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

How congressmen embarrassed themselves when asked if they’d read the health care bill

$
0
0
The people have many questions about the contents of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) but, firstly and perhaps most importantly, they want to know: How many representatives read it before they cast their votes for it on Thursday?

Several members of Congress ducked questions about whether they'd read the 126-page bill. One said he was busy swinging a bat at a ball, and some just came out and said they didn't get through the piece of legislation that — if it gets through the Senate and onto President Donald Trump's desk — will likely kick millions off their health insurance.

We've gone through some of Congress's most outrageous ducks, dives, dodges and embarrassing admissions about the bill. Read more...

More about Embarrassing, Questions, American Health Care Act, Obamacare, and Ahca Reported by Mashable 2 days ago.

Obamacare "Death Spiral": Maryland Insurer Seeks 50% Premium Increase For 2018

$
0
0
Obamacare Death Spiral: Maryland Insurer Seeks 50% Premium Increase For 2018 For the past several months we've observed in complete amazement as Democrats have repeatedly hailed the 'great accomplishments' of Obamacare while the system was literally, and quite tangibly, collapsing in epic fashion all around them.

The latest evidence of Obamacare's "death spiral" comes from the state of Maryland where insurers have  just submitted their rate increase requests to Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer.  Unfortunately for Maryland residents the numbers are fairly staggering, in a bad way, with the *largest insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region, CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, requesting a 50% YoY premium increase.*

The new rates would mean that a 40-year-old nonsmoker in the Baltimore area would face premiums ranging from $359 a month to $715 for a benchmark plan, before receiving any federal subsidies.  CareFirst said the rate increases are necessary because the* company has lost $600 million serving ObamaCare exchanges since the company first started selling plans in the marketplace 4 years ago.*  Per the Washington Post:



*“What we’re seeing is greater sickness levels. The pool of beneficiaries is becoming sicker, in part because healthier people are not coming in at the same level we hoped,”* said Chet Burrell, chief executive of CareFirst, which insures about 215,000 people through the marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act in all three states.

 

Burrell said he was worried that the market was in the early stages of a death spiral, in which sick people who need insurance stay in the pool but healthier people drop out, causing insurers to raise rates — driving even more healthy people out of the market.

 

*“We were hoping for more stability. The factors that I have described to you today lead to instability and to a spiral, and we think we are in the beginning of that,”* Burrell said.



The rate filings are a starting point for negotiations, but Burrell noted that the numbers could rise. He said his company had made its filings assuming that the cost-sharing reductions, billions of dollars in federal payments that lower out-of-pocket expenses for about 7 million Americans, would be made. *Politicians have not committed to making those payments in 2018, and if those go away, premiums could rise another 10 to 15 percent, Burrell said.*

Meanwhile, the proposed 2018 rate hike of 50% comes on top of a 25% hike in 2017 meaning that* Maryland residents will be paying 87.5% more for individual health insurance plans in 2018 than they were in 2016.  *

 

Of course, Maryland's Insurance Commissioner noted that these initial rate requests are just a starting point for negotiations and held out hope that all would be well in the end. 



The Maryland Insurance Commissioner released rate requests from three other insurers, which ranged from 18 to 37 percent increases. A 40-year-old nonsmoker in the Baltimore area would face premiums ranging from $359 a month to $715 for a benchmark plan, before receiving any federal subsidies.

 

*“It’s important to remember that these rates are what companies have requested, and not necessarily what will be approved,”* Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer, Jr. said in a statement. “There will be a thorough review of all the filings. As in years past, we may require changes.”



Of course, all of this should come as little surprise to our readers as we've been writing for years that the entire *Obamacare system was on the "verge of collapse" as premiums were soaring, risk pools were deteriorating and insurers were pulling out of exchanges all around the country leaving many Americans with just a single 'option' for health insurance* (see "Obamacare On "Verge Of Collapse" As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017").*  In fact, the following charts provide a stunning illustration of that collapse *(charts per Bloomberg):

 

But sure, Obamacare is a great system and Republicans are trying to 'ruin' healthcare in America. Reported by Zero Hedge 2 days ago.

America’s Health Is In The Hands Of GOP Frat Boys

$
0
0
This just in: Health care is not a game. It’s a matter life or death for millions and millions of Americans. But you sure wouldn’t know it from watching Donald Trump and House Republicans celebrate their narrow victory on Thursday.

The House managed to pass a bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), aimed at altering or eradicating provisions of Obamacare, a somewhat muted version of the “repeal and replace” battle cry screamed throughout the election campaign but one that nevertheless will still devastate all but the richest of society with exorbitant medical costs that many cannot afford. Medicaid would be slashed by hundreds of millions. Twenty-four million fewer would be left without health insurance.

But the Republicans celebrated this impending tragedy with cheers on Capitol Hill and then got on buses to the White House for some further revelry in the Rose Garden.

“Trump basked in adulation as lawmakers heaped praise on him,” Ashley Parker reported in The Washington Post:

“… Including Trump and [vice president Mike] Pence, a dozen lawmakers and officials spoke, a snaking queue ― nearly all white men ― who took turns stepping to the lectern to claim their reward: cable news coverage, orchestrated by a president who values it above almost all else.”

Trump shouted, “How am I doing? I’m president. Hey, I’m president. Can you believe it?” Not if I don’t want to. It all felt like a chintzy version of the victory party after a high school football championship, except no one dared douse Coach Trump or assistant coaches Pence and Paul Ryan with Gatorade. Which was unfortunate.

Democrats got into the act, too, singing, “Hey hey hey, goodbye!” at the Republicans in the House chamber, reminding the GOP that they had just cast a vote that may cost many of them their seats in the 2018 midterms.

The whole thing was very classy, as if the Founders high-fived, fist-bumped and burst into “We Are the Champions” after signing the Declaration of Independence.

The fact is, few Republicans have even read the bill. They did not wait for a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office before ramming it through. No hearings were held; no group was given the opportunity to raise its objections in such a public forum: no American Cancer Society, AARP, the March of Dimes, the American Hospital Association — all of which, along with many other professional and advocacy organizations, have made their opposition known. No American Medical Association, which announced, “millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal...”

“Not only would the AHCA eliminate health insurance coverage for millions of Americans, the legislation would, in many cases, eliminate the ban against charging those with underlying medical conditions vastly more for their coverage.”

