS) in order to be certified on the bronze, silver, and gold plan levels. The new rule would allow insurers to cover slightly fewer areas of health and still be counted at a certain medal level."This proposal will take steps to stabilize the Marketplace, provide more flexibility to states and insurers, and give patients access to more coverage options," said Patrick Conway, acting CMS administrator. "They will help protect Americans enrolled in the individual and small group health insurance markets while future reforms are being debated."
Here's a quick rundown of some of the other proposed changes:
· *Give insurers more time to figure out their 2018 plans: *Insurers have expressed concerns over uncertainty regarding the repeal and replacement of Obamacare by Republicans. This uncertainty, coupled with enrollment data, has already led one of the largest insurers — Humana — to announce plans to leave the market. Others are considering their offerings. The date to submit 2018 plans to the federal and state governments in April. The new rule said that if the other changes are accepted, CMS would issue "separate guidance" on the deadline for insurers.
· *Increased scrutiny during special enrollment periods:* The rule would force people that enroll outside of the open enrollment period to provide additionally documentation to be allowed access to coverage. It would allow people who lose employer coverage due to a job status change to gain access, but prevent people from waiting until they get sick to sign up for plans. This is a long standing idea to prevent abuses of the special enrollment periods. A similar proposal came from the Obama administration.
· *Force beneficiaries to pay back owed premiums before getting the next year's coverage:* The new rule would allow insurers to "to collect premiums for prior unpaid coverage" before the person was allowed to sign up for a plan from the same insurer the next year.
Some of these changes had been proposed by the Obama administration in August in order to address the imbalance in the exchanges.
The open enrollment tweak may be the most significant departure from the Obama era, however. The CMS rules from August tried to expand outreach and sign-ups for the open enrollment period, allocating more money toward advertising efforts.
Not only did Trump's team pull back from a good portion of a $5 million ad buy for the 2017 open enrollment, but the shortened open enrollment period could also make it much more difficult to grow sign-ups or keep the number of people enrolled at the same level in 2018.
Open enrollment already fell in 2017 from the year before, mostly due to a significant deceleration in sign-ups after Trump took office.
The proposed changes are open to public comment until March 7, according to the filings with the Federal Registry.
*SEE ALSO: One of the US's largest health-insurance companies is dumping Obamacare*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Here's how powerful an executive order is and how it could be reversed Reported by Business Insider 11 hours ago.
↧
Cigna terminates $48B merger agreement with Anthem
Connecticut-based health insurer Cigna Corp. (NYSE: CI) announced Feb. 14 that it is rejecting Indianapolis-based Anthem Inc.'s (NYSE: ANTM) $48 billion acquisition offer. Cigna’s announcement came on the same day that another potential pairing of health insurance giants was canceled. Humana and Aetna announced the decision to terminate their merger on Feb. 14, as well. File mega-insurer breakups under unexpected Valentine’s Day announcements. The Cigna-Anthem union was dealt a blow Feb. 8…
Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.
↧
Humana will dump individual health plans and Obamacare, focus on Medicare Advantage
Humana Inc. plans to withdraw from the individual health insurance business and will pull out of the health insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act, effective next year. The news came Tuesday afternoon, after Louisville, Ky.-based Humana (NYSE: HUM) announced that it and Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) had terminated their proposed merger agreement after it was rejected by a federal judge on antitrust grounds. Humana will maintain its employer group insurance business, and it will continue…
Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
AETNA CEO: The Obamacare exchanges are in a 'death spiral' (AET)
Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini is not hopeful for the future of the individual health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, based on comments he made on Wednesday.Bertolini, whose company is one of the five large public health insurers, said that the exchanges are in a "death spiral" during a speech at a Wall Street Journal conference.
"It’s not going to get any better, it's getting worse," said Bertolini according to Politico's Paul Demko.
The idea behind Bertolini's comments are that as premiums increase on the exchanges, fewer young and healthy people will sign up for coverage.
This will leave a higher percentage of older, sicker people on the exchanges, making them more expensive for insurers. The losses from this sicker risk pool will cause insurers to pull out of the exchanges, fewer choices on the exchanges will lead to higher prices, and thus even fewer healthy people will sign up to balance the pool.
Bertolini has long expressed doubts about the exchanges. Aetna pulled its offerings from roughly 70% of the places it was doing business last year and the CEO said during a recent earnings call that the company is considering its footprint in 2018.
During the block of a proposed merger between Aetna and Humana, however, a federal judge ruled that Aetna and Bertolini had cut their exposure to Obamacare to induce cooperation from Department of Justice to approve the merger.
In a letter to the DOJ in July, Bertolini said that the company would reduce its footprint in the exchanges if the DOJ blocked the deal. Bertolini claimed this was due to the loss of cost savings from the merger, but the judge said the move showed that "Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchange for favorable treatment" for the deal.
During the 2016-2017 open enrollment period, the total number of people signing up for insurance through the federal Heathcare.gov exchange fell by 400,000. Much of this drop was due to a significant slowdown in enrollments after President Donald Trump took office and pulled large amounts of funding for enrollment outreach.
Despite the drop in enrollment, health policy experts said the exchanges were not necessarily in a "death spiral" and their future depended on the repeal and replace process being undertaken by Republicans.
This, however, was not enough to appease Humana —another of the big five insurers — which said it would pull all of its Obamacare plans from the exchanges in 2018.
Additionally, the Trump administration rolled out proposals for new rules that would cut the exchanges' open enrollment period in half and institute other reforms in an attempt to stabilize the individual heath insurance market.
*SEE ALSO: The Trump administration just proposed massive changes to Obamacare*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Here's how to use one of the many apps to buy and trade bitcoin Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.
↧
What you need to know on Wall Street right now
*Welcome to Finance Insider, Business Insider's summary of the top stories of the past 24 hours.*There has been a lot of news in the investment world in the past 24 hours, so let's dive right in:
· Warren Buffett is investing billions into an industry he once called a "death trap"
· SoftBank is buying Fortress for $3.3 billion
· Billionaire investor Nelson Peltz took a huge stake in Procter & Gamble
· GM's management is facing a nightmare scenario with David Einhorn
· David Einhorn dumped all $143.5 million of his Michael Kors investment
· David Tepper's Appaloosa dropped about $1 billion on 4 pharma stocks
· Billionaire Chase Coleman's Tiger Global made a nearly $500 million bet on Fiat
· Izzy Englander's $35 billion hedge fund made a big bet on Target
· A $20 billion investment firm dumped its huge trade in Apple — and bet on Alphabet and Microsoft
· A $14 billion hedge fund is sounding the alarm on distress in the retail sector
· Morgan Stanley's global head of stock trading just quit to join a $35 billion hedge fund
· Morgan Stanley's top US equity strategist is leaving the bank for a quant shop
· A big Massachusetts pension has yanked its money from one of the hedge fund industry's struggling titans
· Warren Buffett just dropped Walmart and signaled the death of retail as we know it
In bank news, Goldman Sachs just announced a big promotion in its new online business, and is investing $95 million in ad firm MDC Partners.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen is in front of the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday for the second day of her semiannual Humphrey-Hawkins testimony. Here are the headlines:
· Fed’s Yellen speaks out against Trump's Wall Street deregulation push
· Yellen wants to leave the Fed's balance sheet alone for now
· Asked about Trump's immigration plans, Janet Yellen says "slowing immigration would slow economic growth"
There is a bunch of news in the healthcare sector, too. Here's what you need to know:
· The Trump administration just proposed massive changes to Obamacare
· One of the US's largest health-insurance companies is dumping Obamacare; Trump says law "continues to fail"
· Cigna is suing Anthem for $13 billion after walking away from their merger
· AETNA CEO: The Obamacare exchanges are in a "death spiral"
Lastly, here are the 22 best universities outside the developed world.
*Here are the top Wall Street headlines from the past 24 hour*
*One of Wall Street's top equity analysts reveals his biggest fear for 2017* - Business Insider asked the Head of US equity strategy at JP Morgan what keeps him up at night. His answer was loud and clear: An ongoing trend of US dollar strength.
*Verizon is reportedly close to a revised deal that cuts Yahoo's price by about $250 million* - Verizon has tentatively reached a revised deal with Yahoo, according to Bloomberg.
*Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey bought $7 million in stock after its value dropped dramatically *- Twitter's stock price dropped 10% last week — and CEO Jack Dorsey is taking the opportunity to hoover up $7 million (£5.6 million) in shares.
*Groupon is soaring after its revenue beat* - Groupon is up after reporting fourth-quarter earnings on Wednesday morning.
*DEUTSCHE BANK: Chinese lending exploded in January* - Domestic lending in China shot up in January in a sign the country's credit boom is still accelerating.
*Retail sales destroy expectations as gasoline sales soar* - US retail sales came in well ahead of expectations for the month of January, according to new data from the Commerce Department.
*The ruble dives after Trump tweets 'Was Obama too soft on Russia?'* - The Russian ruble extended its earlier losses after President Donald Trump tweeted about President Barack Obama's stance on Russia with respect to Crimea.
*28-year-old cofounder of liquor delivery platform shares his advice for aspiring entrepreneurs* - Maxim Razmakhin has always been an entrepreneurial spirit. When he was in college, he sold milkshakes out of his dorm room.
*Here are the 10 best markets to be a homebuyer *- Housing markets in the eastern part of the US continue to lag those out west.
*SEE ALSO: The 27 most important finance books ever written*
Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 8 hours ago.
↧
CQ fluency Awarded Contract With The Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
CQ fluency to provide Medicare Part C and D Model Marketing Material Translations
Hackensack, NJ (PRWEB) February 15, 2017
CQ fluency has been awarded a contract by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide Medicare Part C and D Model Marketing Material Translations for beneficiaries with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
For the CMS Medicare Part C and D Model Marketing Material Translations contract, CQ fluency participated in a year-long selection process based on the following criteria: cost of services, technical understanding and approach, management plan, personnel qualifications, past performance and 508 compliance capabilities. CQ fluency provides over 50 Medicare Advantage, Medicaid and Health Insurance organizations across the country with various language services, this vast amount of experience contributed to CQ fluency being rated at the top in each selection criteria.