But if you’re looking for the real reasons Republicans were throwing themselves a frat party on Thursday, heed first the words of Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association of the United States:

“It is critically important to look at this bill for what it is. It is not in any way a health care bill. Rather, it is legislation whose aim is to take significant funding allocated by Congress for health care for very low-income people and use that money for tax cuts for some of our wealthiest citizens. This is contrary to the spirit of who we are as a nation, a giant step backward that should be resisted.”

Then remember, as Paul Kane noted in The Post, that the GOP “viewed the measure as a necessary step to demonstrate some sense of momentum and some ability to govern in GOP-controlled Washington... inside the White House, President Trumps advisers became increasingly concerned about how little they had to show in terms of early victories.”

And so they were willing to vote for a lousy, misbegotten piece of legislation just so they could get the first round of tax cuts for the rich and to make it look as if they had accomplished something. Not exactly the Age of Pericles..

I remembered that old poem, After Blenheim, in which Robert Southey recounts the 1704 battle in which Britain’s Duke of Marlborough (ancestor of Winston Churchill) defeated the forces of France’s Louis XIV.

The poem concludes:

“And everybody praised the Duke

Who this great fight did win.

‘But what good came of it at last?’

Quoth little Peterkin.

‘Why that I cannot tell,’ said he,

‘But ’twas a famous victory.’”

Never confuse motion for action, Republicans. And your “famous” victory may be Pyrrhic. Fortunately, this horrible health care legislation has a long way to go through the Senate before Donald Trump gets the chance to affix his EKG-like signature. As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted yesterday, “A bill — finalized yesterday, has not been scored, amendments not allowed, and 3 hours final debate — should be viewed with caution.”

Perhaps the most relevant — if unintentional — comment came from Trump himself Thursday night when he told Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, “You have better health care than we do.” The Land Down Under has universal health care with a private insurance option. They call it Medicare.

If the Democrats don’t immediately start playing Trump’s statement on a constant video loop between now and November 2018, they’ve lost the will to live. The White House said Trump didn’t mean anything by it (although he then doubled down on his words with a tweet) but if you’re in the mood to have a celebration of your own, lift a glass to what he told the Australian PM and make a toast to blowing up this bogus health care reform bill and giving us what Americans truly need — Medicare for all.

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

Breaking down the House GOP health care bill

$
0
0
Vox senior editor Sarah Kliff joins "CBS This Morning: Saturday" from Washington to discuss why the health care bill is not quite what President Trump has been describing and the effect the bill might have on Americans who hold private health insurance. Reported by CBS News 2 days ago.

This bill that could leave millions uninsured

$
0
0
House Republicans passed a bill this week that could strip away health insurance from millions of Americans. Reported by CNNMoney 2 days ago.

The future of Obamacare and why health care reform in the US matters

$
0
0
Reforming health insurance could have far-reaching implications for investors in healthcare stocks, but while “repeal and replace” has passed in the House of Representatives, it’s unclear whether it will pass in the Senate without significant changes. Why reform matters Despite add... Reported by Raw Story 2 days ago.

GOP Congressman: 'Nobody Dies Because They Don't Have Access To Health Care'

$
0
0
Faced with criticism from constituents about the Obamacare repeal bill, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) denied that lack of health insurance prompts people to die from preventable deaths.

“You are mandating people on Medicaid accept dying,” a constituent told Labrador at a town hall meeting at Lewis and Clark State College in Lewiston, Idaho, Friday evening. “You are making a mandate that will kill people.”

“No one wants anybody to die. That line is so indefensible,” Labrador responded.

“Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care,” he continued, drawing loud jeers from the audience.It is virtually impossible to know exactly how many people would die from the GOP health care plan that the House of Representatives passed on Thursday. 

But prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, the landmark law commonly known as Obamacare, some 45,000 Americans died annually due to their lack of health insurance, according to a 2009 Harvard study.

And the Republican health care bill effectively guts Obamacare. It rolls back the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, slashes the federal money available to low-income Americans to purchase insurance on the health exchanges and allows states to opt out of federal regulations, including the ban on discriminating based on preexisting conditions.

It also further reduces Medicaid payments by capping federal funding per person. Taken together, the law cuts over $800 billion from Medicaid over 10 years, which is roughly the cost of the tax cuts on high earners it would enact.

Although the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office does not provide estimates of legislation’s fatality rate, it did project that this bill would deprive 24 million Americans of health insurance in its first decade as law.

Perhaps that’s why so many of the 20 million Americans already benefitting from Obamacare view attempts to destroy the law as life-threatening.

“I keep wondering why they want to kill me,” Jacqueline Church Simonds, who has coverage thanks to Obamacare, told HuffPost.

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

This Site Mocks The GOP's Obsession With Health Care "Choice"

$
0
0
When Republican lawmakers talk about health care the word “choice” invariably comes up a lot, as if buying insurance is an activity akin to buying lunch at the Cheesecake Factory. The more on the menu, the better the care, the thinking goes.

“We must move to a better system that embraces competition and choice and actually lowers costs for patients and taxpayers,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) wrote in a March op-ed advocating for the GOP Obamacare repeal plan that passed this week in the House.

To mock the Republican idea of health care choice, a new website purporting to be for the American Health Care Act allows visitors to “choose your plan.”

For a range of prices, Americans can pick a casket of their choice for their burial when they die from lack of health insurance. The caskets even come in cute different colors.

The website’s options all link back to the Democratic Socialists of America, a left-wing grassroots group that has seen its dues-paying membership explode since President Donald Trump’s election. 

It also plugs the hashtag #MedicareForAll, the rallying cry of progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who support single-payer health insurance.

But the humor plays off a broader issue. Critics say the Republican advocacy of “health care choice” has always been something of a misnomer because health care just isn’t like other consumer goods. 

Consumers do not have the same power to command lower prices for health care, since it is not a product they can choose to not have. People also often lack the information and resources to choose a health care provider based on its financial value.It may be the GOP’s failure to appreciate these nuances that led them to pass a bill in the House of Representatives that would provide coverage to an estimated 24 million fewer people than the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

If enacted, the Republican legislation, known as the American Health Care Act, could very well lead people to die preventable deaths. Some 45,000 people died annually due to lack of health insurance, according to a 2009 Harvard Medical School study that was conducted prior to passage of Obamacare.

 

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

Oblivious Paul Ryan Snapped In Embarrassing 'Go F**k Yourself' Tweet

$
0
0
The tweeted photo of the day features a friendly looking Wisconsin voter wearing a Brewers baseball hat with a “Go F**k Yourself T-Shirt” standing next to a delighted, completely oblivious Paul Ryan.


Couple friends of the pod hanging out this morning. @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 pic.twitter.com/aT3nqiyOlu

— J (@Minnysconsin) May 6, 2017


Twitter went wild for the photo taken Saturday at a Kiwanis Club Pancake Day fundraiser in Racine, Wisconsin, where the apron-wearing speaker of the House was apparently helping flip pancakes — and pouring coffee, judging by the cups in his pocket and pot in his hand. (He also attended last year’s Pancake Day, showing off his flipping skills in the video above.)

His constituent’s T-shirt was actually quoting the GOP, as in: “Repeal and go f**k yourself,” signed: GOP — in a pointed comment about House Republicans earlier this week voting to end health insurance for millions of Americans.

The photo — captioned “Couple of friends of the pod hanging out” — was posted by @Minnysconsin. The “pod” refers to the political podcast “Pod Save America” (which also sells the shirt). Podcast co-host and former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau challenged other friends of the pod to top the stunt.


I challenge any Friend of the Pod to do better than @minnysconsin just did. https://t.co/sP24qbI9sU

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) May 6, 2017


The Ryan tweet triggered a flood of Twitter high-fives, and may have birthed similar photobomb political plots. One tweet snorted: “That’s two things Ryan didn’t bother to read this week.” Another noted that the only thing better would be if Ryan had been wearing the shirt.


@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 Epic trolling. Bravo.

— Juan, P.E. #RESIST❄️ (@jrivera64) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 OMG not all heroes wear capes but they sure as hell wear that shirt

— Ashley Esqueda (@AshleyEsqueda) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 This made the day of so many of us today.

— Shauna M. Ahern (@glutenfreegirl) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 My new screensaver
I'm thinking that these kinds of photobomb efforts might be quite the good time in 2017

— Christine Cullen (@bitterflie) May 6, 2017



@bitterflie @jeanettereuter1 @Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 Whoever scores the picture with Trump wearing a "I'm with stupid" shirt wins the internet.

— robbiese7en (@robbiese7en) May 6, 2017



Well done, you! That's two things Ryan didn't bother reading this week. #StopTrumpCare @Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 #Resist

— Annie Fox, M.Ed. (@Annie_Fox) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 Let them eat pancakes

— Brendan Coots (@brendancoots) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 Question: can Paul Ryan read?

— Michael Abromowitz (@FootballExpert) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonlovett @jonfavs @TVietor08 You, sir, deserve a medal. And good healthcare.

— Brett Brewer (@brettlbrewer) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 pic.twitter.com/pJ9Ehvqxfb

— La DeeVeeNo (@LaDevino) May 6, 2017



@Minnysconsin @libbycwatson @jonfavs @jonlovett @TVietor08 wait a second...... computer, enhance pic.twitter.com/ExLacHrMrC

— The Women Protecter (@CONNORcGOLDEN) May 6, 2017



@jonfavs @Minnysconsin pic.twitter.com/KQxF6N9Gx7

— LongLiveBo (@LongLiveB0) May 6, 2017
type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=590ca126e4b0104c734e8281,590c9d69e4b0d5d9049bf834

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.

One state shows the chaos Trump is wreaking on the Obamacare exchanges

$
0
0
One state shows the chaos Trump is wreaking on the Obamacare exchanges Republicans passed their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare through the House this week, but the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land.

That means that the ACA's individual insurance markets are still up and running. But under the Trump administration, they haven't been running very well.

Maryland, which has a state-run exchange instead of using the federal Healthcare.gov platform, released requested premium increases from the five insurers in its market on Thursday.

The proposed increases are quite stunning.

Of the five insurers, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States had the lowest average requested increase for their plans, at 18.08%. The highest was CareFirst of Maryland, with an average increase request of 58.80%, which would bring the baseline monthly premium payment for the plans up to $714.95.

The maximum requested premium increases were similarly striking. The biggest proposed jump came from Cigna, which requested a 150.83% hike for a plan on the high end.

Maryland's insurance commissioner Al Redmer said in a statement that the proposed rates still have to go through a review process and could be adjusted before they are offered to consumers.

"It’s important to remember that these rates are what companies have requested, and not necessarily what will be approved," Redmer said. "There will be a thorough review of all the filings. As in years past, we may require changes."

Also at issue is the uncertainty of whether Obamacare's cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments are ceased.

The payments, which help defray the cost of providing low-income Americans with cheaper health insurance plans, are seen as critical to ensure the stabilization of the ACA's individual insurance markets.

Currently, the payments are appropriated by the White House rather than Congress, and President Donald Trump has threatened to end the payments. The payments are also subject to an ongoing lawsuit between the House and executive branch questioning the legality of their funding without a congressional appropriation. While the Obama administration defended the case, Trump could drop an appeal of a ruling from 2016 in which a court sided with House Republicans.

The White House has said that it will continue funding for the CSR payments but have not guaranteed they will be in place for 2018.

The uncertainty led Maryland to tell insurers that they would be able to refile their requested increases if the payments are discontinued.

In fact, in California, the insurance commission told insurers that the companies could submit plans that assumed CSRs would be paid and a set of rates assuming they went unpaid.

"I have written President Trump asking that he and his Administration stop undermining the Affordable Care Act and health insurance markets," read a letter from Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, to insurers filing in the state. "Health insurers are legitimately concerned that the President's actions are undermining the ACA and health insurance markets."

Most other states have set deadlines for plan submissions in June.

In addition to the uncertainty regarding CSR payments, which some experts said insurers are already baking into the rate projections, Trump's administration has also issued a number of rules that could cause instability in the individual market.

A variety of insurers have already pulled out of various markets, like Aetna in Iowa and Virginia, in part due to the political uncertainty.

*SEE ALSO: Trump takes victory lap, says Obamacare is 'essentially dead' after House passes GOP healthcare bill*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Yale history professor: Trump's path to tyranny is unfolding Reported by Business Insider 18 hours ago.