CQ fluency is honored to be working in partnership with CMS to provide accurately translated model documents including Enrollment Forms, Annual Notice of Change/Evidence of Coverage (ANOC/EOC), Formularies and Directories. In addition, CQ fluency will be creating and maintaining a CMS glossary of healthcare and health insurance terms to ensure consistency across all model documents.
About CQ fluency
CQ fluency is one of the largest providers of language and accessibility services to Medicare Advantage and Medicaid health plans in the country. We offer our clients a one-stop document solution that ensures compliance with CMS and allows us to provide certified, translated and accessible documents within easily managed time-frames and in an extremely cost effective way.
About CMS
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The programs administered by CMS include: Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Health Insurance Marketplace. Reported by PRWeb 7 hours ago.
Hackensack, NJ (PRWEB) February 15, 2017
CQ fluency has been awarded a contract by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide Medicare Part C and D Model Marketing Material Translations for beneficiaries with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
For the CMS Medicare Part C and D Model Marketing Material Translations contract, CQ fluency participated in a year-long selection process based on the following criteria: cost of services, technical understanding and approach, management plan, personnel qualifications, past performance and 508 compliance capabilities. CQ fluency provides over 50 Medicare Advantage, Medicaid and Health Insurance organizations across the country with various language services, this vast amount of experience contributed to CQ fluency being rated at the top in each selection criteria.
CQ fluency is honored to be working in partnership with CMS to provide accurately translated model documents including Enrollment Forms, Annual Notice of Change/Evidence of Coverage (ANOC/EOC), Formularies and Directories. In addition, CQ fluency will be creating and maintaining a CMS glossary of healthcare and health insurance terms to ensure consistency across all model documents.
About CQ fluency
CQ fluency is one of the largest providers of language and accessibility services to Medicare Advantage and Medicaid health plans in the country. We offer our clients a one-stop document solution that ensures compliance with CMS and allows us to provide certified, translated and accessible documents within easily managed time-frames and in an extremely cost effective way.
About CMS
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The programs administered by CMS include: Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Health Insurance Marketplace. Reported by PRWeb 7 hours ago.
↧
Rolling back Obamacare would be bad for Louisiana's health: A letter to the editor
A lack of health insurance could lead to deaths in Louisiana and nationwide.
Reported by nola.com 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
IRS Deals Major Blow To Obamacare Mandate
Submitted by Peter Suderman via Reason.com,*The tax agency has stopped requiring individual filers to indicate whether they maintained health coverage or paid the mandate penalty as required under the law*
*How much difference does a single line on a tax form make?* For Obamacare's individual mandate, the answer might be quite a lot.
Following President Donald Trump's executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, *the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.*
The health law's individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a "shared responsibility payment." The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a form 8965.
For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise they would be labeled "silent returns" and rejected.
*Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.*
Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it's not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow up.
But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.
*"The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden," the IRS said in a statement to Reason. "Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn't indicate their coverage status."*
The tax agency says the change will reduce the health law's strain on taxpayers. "Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund," the IRS statement said.
The change may seem minor. But it makes it clear that following Trump's executive order, the agency's trajectory is towards a less strict enforcement process.
Although the new policy leaves Obamacare's individual mandate on the books, it may make it easier for individuals to go without coverage while avoiding the penalty. Essentially, if not explicitly, it is a weakening of the mandate enforcement mechanism.
*"It's hard to enforce something without information," says Ryan Ellis, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative Reform Network.*
The move has already raised questions about its legality. Federal law gives the administration broad authority to provide exemptions from the mandate. But "it does not allow the administration not to enforce the mandate, which it appears they may be doing here," says Michael Cannon, health policy director at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Unless the Trump administration maintains the mandate is unconstitutional, the Constitution requires them to enforce it."
*"The mandate can only be weakened by Congress," says Ellis. "This is a change to how the IRS is choosing to enforce it. They will count on voluntary disclosure of non-coverage rather than asking themselves."*
The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. "Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe," the agency statement said.
*Ellis says the new policy doesn't fully rise to the level of declining to enforce the law. "If the IRS turns a blind eye to people's status, that isn't quite not enforcing it," he says. "It's more like the IRS wanting to maintain plausible deniability."*
Tax software companies are already making note of the change. Drake Software, which provides services to tax professionals, recently sent out a notice explaining the change in policy. As of February 3, the notice said, the IRS "will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual shared responsibility payment or does not include an exemption on Form 8965, as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61."
*The mandate is a key component of Obamacare's coverage scheme, which is built on what experts sometimes describe as a "three-legged stool."* The law requires health insurers to sell to all comers regardless of health history, and offers subsidies to lower income individuals in order to offset the cost of coverage. In order to prevent people from signing up for coverage only after getting sick, it also requires most individuals to maintain qualifying coverage or face a tax penalty. While defending the health law in court, the Obama administration maintained that the mandate was essential to the structure of the law, designed to make sure that people did not take advantage of its protections.