Priebus: Trump, GOP Congress 'not going to let you down' on ObamaCare

$
0
0
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus expressed confidence Sunday that the Republican-led Senate will now do its part to pass an ObamaCare overhaul measure for President Trump to sign and tried to assure the public that Trump will keep his campaign that all Americans will have health insurance under a new plan. Reported by FOXNews.com 18 hours ago.

Obamacare Repeal Next Steps: Why Goldman Is Suddenly Far Less Optimistic

$
0
0
On Friday morning, in the aftermath of Trump's surprising victory forcing the GOP Healthcare bill repealing Obamacare through the House, we noted that Goldman's DC analyst Alec Phillips responded that, somewhat paradoxically, the impact on Trump's broader economic agenda would actually be more adverse than most economist and pundits expected, stating that "*the main effect of House passage is to delay the consideration of tax legislation, which looks even more likely than before to be delayed until 2018."*

In a subsequent, and far more detailed note titled "*Health Reform Gains Momentum as the Rest of the Agenda Slows*", over the weekend Phillips has provided an extensive explanation why he believes that the passage of Trumpcare will likely adverse implications on Trump's tax policy timeline.

Here is the summary from the Goldman analyst:

· House Republicans have passed their American Health Care Act (AHCA), moving repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) one step closer to reality. However, while the House vote was necessary for ACA repeal, it is far from sufficient, and the process is likely to become harder after this first step.
· House passage increases the likelihood that health legislation will be enacted this year, though it still faces several obstacles. In the meantime, uncertainty regarding insurance regulation and subsidization could lead to lower enrollment and plan participation in the existing system, which has already struggled with weaker than expected enrollment and declining plan options.
· In isolation this legislative victory is likely to be interpreted as bullish for other aspects of the agenda, including tax reform, as it demonstrates that congressional Republicans may be able to form a working majority on controversial issues after all.
· *However, the revival of health legislation, which could at least take a few more months to conclude, could substantially delay consideration of the remainder of the legislative agenda. This further reduces the likelihood that Congress will enact a tax cut before year-end, in light of the additional steps that would be necessary once the health bill has been enacted. *
· While we continue to believe that tax legislation is likely to be enacted in early 2018, *further delays could push consideration of tax legislation too close to the upcoming midterm election*, reducing the likelihood that tax legislation is enacted in the next two years.

Here is his detailed breakdown why "A Longer Health Debate Means a Later Tax Debate"



Market participants, even those with no direct exposure to the health sector, have been watching the health care debate closely for signals regarding the rest of the political—and particularly, fiscal—agenda. *However, in our view House passage of the AHCA sends a decidedly mixed signal for tax reform*.

 

All other things being equal, the fact that House Republican leaders and the White House were able to assemble a majority in the House to support the AHCA suggests that it is more likely than previously expected that congressional Republicans might also be able to form a working majority on other controversial issues like tax reform. The current version of the AHCA also repeals roughly $1 trillion of taxes enacted to fund ACA subsidies. While these taxes are not directly related to tax legislation expected later this year, repealing these taxes in separate legislation would reduce the pressure on lawmakers to repeal some of them in tax legislation. Repealing these taxes is not essential to the tax reform effort, but makes it slightly easier.

 

*That said, the direct effect of AHCA passage in the House is to likely delay the tax debate*. As we have pointed out in the past, the rest of the fiscal agenda cannot move forward until the health issue is disposed with, either by enacting health legislation or, if health legislation stalls, through a decision by congressional leaders and the White House that they will postpone further consideration of health legislation in order to move on to other aspects of the agenda. *This is because Republican leaders have decided to pass the health bill and the tax bill using the “reconciliation” process, which protects legislation from filibuster in the Senate and allows it to pass with only 51 votes—i.e., potentially with only Republican votes. *

 

However, only one tax bill and one spending bill can be passed under the reconciliation process in each budget cycle, so congressional leaders decided earlier this year that the health bill would be passed first, followed by the FY2018 budget resolution, which would include a second set of instructions to pass tax legislation under the reconciliation process. *Only after the FY2018 budget resolution passes would the actual tax legislation itself be considered by the House and Senate. *

 

Until this week, the latter had looked more likely, as the House had appeared unlikely to pass the AHCA even after modifications, and prospects in the Senate looked even dimmer. Instead, Republican leaders now appear likely to pursue health legislation for a while longer. *In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, whose committee will oversee both the health and tax legislation, said this week that Senate Republicans would like to finish the health bill by the end of July. While this seems like a reasonable goal, this issue has tended to take up more time than expected so far, and the risk is that the remaining steps take longer as well*. Moreover, with congressional recess scheduled for the month of August and a contentious debate over spending and the debt limit likely in September and/or early October, the timeline suggests that tax legislation might not see the light of day until well into Q3 if not Q4, *and that enactment is unlikely before Q1 2018.*

 

*Healthcare Before Taxes
*

 

This drawn out timing raises risks to the enactment of tax legislation, in our view. Spending the time and energy that is likely to be required to pass health legislation will reduce the political momentum for a tax bill. *While there is no obvious political reason that a simple tax cut could not be enacted in early 2018, further delays could push consideration of tax legislation too close to the upcoming midterm election, reducing the likelihood that tax legislation is enacted in the next two years*. We continue to believe that a tax cut is more likely than not, but as the debate on health legislation drags on *the risks to this outcome have become higher in our view*.



Some other big picture considerations from Goldman, looking at the state of healthcare "four months later"



The House passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) on May 4, by a 217-213 vote. The vote occurred nearly four months after the House passed the initial instructions calling for passage of ACA repeal legislation. Over that period, the legislation changed several times; the approach House Republicans were initially expected to take was to pass two pieces of legislation, the first repealing most of the ACA, with a delayed effective date, and the second replacing it with a new system of benefits. If considered separately, this would have allowed for quick passage of repeal legislation and more careful consideration of the “replacement” bill at a later date. Various Republican lawmakers resisted this strategy, and Republican leaders instead opted for a single-bill approach. While this ultimately satisfied a majority of the House, it also took four months to accomplish. The remainder of the process might take at least this long.

 

*Among the most important changes the AHCA makes are the repeal of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility to adults with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level (about $34,000 per year for a family of four) and the shift of tax credits based on income and average premiums to a credit adjusted solely for age*. The legislation would also change regulation of the individual insurance market, by allowing greater variation in premiums by age and the potential for premium variation by health status for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage. *The various changes take effect at different points over the next few years, with different transition periods, as shown in Exhibit 1. *

 

*Exhibit 1: The American Health Care Act *


* * *

As noted previously, while ACA may have passed the House, now comes the hard part: the Senate:



*Although House passage keeps the ACA effort alive, it might not move it very far forward*. *Senate passage is apt to be harder than House passage, in our view, for political as well as procedural reasons. The main political challenge is simply that 50 of 52 Republicans will need to support the bill in the Senate, and several have already raised concerns with the House-passed legislation*. Among the political challenges:

· *Major changes might be needed to bring centrist and blue-state Republicans *onboard: Republicans representing states that voted Democratic in the last presidential election (or were very competitive) may have reservations regarding the bill. Sen. Collins of Maine has indicated opposition to the House-passed bill, for instance, citing the structure of tax credits, insurance regulatory changes, and the effect on Medicaid (Maine has not expanded its Medicaid program under the ACA). 
· *Expansion-state Republicans will probably try to preserve Medicaid funding*: 20 of the 52 Republicans in the Senate represent states that expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program. Four Republican senators—Sen. Gardner of Colorado, Sen. Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Portman of Ohio, and Sen. Moore-Capito of West Virginia—have opposed an earlier version of the House legislation over its Medicaid cuts (the latest version does not change these provisions substantially). This is likely to be a critical consideration for some Republican senators whose states expanded Medicaid, as this was the primary source of coverage gains under the ACA. Projected coverage losses (Exhibit 2) have been one of the most controversial aspects of the legislation, and the publication of new estimates in the next couple of weeks may create additional political friction in the Senate. 

 

*Coverage Would Revert to Pre-ACA Levels  *

These political challenges might be overcome by substantial modification to the legislation, though this would risk losing support from conservative senators who have already expressed reservations about the amount of spending that would be maintained under the legislation, like Sen. Paul of Kentucky. However, even if Senate Republicans can agree in principle on how to modify the House’s bill, they also face two procedural obstacles:

· *The Byrd Rule in the Senate*: The AHCA is being considered under the reconciliation process, which affords it special procedural protections in the Senate, namely that it cannot be filibustered and thus requires only a simple majority to pass. With little prospect of Democratic support, this is essential to passage. However, with these privileges come costs; the Byrd rule in the Senate prohibits policy changes from inclusion in reconciliation legislation that are primarily non-budgetary in nature. In the context of the AHCA, this could pose a challenge for the changes to insurance market regulation in the House bill, including those that were central to winning support from conservative Republicans in the Freedom Caucus.
· *Budgetary restrictions*: The House-passed legislation was estimated to reduce the deficit by roughly $150bn over ten years before the latest round of changes were made. Congressional budget rules prohibit the Senate from changing the House-passed legislation to produce less savings. This could make reaching consensus more difficult, since several Senate Republicans will want to add back Medicaid funding or other health insurance subsidies. One solution to this would be to delay the repeal of the ACA taxes by a few years to allow for greater spending without reducing the net savings under the bill, but going too far in this direction could lose the support of conservative Republicans in the Senate and could make a compromise with the House more difficult.

Beyond the need to reach agreement in the Senate, Republican congressional leaders and the White House will also need to broker an agreement between the House and Senate on a single final version that both chambers can agree on. *This is likely to prove to be the most difficult part of the process, given differences between the Freedom Caucus in the House and centrists in the Senate.*



Finally, Goldman's take on "The Shape of Things to Come"



Given these political challenges, *Republican leaders might consider alternative approaches to address the ACA*. The seeds of a potential compromise among House and Senate Republicans are visible in some recent Republican proposals:

· *State flexibility: *The recent compromise in the House allows states greater flexibility in certain areas; states would be able to opt in to an alternative block-grant structure for Medicaid, which allows greater flexibility in benefit design, and to opt out of certain insurance rules under the ACA, like the prohibition on pricing premiums based on health status (the current legislation would continue to prohibit this for applicants who maintain continuous insurance coverage). State flexibility could in theory be expanded to two other areas to broaden support for the legislation: first, states could be allowed a greater role in administering the subsidies for insurance in the individual market. The Cassidy-Collins plan in the Senate, for instance, would give states a choice of maintaining the current system of tax credits or moving into a new system based on subsidized health savings accounts. Second, conservatives and many Republican governors have supported allowing states more flexibility in managing their Medicaid programs. It is conceivable that a compromise between centrist and conservative Republicans could be reached by preserving a greater share of existing subsidies for health insurance (including the expansion of the Medicaid program under the ACA) but allowing states a greater role in determining the structure of these benefits. Of course, such a compromise could be constrained by some of the procedural issues noted earlier.
· *Shifting risk: *A common aspect of recent Republican health proposals has been to shift financial risk for health cost growth from the federal government to individuals enrolled in federal health programs and/or to state governments that share the cost of the Medicaid program. Medicare reform efforts over the years largely followed this model, as does the AHCA. It provides a tax credit for health insurance that varies by age but grows with medical CPI plus 1pp, rather than with the increase in the average health premium as the current subsidy does. It also would shift states to a per-capita or block-grant system that would cap the federal government’s exposure to increasing costs in these areas. The final negotiations on the House healthcare bill hinged on the distribution of risk between individuals and the government, and this looks likely to continue to be modified.
· *Delayed implementation: *The current legislation delays repeal of the Medicaid expansion until 2020 and allows current expansion enrollees at that point to continue coverage. Centrist Republicans seem likely to push for an even longer phaseout. It also appears possible that they could seek to slow changes to the refundable tax credits for insurance in the individual market. This could actually return the debate closer to where it started, when congressional Republican leaders planned to repeal the ACA but would have delayed the effective date by several years, expecting to make additional changes in the interim.

*If comprehensive legislation fails, Republicans might instead opt to target a few unpopular provisions of the ACA instead. *One provision might be the mandate on individuals to enroll in health insurance or face financial penalties. Repealing this provision would have the benefit of simplicity and could probably win broad Republican support. However, it would produce much less budgetary savings than the current legislation and would still probably substantially increase the projected uninsured population. *Since it would not reduce spending enough to offset the repeal of nearly the $1 trillion in ACA taxes that the current legislation repeals, this option might be contemplated as a last resort if broader legislation stalls but looks unlikely to come up in the near term.*

Reported by Zero Hedge 17 hours ago.