In a 2012 case challenging the law's insurance requirement, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax penalty. The IRS is in charge of collecting payments.
Some health policy experts have argued that the mandate was already too weak to be effective, as a result of the many exemptions that are included. A 2012 report by the consulting firm Milliman found that the mandate penalty offered only a modest financial incentives for families making 300-400 percent of the federal poverty line. More recently, health insurers have said that individuals signing up for coverage and then quickly dropping it after major health expenses is a key driver of losses, and rising health insurance premiums.
*It's too early to say whether the change will ultimately make any difference. *But given the centrality of the mandate to the law's coverage scheme and the unsteadiness of the law's health insurance exchanges, with premiums rising and insurers scaling back participation, it is possible that even a marginal weakening of the mandate could cause further dysfunction. Health insurers have said the mandate is a priority, and asked for it to be strengthened. Weaker enforcement of the mandate could cause insurance carriers to further reduce participation in the exchanges. One major insurer, Humana, said today that it would completely exit Obamacare's exchanges after this year.
It is also possible that congressional Republicans will make it moot by repealing much of the law, including its individual mandate, which, as a tax, can be taken down with just 51 Senate votes.
*Regardless of its direct impact, however, the change may signal that the Trump administration intends to water down enforcement of the health law's most controversial requirement, even if those steps are seemingly small.* The Trump administration may not be tearing Obamacare down entirely, but it appears to be taking steps to weaken the law, however subtly, one line at a time.
*Correction:* The IRS did not reject silent returns last year, as this story originally indicated. The plan was to go into effect this year, for 2016 returns, but the IRS reversed course on February 3. Reason regrets the error. Reported by Zero Hedge 6 hours ago.
↧
If Trump Really Cared About The Working Class, Puzder Never Would've Been Nominated
If Donald Trump truly cared about working Americans, as he claimed during his campaign, he never would have nominated a vocal opponent of working people, fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder, for labor secretary.
The White House on Wednesday was set to withdraw Puzder from consideration, under increasing fire from Republicans upset about his record on immigration, from Democrats upset over his history of running a company repeatedly charged with labor violations, and from just about everyone horrified by domestic abuse accusations from an ex-wife, which gained fresh attention when Politico published a 1990 tape of the woman saying Puzder “vowed revenge” after she went public. Nearly 150 civil rights, women’s rights, labor and faith organizations had called for Trump to withdraw the nomination.
“From the very start of the nomination process, it was clear that fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder was unfit to lead the U.S. Department of Labor. Thanks to fierce opposition from a diverse group of Americans, including people deeply concerned about the treatment of workers and of women, enough senators came to the same realization, forcing Mr. Puzder’s withdrawal from the nomination,” Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said in a statement.
“In nominating Mr. Puzder for labor secretary, President Trump chose for the department that champions workers someone whose views and values are not only antithetical to what workers want and need, but also out of step with mainstream America.”
Of all the problems with Puzder, it was his record on workers’ rights that was particularly galling.
Puzder would have overseen a department created specifically to defend workers’ rights and improve their wages and working conditions. As chief executive of CKE Restaurants Holdings, the parent company of Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., Puzder has always been on the other side of that mission.
His nomination revealed “the complete scorn Trump actually has for workers,” Heidi Shierholz, a policy director and economist at the progressive Economic Policy Institute, told The Huffington Post.
Puzder is a vocal opponent of raising the federal minimum wage and has been critical of laws that offer workers basic benefits like paid sick leave and rest breaks on the job.
Since the 66-year-old former lawyer took over CKE Restaurants in 2000, Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s together have faced more employment discrimination lawsuits than any other major U.S. hamburger chain, according to an analysis of court filings by Capital and Main. As you can see from Capital and Main’s chart, Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. had almost twice as many lawsuits as McDonald’s per $1 billion in sales.
With someone like Puzder leading the department, you would have seen years of progress on raising wages and improving benefits like paid sick leave and parental leave grind to a halt, and even roll backward, Shierholz said.
What This Says About Trump
Trump is no champion of the working class, either. Sure, he talked about the forgotten worker on the campaign trail, but he certainly wasn’t talking about the fast-food workers of Puzder’s world. Trump’s rhetoric was geared mainly to white men in America’s Rust Belt, who’ve lost ground as manufacturing jobs have shifted overseas.
These men may comprise an important voting block, but they actually make up a very small percentage of today’s working-class Americans. Only 13 percent of the working class has a job in manufacturing, according to Tamara Draut’s book, Sleeping Giant: How the new working class will transform America.
Today’s working class ― those in the labor market without college degrees ― is far more diverse than Trump would have you believe. These workers are far more likely to be running a cash register at one of Puzder’s Carl’s Jr. restaurants, or working as a health aide, or holding down a retail sales job.
This work is not getting done by teenagers. Only 30 percent of fast-food workers are teens, according to Draut’s book. And more than one third are nonwhite.
If Trump cared about this actual working class, Puzder’s name would never have come up for the job of labor secretary.
*Most Americans Support Workers Rights*
Puzder’s views on the minimum wage and worker benefits are largely out of step with what most working people want.
Puzder has been a vocal opponent of raising the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, even as other employers of low-paid workers ― from Walmart to Target to McDonald’s ― have raised pay. And, as states and cities have raised minimum wages without facing any of the job losses that Puzder ― who reaps millions in salary and benefits ― claims would happen if companies paid workers more.
He’s been critical of rules in California that require workers to take breaks. He’s said that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers offer health insurance to those working more than 30 hours a week is a bad idea. He opposes an expansion of a rule that would give more low-paid workers the ability to earn overtime pay.
And, more generally, he seems to view working people with disdain, calling his own employees “the best of the worst,” in 2011. “It’s kind of the bottom of the pool,” he said at a speech at Westmont College in California that year, with no apparent consideration to the idea that the best people would want to work somewhere that pays decently.
It seems, in fact, that Puzder would rather do away entirely with human workers. He’s been a proponent of replacing fast-food workers with automation or robots: “They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip and fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination suit,” he said recently.
While Puzder’s record on labor violations alone probably wouldn’t have done him in, it’s the most revelatory part of this story: Trump nominated a fox to guard the henhouse.
Puzder’s supporters had argued that he is a successful businessman and job creator, but it’s clear he’s gone about his business with very little regard for the people who’ve helped him reach the top.
There are better ways to run a business. And plenty of companies ― even in fast food ― are able to treat workers with respect and turn a profit.
The two goals don’t need to be at odds. Perhaps Trump’s next choice will understand that. If not, that person, too, can expect a lot of hostile fire.
-- 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.
The White House on Wednesday was set to withdraw Puzder from consideration, under increasing fire from Republicans upset about his record on immigration, from Democrats upset over his history of running a company repeatedly charged with labor violations, and from just about everyone horrified by domestic abuse accusations from an ex-wife, which gained fresh attention when Politico published a 1990 tape of the woman saying Puzder “vowed revenge” after she went public. Nearly 150 civil rights, women’s rights, labor and faith organizations had called for Trump to withdraw the nomination.
“From the very start of the nomination process, it was clear that fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder was unfit to lead the U.S. Department of Labor. Thanks to fierce opposition from a diverse group of Americans, including people deeply concerned about the treatment of workers and of women, enough senators came to the same realization, forcing Mr. Puzder’s withdrawal from the nomination,” Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said in a statement.
“In nominating Mr. Puzder for labor secretary, President Trump chose for the department that champions workers someone whose views and values are not only antithetical to what workers want and need, but also out of step with mainstream America.”
Of all the problems with Puzder, it was his record on workers’ rights that was particularly galling.
Puzder would have overseen a department created specifically to defend workers’ rights and improve their wages and working conditions. As chief executive of CKE Restaurants Holdings, the parent company of Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., Puzder has always been on the other side of that mission.
His nomination revealed “the complete scorn Trump actually has for workers,” Heidi Shierholz, a policy director and economist at the progressive Economic Policy Institute, told The Huffington Post.
Puzder is a vocal opponent of raising the federal minimum wage and has been critical of laws that offer workers basic benefits like paid sick leave and rest breaks on the job.
Since the 66-year-old former lawyer took over CKE Restaurants in 2000, Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s together have faced more employment discrimination lawsuits than any other major U.S. hamburger chain, according to an analysis of court filings by Capital and Main. As you can see from Capital and Main’s chart, Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. had almost twice as many lawsuits as McDonald’s per $1 billion in sales.
With someone like Puzder leading the department, you would have seen years of progress on raising wages and improving benefits like paid sick leave and parental leave grind to a halt, and even roll backward, Shierholz said.
What This Says About Trump
Trump is no champion of the working class, either. Sure, he talked about the forgotten worker on the campaign trail, but he certainly wasn’t talking about the fast-food workers of Puzder’s world. Trump’s rhetoric was geared mainly to white men in America’s Rust Belt, who’ve lost ground as manufacturing jobs have shifted overseas.
These men may comprise an important voting block, but they actually make up a very small percentage of today’s working-class Americans. Only 13 percent of the working class has a job in manufacturing, according to Tamara Draut’s book, Sleeping Giant: How the new working class will transform America.
Today’s working class ― those in the labor market without college degrees ― is far more diverse than Trump would have you believe. These workers are far more likely to be running a cash register at one of Puzder’s Carl’s Jr. restaurants, or working as a health aide, or holding down a retail sales job.
This work is not getting done by teenagers. Only 30 percent of fast-food workers are teens, according to Draut’s book. And more than one third are nonwhite.
If Trump cared about this actual working class, Puzder’s name would never have come up for the job of labor secretary.
*Most Americans Support Workers Rights*
Puzder’s views on the minimum wage and worker benefits are largely out of step with what most working people want.
Puzder has been a vocal opponent of raising the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, even as other employers of low-paid workers ― from Walmart to Target to McDonald’s ― have raised pay. And, as states and cities have raised minimum wages without facing any of the job losses that Puzder ― who reaps millions in salary and benefits ― claims would happen if companies paid workers more.
He’s been critical of rules in California that require workers to take breaks. He’s said that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers offer health insurance to those working more than 30 hours a week is a bad idea. He opposes an expansion of a rule that would give more low-paid workers the ability to earn overtime pay.