Trumpcare 3.0 would hit New Jersey harder than any other state

$
0
0
WASHINGTON — House Republican cuts to Medicaid in the American Health Care Act would hit New Jersey harder than any other state. The bill would leave 500,000 more Garden State residents without health insurance than under current law, and New Jersey no longer would get extra federal funding fo... Reported by Raw Story 15 hours ago.

Here's How the Trump Healthcare Plan Is Different From Obamacare

$
0
0
The health insurance industry could look very different soon now that Donald Trump's healthcare plan is advancing through Congress. Reported by Motley Fool 14 hours ago.

Healthcare Reform Solves Nothing... It's The Debt, Stupid!

$
0
0
Healthcare Reform Solves Nothing... It's The Debt, Stupid! Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Over the last few weeks, I have been discussing the ongoing consolidation process for the S&P 500 from the March highs. (For a review read: “Oversold Bounce Or Return Of The Bull,” and “Return Of The Bull…For Now.”) As the expected rally in stocks, and reversal in bonds, took shape as the S&P 500 was finally able to ratchet a record close at 2399.29. (Read: 10/2016 – “2400 Or Bust”)



*“With the market on a short-term ‘buy signal,’ deference should be given to the probability of a further market advance heading into May. *With earnings season in full swing, there *is a very likely probability that stocks can sustain their bullish bias for now.”*



The market did do exactly that this past week, and while hitting a new high, as noted above, it was a “weak” breakout as volume contracted. My friend Dana Lyons made an interesting observation this past week:

You will notice that while such events *did NOT rule out “new highs” first,* such periods often preceded either mild or intermediate-term corrections.

Furthermore, despite the record close on Friday, it did little to change the intermediate term backdrop of the markets. The “warning signal” I discussed three weeks ago, still remains which is currently keeping a  lid on stock prices for now. *More importantly, we remain very close to triggering the secondary “sell signal,” also from an extremely high level, which would also raise caution levels higher, cut such has not happened…yet.*

Importantly, both signals are improving over the last week, and, as I wrote last week:



*“If the markets can continue to rally next week, and push to new highs, then both of those signals will reverse.** The problem is the reversal from high levels historically has only been short-lived before a more significant decline took place as shown in the chart below.”*



While much of the price action on Friday was due to continued “dovish Fed-speak” from a raft of speakers on Friday, it was also the high expectation of a successful French election this coming weekend.* At current levels, the potential “reward” from an upward move next week is far outweighed by the downside risk. *

*Therefore, a “reactionary” approach to portfolio management is a better choice in the current environment.* In other words, let the market determine our next course of action rather than trying to “guess” at what may happen. Throughout history, investors have rarely “guessed” well.

*Despite the push higher this past week, it should be noted that since the beginning of March internal measures have remained weak.* With the markets very extended above their 200-dma, a correction is likely over the next month or so. This is particularly the case as volatility has dropped to its lowest levels in recent history.

Furthermore, both the ratio and number of stocks above their respective 50 and 200 day moving averages has also remained weak.

*Lastly, the market remains very 3-standard deviations above its 3-year moving average.* While the long-term signal currently remains on a “buy,” it will not require much weakness sometime this summer to trigger a long-term “sell.”

*For now, the market remains in a bullish trend which keeps portfolios allocated on the long-side. Outside of small tweaks and close monitoring, nothing has occurred, yet, which would warrant more drastic movements within the allocation model.* However, we have reached a point in the market cycle where the “risk” of remaining heavily invested in the market far outweighs the potential “reward.”

*As has been the case over the last couple of weeks, caution, nothing more, is advised for now.*

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

**AHCA Solves Little**

First, everyone just calm the **** down.

*The passage of the American Health Care Act by Congress this past week does nothing immediately. Nobody is going to die. No one will lose access to health care. The world will not end.*

All that happens now is the bill moves to the Senate where it will likely be dead on arrival. Given the bill only passed by 4-votes in the House, there is a much narrower spread of leadership in the Senate. *The bill will likely get tied up in debates, and even it does somehow miraculously get passed out of the Senate, whatever changes are made will likely lead to a loss when it returns back to Congress for a final vote.*

Then we will get to restart this whole process over again.

*This also means that tax reform, repatriation, and infrastructure spending are likely much further down the road than currently estimated. *

One thing, however, is for certain – Obama no longer owns “the failed healthcare plan.” 

It now squarely rests on the shoulders of President Trump and the Republican party. *Since the current construction will increase healthcare costs and government debt, the opposite of why Trump was elected, it will likely cost Republicans control of House and Senate in the next election. *

The ACHA, or now known as “Trump Care,” is roughly 90% ObamaCare with the taxes stripped out of it. Here are the details as provided by Goldman Sachs on Friday:

*COVERAGE*

· *It would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health plan until age 26.*
· *The bill would let states opt out of Obamacare’s mandate that insurers charge the same rates on sick and healthy people.*
· It would also allow states to opt out of Obamacare’s requirement that insurers cover 10 essential health benefits, such as maternity care and prescription drug costs.
· *The measure would provide states with $100 billion, *largely to fund high-risk pools to provide insurance to the sickest patients.
· *The bill also would provide $8 billion *over five years to help those with pre-existing conditions pay for insurance.
· *It would let insurers mark-up premiums by 30 percent *for those who have a lapse in insurance coverage of about two months or more.
· *The ability to charge older Americans up to five times more than young people. *Under Obamacare, they could only charge up to three times more.

*TAX*

· *The bill would end in 2018 Obamacare’s income-based tax credits* that help low-income people buy insurance.
· *These would be replaced with age-based tax credits ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 per year* that would be capped at upper-income levels.
· *The Republican bill would abolish most Obamacare taxes,* including on medical devices, health insurance premiums, indoor tanning salons, prescription medications and high-cost employer-provided insurance known as “Cadillac” plans.
· *Those taxes paid for Obamacare.* Republicans have not said how they would pay for the parts of the law they want to keep.
· *The bill would also repeal the Obamacare financial penalty for the 2016 tax year* for not purchasing insurance, as well as a surtax on investment income earned by upper-income Americans.
· *It would repeal the mandate that larger employers must offer insurance* to their employees.

*MEDICAID*

· *The bill would allow the Medicaid expansion to continue until Jan. 1, 2020.* After that date, expansion would end and Medicaid funding would be capped on a per-person basis.
· *State Medicaid plans would no longer have to cover some Obamacare-mandated essential health benefits,* fulfilling a Republican promise to return more control to the states

The ramifications for the economy are not good. *For investors it likely means a much longer wait for tax reform and the expected boost to corporate profitability.* Per Goldman:



*“In our view, House passage of the AHCA is likely to further delay the consideration of tax reform.* House passage arguably reduces doubts that Republicans can assemble a working majority for controversial legislation in the House, which suggests that complex tax legislation might be achievable as well. *However, since the House cannot act on tax reform using the ‘reconciliation’ process until the Senate has passed (or decides not to pass) its own health legislation, tax legislation looks unlikely to emerge until September in our view. *Given the time it will likely take to reach an agreement on tax legislation, *this suggests that enactment of tax legislation is unlikely until Q1 2018*. While our base case is still that legislation is more likely than not to pass in 2018, *further delays could push consideration of tax legislation too close to the upcoming midterm election, reducing the likelihood that tax legislation is enacted in the next two years.”*



For investors, it is a case of “Waiting On Godot.”  The only question is just how long will they wait.

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

**Debt Is The Problem**

But of course, here is the bigger point.

The chart below is the current amount of debt (not including the $1.1 Trillion continuing resolution last week) and the amount of interest currently being paid on that debt.

As the Committee For A Responsible Budget penned on Friday:



“Setting aside the health policy implications of these changes,* the fiscal implications could be significant.* If more people purchase health insurance, *more will be eligible for the AHCA’s tax credits.* Assuming no change in employer coverage, we estimate an increase of one million enrollees would cost about $30 billion over a decade, *two million would cost $60 billion, five million would cost $150 billion, and ten million would cost $300 billion.”*





“Taken together, that means the amendments would save an additional $5 billion if one million more people enrolled in insurance each year than CBO’s prior projection. But it would cost $25 billion if two million more people enrolled, $115 billion if five million more enrolled, and $265 billion if ten million did.* With 6.5 million or more additional enrollees, the entire legislation would likely increase rather than reduce deficits.”*



The significant importance of this was pointed out just recently in “Tax Cuts The Economic Growth Cure-All?”



“Of course, as noted, *rising debt levels is the real impediment to longer-term increases in economic growth.* When 75% of your current Federal Budget goes to entitlements and debt service, there is little left over for the expansion of the economic growth.”





*“The tailwinds enjoyed by Reagan are now headwinds for Trump.”*



The true burden on taxpayers is government spending, because the debt requires future interest payments out of future taxes. *As debt levels, and subsequently deficits, increase, economic growth is burdened by the diversion of revenue from productive investments into debt service. *

This is the same problem that many households in America face today. Many families are struggling to meet the service requirements of the debt they have accumulated over the last couple of decades with the income that is available to them. *They can only increase that income marginally by taking on second jobs. However, the biggest ability to service the debt at home is to reduce spending in other areas.*

*While lowering corporate tax rates will certainly help businesses potentially increase their bottom line earnings, there is a high probability that it will not “trickle down” to middle-class America.*

*While I am certainly hopeful for meaningful changes in tax reform, deregulation and a move back towards a middle-right political agenda, from an investment standpoint there are many economic challenges that are not policy driven.*

· Demographics
· Structural employment shifts
· Technological innovations
· Globalization
· Financialization 
· Global debt

These challenges will continue to weigh on economic growth, wages and standards of living into the foreseeable future.  *As a result, incremental tax and policy changes will have a more muted effect on the economy as well.* Reported by Zero Hedge 12 hours ago.

What Is A Pre-Existing Condition Anyway?

$
0
0
The Republicans claim no one with a pre-existing condition will be denied coverage in their newly passed House bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). But what is a pre-existing condition anyway, and why is everyone so worried about it?

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, better known as Obamacare) was passed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014, one of the provisions required that no health plan sold to individuals or groups could refuse to cover someone because of their “health status” (i.e. whether they had a medical condition that preceded enrolling in their insurance). By 2014 that was a national standard.

Before Obamacare, however, the patchwork of state and insurance regulations allowed each state to define pre-existing condition in its own way (See the Wikipedia description of how states regulated pre-ex before Obamacare ) Not only did the list of these conditions vary by state, the maximum waiting period or “exclusion” period before you could get treatment for some these conditions also varied, from 6 months in Massachusetts to 10 years in Indiana. Before Obamacare, along with significant diseases that were considered to be pre-existing like cancer, diabetes and heart disease, there were a variety of fairly minor conditions:

According to the California-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, other possible situations falling under pre-existing condition clauses are chronic conditions as acne, hemorrhoids, toenail fungus, allergies, tonsillitis, and bunions, hazardous occupations such as police officer, stunt person, test pilot, circus worker, and firefighter, and pregnancy and/or the intention to adopt.[17]

The insurance market of the time was actually regulated on a state by state basis, meaning that you could be denied coverage for 9 months in the State of Washington or an unlimited amount of time in Arizona. Doctors remember it as a terrifying time, many knowing patients who actually died for lack of coverage, contrary to what Rep. Raul Labrador said this weekend when he promised no one dies from lack of health care.

This is the way it was before Obamacare. And this is the way it would be under H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, which now goes to the Senate for further consideration:

Retain private market rules, including requirement to guarantee issue coverage; prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions, requirement to extend dependent coverage to age 26. Modify age rating limit to permit variation of 5:1, unless states adopt different ratios, effective 2018. Retain essential health benefits requirement, with state option to waive. Retain prohibition on health status rating with state option to waive for individual market applicants who have not maintained continuous coverage.

Sounds like the new bill would continue to include Obamacare prohibitions on pre-existing conditions, right? Actually, sort of. The actual language in the bill as amended says:

SEC. 137. CONSTRUCTIONS. 14 (a) NO GENDER RATING.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to discriminate in rates for health insurance coverage by gender. 17 (b) NO LIMITING ACCESS TO COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.