And, more generally, he seems to view working people with disdain, calling his own employees “the best of the worst,” in 2011. “It’s kind of the bottom of the pool,” he said at a speech at Westmont College in California that year, with no apparent consideration to the idea that the best people would want to work somewhere that pays decently.
It seems, in fact, that Puzder would rather do away entirely with human workers. He’s been a proponent of replacing fast-food workers with automation or robots: “They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip and fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination suit,” he said recently.
While Puzder’s record on labor violations alone probably wouldn’t have done him in, it’s the most revelatory part of this story: Trump nominated a fox to guard the henhouse.
Puzder’s supporters had argued that he is a successful businessman and job creator, but it’s clear he’s gone about his business with very little regard for the people who’ve helped him reach the top.
There are better ways to run a business. And plenty of companies ― even in fast food ― are able to treat workers with respect and turn a profit.
The two goals don’t need to be at odds. Perhaps Trump’s next choice will understand that. If not, that person, too, can expect a lot of hostile fire.
-- 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.
↧
A Trump order led the IRS to make a small change on Obamacare that could have a big effect on its future
The Internal Revenue Service is making a small change to how they evaluate one line of a tax document this year.And it could have big implications for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the law better known as Obamacare.
Essentially, line 61 on the IRS 1040 tax form asks the filer whether they have health insurance, which is mandated by the ACA.
But following President Donald Trump's executive order on Obamacare in which he instructed federal agencies to remove the "burden" of the law, the IRS decided that it would not reject those 1040 forms with a question that asked whether the filer had health insurance left blank.
The IRS was originally planning to not process forms that left the line blank for the 2016 tax year. Therefore, a person either had to buy insurance or inform the IRS they were uninsured and pay the ACA's individual mandate penalty. 2016 was the same year that the full cost burden of the penalty went into effect, totaling $650 per adult.
Health policy experts had predicted that the stricter imposition of the penalties could drive more enrollment and help rebalance the Obamacare exchanges' risk pool, which have so far been sicker and more expensive for insurers than expected.
The tax agency said it could still go back and ask a filer about leaving the form blank if it wants to, but it may not necessarily do that for every American that leaves line 61, in the IRS term, "silent."
So instead of contributing to the stabilization of the individual market, the change allows those that want to avoid the penalty a simpler way to potentially do so.
In a statement to Reason, an IRS official said the recent executive order allows them to make the step and accept "instances where a taxpayer doesn't indicate their coverage status."
"Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund," the IRS told Reason.
*SEE ALSO: The Trump administration just proposed big changes to Obamacare*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Here's how President Obama starts every morning Reported by Business Insider 3 hours ago.
↧
Health Care Spending Rises Modestly As GOP Eyes Big Changes
The total amount American households, businesses and the government spent on health care rose less than 6 percent last year, below historic trends, according to new projections from federal auditors.
Over the next 10 years, national health care spending is expected to continue growing faster than the gross domestic product, squeezing employers, patients and taxpayers, and health care will make up one-fifth of the economy by 2025, the independent Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports Wednesday in the journal Health Affairs.
In 2016, national health expenditures rose 4.8 percent ― one percentage point slower than the previous year ― to $3.4 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the U.S. economy, the actuaries project. Health care spending growth will average 5.8 percent a year from 2016 to 2025, when it will make up nearly one-fifth of GDP and reach $5.5 trillion.
These projections are consistent with earlier findings and projections from the federal actuaries, but are subject to a great deal of uncertainty because President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress plan to make major changes to the health care system that make accurately predicting the future next to impossible.
The GOP wants to repeal and “replace” the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that extended health coverage to more than 20 million people, driving the uninsured rate to a historic low. Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price have also in the past supported significant overhauls to Medicare and Medicaid that would significantly reduce federal spending on health care.
National health care spending began to accelerate in 2014 as the Affordable Care Act’s coverage provisions began to take effect and more Americans used their new benefits to receive medical care. In addition, faster economic growth led to greater demand for health care following record-low growth in the late 2000s and early 2010s as a result of the Great Recession and its aftermath.
Despite the uptick in spending growth that began three years ago, national health care expenditures are on track to rise at a considerably slower rate than in previous decades.
Health care spending grew an average of 4.4 percent a year from 2008 to 2014, lower than the 5.6 percent projected for the next 10 years, but much lower than the nearly 8 percent annual inflation during the two decades before 2007.
The role of the Affordable Care Act in contributing to that slower growth is disputed. President Barack Obama claimed partial credit for the trend, pointing to lower-than-expected Medicare spending and cost-containment and patient-safety efforts. These initiatives achieved results including fewer patients returning to hospitals for additional treatment after being discharged.
But the Medicare actuaries mainly attributed the prior trend to broader economic issues, including higher unemployment and fewer people with health insurance before the Affordable Care Act expansion began.
Whatever the causes, national health care spending is actually lower than the federal actuaries projected in 2010, before the Affordable Care Act became law. Between 2014 and 2019, the U.S. is projected to spend $2.6 trillion less on health care than the actuaries previously predicted, despite the added costs associated with the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion.
-- 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.
Over the next 10 years, national health care spending is expected to continue growing faster than the gross domestic product, squeezing employers, patients and taxpayers, and health care will make up one-fifth of the economy by 2025, the independent Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports Wednesday in the journal Health Affairs.
In 2016, national health expenditures rose 4.8 percent ― one percentage point slower than the previous year ― to $3.4 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the U.S. economy, the actuaries project. Health care spending growth will average 5.8 percent a year from 2016 to 2025, when it will make up nearly one-fifth of GDP and reach $5.5 trillion.
These projections are consistent with earlier findings and projections from the federal actuaries, but are subject to a great deal of uncertainty because President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress plan to make major changes to the health care system that make accurately predicting the future next to impossible.
The GOP wants to repeal and “replace” the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that extended health coverage to more than 20 million people, driving the uninsured rate to a historic low. Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price have also in the past supported significant overhauls to Medicare and Medicaid that would significantly reduce federal spending on health care.
National health care spending began to accelerate in 2014 as the Affordable Care Act’s coverage provisions began to take effect and more Americans used their new benefits to receive medical care. In addition, faster economic growth led to greater demand for health care following record-low growth in the late 2000s and early 2010s as a result of the Great Recession and its aftermath.
Despite the uptick in spending growth that began three years ago, national health care expenditures are on track to rise at a considerably slower rate than in previous decades.
Health care spending grew an average of 4.4 percent a year from 2008 to 2014, lower than the 5.6 percent projected for the next 10 years, but much lower than the nearly 8 percent annual inflation during the two decades before 2007.
The role of the Affordable Care Act in contributing to that slower growth is disputed. President Barack Obama claimed partial credit for the trend, pointing to lower-than-expected Medicare spending and cost-containment and patient-safety efforts. These initiatives achieved results including fewer patients returning to hospitals for additional treatment after being discharged.
But the Medicare actuaries mainly attributed the prior trend to broader economic issues, including higher unemployment and fewer people with health insurance before the Affordable Care Act expansion began.
Whatever the causes, national health care spending is actually lower than the federal actuaries projected in 2010, before the Affordable Care Act became law. Between 2014 and 2019, the U.S. is projected to spend $2.6 trillion less on health care than the actuaries previously predicted, despite the added costs associated with the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion.
-- 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.
↧
↧
Trump Administration Aims to Calm Insurers During Health-Law Limbo
The Trump administration released details of a proposal to keep health-insurance exchanges from cratering, a day after a big insurer said it would next year abandon all marketplaces.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 4 hours ago.
↧
END OF OBAMACARE
Today we say goodbye to President Obama and soon to Obamacare.
Eight years ago when the tumultuous healthcare reform journey began we could not have ever imagined the roller coaster ride it would take. The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) passing without a single Republican vote, surviving the Supreme Court ruling by the vote of a Republican-appointed judge, a disastrous rollout of healthcare.gov, thriving for four years with the reelection of President Obama, and now its inevitable repeal with Donald Trump's election.
So it may help to look back on what Obamacare is and where it has been successful and where it has failed for Americans.
We need healthcare reform because our healthcare system in America is broken. Much like a stool with three broken legs, too many of us have high cost, low quality and difficult access.
Cost is our ability to pay for health services as an individual or a nation. Quality is providing good care to make our lives better. Access is our ability to have health insurance and find a doctor.
The prime goals of ACA were to improve access and quality, by getting more people insured. To do this, the ACA put in place the following strategies:
*Mandates:* The most disliked part of the ACA was that it forced all Americans to buy health insurance, just as we have to buy car insurance, so as to have a healthy pool of people in the insurance mix. If we didn't buy insurance we had to pay a penalty.
*Exchanges:* This was a new marketplace to buy health insurance. Originally a conservative Heritage Foundation idea, it was adopted by the Democrats, and then shunned by the Republicans.
*
Preexisting conditions/Lifetime coverage:* Before the ACA, insurance companies could deny insurance to a patient with HIV or diabetes or stop their coverage during a cancer treatment.
*80:20 plan: *Insurance companies had to spend 80 percent of the premiums for patient care or return the money.
*Subsidies: *Families who earn on average up to $80,000 and wanted to buy insurance would receive financial help from government.
*Coverage up to age 26: *Young adults could stay on their parents plan until age 26.
*Medicaid Expansion: *States, if they chose, could expand their Medicaid program for low-income people, with the help of significant additional federal funding.
*Taxes on the rich:* Those earning over $200,000 had to pay extra 0.9 percent Medicare taxes and 3.8 percent tax on investment income. This helped keep the Medicare Trust Fund solvent.
*Fees on insurance companies and pharmaceuticals:* They had to pay $10 to $20 billion in additional fees each year. This helped pay for the subsidies for working families to buy insurance.
While the 2700-page law had many other provisions, these had the greatest impact. According to a new poll, voters are deeply divided over the law, but only 20 percent support the Republican strategy of trying to repeal it quickly without a replacement.
Over the decade, one wonders why Obamacare was so disliked by half of America?
In part the Republican's branded the healthcare law as all that was wrong with our healthcare system. And in part the ACA failed to do what most Americans want - that is reduce the cost of healthcare.
Today, I believe, Americans and American businesses will sacrifice quality and even access (fewer people insured or less coverage for all) if only the premiums, the deductible, the drug prices and out of pocket health expenses cost would be lower or at the least stopped from rising to astronomical levels.
It is unclear what the replacement of ACA will be, but the pendulum needs to turn to cost containment with the hope of retaining many of the improved access and quality that Obamacare brought in it's brief time as a law. I believe, without doubt, Trumpcare or Ryancare plans will have the same fate as Obamacare, if they do not address healthcare cost.
So as Republicans in Congress and the White House work to redesign our healthcare system, it is important to know what an ideal healthcare system would look like: one which strives for low cost, high quality and easy access.
But from where we are today, most will be willing to sacrifice quality and access to reduce the cost of care to make healthcare affordable, ironically this is what the Affordable Care Act was not able to do.Dr. Manoj Jain is a Tennessee doctor and his articles are on www.mjainmd.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 4 hours ago.
Eight years ago when the tumultuous healthcare reform journey began we could not have ever imagined the roller coaster ride it would take. The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) passing without a single Republican vote, surviving the Supreme Court ruling by the vote of a Republican-appointed judge, a disastrous rollout of healthcare.gov, thriving for four years with the reelection of President Obama, and now its inevitable repeal with Donald Trump's election.
So it may help to look back on what Obamacare is and where it has been successful and where it has failed for Americans.
We need healthcare reform because our healthcare system in America is broken. Much like a stool with three broken legs, too many of us have high cost, low quality and difficult access.
Cost is our ability to pay for health services as an individual or a nation. Quality is providing good care to make our lives better. Access is our ability to have health insurance and find a doctor.
The prime goals of ACA were to improve access and quality, by getting more people insured. To do this, the ACA put in place the following strategies:
*Mandates:* The most disliked part of the ACA was that it forced all Americans to buy health insurance, just as we have to buy car insurance, so as to have a healthy pool of people in the insurance mix. If we didn't buy insurance we had to pay a penalty.
*Exchanges:* This was a new marketplace to buy health insurance. Originally a conservative Heritage Foundation idea, it was adopted by the Democrats, and then shunned by the Republicans.
*
Preexisting conditions/Lifetime coverage:* Before the ACA, insurance companies could deny insurance to a patient with HIV or diabetes or stop their coverage during a cancer treatment.
*80:20 plan: *Insurance companies had to spend 80 percent of the premiums for patient care or return the money.
*Subsidies: *Families who earn on average up to $80,000 and wanted to buy insurance would receive financial help from government.
*Coverage up to age 26: *Young adults could stay on their parents plan until age 26.
*Medicaid Expansion: *States, if they chose, could expand their Medicaid program for low-income people, with the help of significant additional federal funding.
*Taxes on the rich:* Those earning over $200,000 had to pay extra 0.9 percent Medicare taxes and 3.8 percent tax on investment income. This helped keep the Medicare Trust Fund solvent.
*Fees on insurance companies and pharmaceuticals:* They had to pay $10 to $20 billion in additional fees each year. This helped pay for the subsidies for working families to buy insurance.
While the 2700-page law had many other provisions, these had the greatest impact. According to a new poll, voters are deeply divided over the law, but only 20 percent support the Republican strategy of trying to repeal it quickly without a replacement.
Over the decade, one wonders why Obamacare was so disliked by half of America?
In part the Republican's branded the healthcare law as all that was wrong with our healthcare system. And in part the ACA failed to do what most Americans want - that is reduce the cost of healthcare.
Today, I believe, Americans and American businesses will sacrifice quality and even access (fewer people insured or less coverage for all) if only the premiums, the deductible, the drug prices and out of pocket health expenses cost would be lower or at the least stopped from rising to astronomical levels.
It is unclear what the replacement of ACA will be, but the pendulum needs to turn to cost containment with the hope of retaining many of the improved access and quality that Obamacare brought in it's brief time as a law. I believe, without doubt, Trumpcare or Ryancare plans will have the same fate as Obamacare, if they do not address healthcare cost.
So as Republicans in Congress and the White House work to redesign our healthcare system, it is important to know what an ideal healthcare system would look like: one which strives for low cost, high quality and easy access.
But from where we are today, most will be willing to sacrifice quality and access to reduce the cost of care to make healthcare affordable, ironically this is what the Affordable Care Act was not able to do.Dr. Manoj Jain is a Tennessee doctor and his articles are on www.mjainmd.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 4 hours ago.
↧
Government mandates jack up health care costs
Have you noticed that the mail from your health insurance company weighs a little more these days? Ever wonder why there are several pages of disclaimers in just about everything we send? Turns out, all that extra paper is the result of a government mandate that requires health plans – like CDPHP – to tell our members that we don’t discriminate and provide materials in a language they understand. The requirement, one last curtain call of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also calls for plans…
Reported by bizjournals 4 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