There is a huge amount of room for states to interpret this language. And while there is lots of technical and detailed language about how it would actually be implemented, probably the most important difference between the AHCA and the ACA is that insurers could charge MORE to cover people with pre-existing conditions if they have not had continuous coverage for at least 63 days in the past year. That isn’t such a long period of time. You might think you have coverage, but you forgot to pay a premium last month and then you got busy and forgot this month. OR, you found you couldn’t afford your premiums so you stopped paying. OR, you lost your job, thought you had COBRA but ended up without coverage for a few months. Under the AHCA, you could be charged a 30% penalty on your premium when you try to enroll, which could mean you would not be able to afford insurance at all. Tough luck, says the GOP. Some have even suggested that you shouldn’t have been sick anyway.

There is also a provision that allows states to redefine the ten Obamacare “essential benefits” by 2020, potentially dropping required services such as mental health, prescription drugs, maternity care from the list, and that could allow exclusions and increased premium costs. So the “guarantee” that no one will experience a rejection because of a pre-existing condition is not much of a guarantee at all.

One more thing. There have been a lot of rumors drifting around the net that rape would be considered a pre-existing condition. The bill does not specifically define pre-existing conditions, and domestic violence and rape definitely do not appear in the bill as specific excludable conditions. But, the bill would weaken protections and make some coverage unaffordable, and it gives insurers and states a lot more discretion about what they could cover or exclude. If you live in a state that wants you to continue to have access to the ten Essential Benefits and not penalize you if you haven’t been covered continuously, that’s good news for you. If not, Rep. Pittenger (R.NC) has a solution. He suggests you can move to another state if you want different coverage.

The ACA gave every American the same access to health insurance no matter what state they live in, and the guarantee you could never be denied insurance for any conditions you had prior to enrollment. The AHCA destroys that national guarantee, leaving us at the mercy of our state legislatures and the profit-motivated insurance companies. And THAT is something to worry about.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

Obama Calls On Congress To Have 'Courage' To Save The Affordable Care Act

$
0
0
Former President Barack Obama called on Congress to have the “courage” to save health care for millions of Americans. 

While accepting the Profile in Courage Award at the John F. Kennedy Library on Sunday, Obama reflected on how some lawmakers voted for the Affordable Care Act in 2010, even though they knew their seats were vulnerable and the vote could cost them.

“These men and women did the right thing. They did the hard thing. Theirs was a profile in courage,” Obama said. “Because of that vote, 20 million people got health insurance who didn’t have it before. And most of [those lawmakers] did lose their seats.”


Watch. Obama, accepting JFK Profile in Courage Award, calls on Congress to have courage on health care. via @MSNBC https://t.co/EZiulIxDoy

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) May 8, 2017


Obama’s remarks come days after the House of Representatives passed a health care bill that would uninsure millions and undermine protections for the sick and poor. As HuffPost’s Matt Fuller reported Thursday, some House Republicans simply voted for the bill to advance it to the Senate and fulfill a campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“I hope that current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn’t take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential, but it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable and the sick and the infirm ― those who often have no access to the corridors of power,” Obama said Sunday.type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=590b5e1fe4b0e7021e956436,590f3b72e4b0104c734f99a8,590cad88e4b0e7021e975770

-- 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.

Republicans Press Case for Health Bill as Senators Weigh Changes

$
0
0
Republicans on Sunday pressed their case that a House-approved health-care bill would improve the nation’s health-insurance system and said that changes in the Senate wouldn’t likely throw the legislation off-track. Reported by Wall Street Journal 3 hours ago.

What's the best family health insurance?

$
0
0
Sanjay Kumar Singh draws up a mediclaim policy checklist. Reported by Rediff.com 3 hours ago.

ICICI Lombard’s ‘Drive Thru’ Rally Emphasises Helmet Usage amongst Child Pillion Riders

$
0
0
· More 1200 children along with their parents participated in the rally

· 24,000 ISI marked child specific helmets distributed to children

· 35,000 parents and children directly contacted through workshops

· Over 300 workshops conducted with parents and children

· Program running successfully in Mumbai, Delhi and Pune since September 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

*ICICI Lombard*, the country’s largest private general insurance company, conducted a ‘*Drive Thru*’ campaign for children as part of its ‘*c*’ initiative.

 

*Mr. Nitin Gadkari, Honorable Union Minister for Road Transport, Highways and Shipping* and *Mr. Bhargav Dasgupta, MD & CEO, ICICI Lombard*, flagged off the event which aims to raise awareness about road-safety measures among two-wheeler owners with children riding as pillion riders.

 

Twenty children below the age of 14 lose their lives on Indian roads every day. Two-wheelers alone account for around 25 per cent* of road accidents in the country, the highest amongst all vehicles, of which 7 per cent involve children. According to a report by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Delhi was the ‘*Accident Capital*’ of India in 2015 — losing 1,622 people to deadly mishaps. Two of the main reasons for these accidents were lack of awareness and non-adherence to the basic rule of safety — wearing a helmet.

 

These grim statistics prompted ICICI Lombard to launch its unique CSR initiative ‘*Ride to Safety*’. This program is focused on making roads safer for children riding as pillion riders on two- wheelers. The company adopted a two pronged strategy, one to bring out a behavioral change in parents and children with regard to road safety through customized direct contact programs and secondly by distributing child specific ISI marked helmets to children. Since the inception of the program in September 2015, the company has contacted over 35,000 parents and their children. In an important milestone, ICICI Lombard has distributed 24000 ISI marked helmets to children.

 

Speaking on the occasion, *ICICI Lombard MD & CEO Bhargav Dasgupta* said, “Ride to Safety campaign is part of our vision to contribute to the community at large. This unique CSR program emphasises that children as pillion riders incorporate the road safety habit of wearing a helmet from a young age. Our aim is to see each and every two wheeler riding child with a helmet. We have already distributed 24,000 child-specific ISI-mark helmets to children. We are committed to this initiative and will be distributing 1,00,000 helmets in the next 5 years to children riding two wheelers as pillion riders".

 

Further to gauge the impact of the program, ICICI Lombard conducted a study by re-connecting the parents of those children who were provided with helmets. The study reveals interesting insights.

 

· 78%  of the participants said, they were very happy with the workshops

· 76% of respondents accepted a change in their outlook towards road safety following the direct contact programs conducted by ICICI Lombard

· 78% of the participants said it was important for the pillion rider/kids to wear a helmet

· 90% respondents in Delhi felt it was important when compared to respondents in Mumbai and Pune

· When it came to usage of helmets, following the workshop, nearly all of the participants' kids were wearing helmets while riding a two wheeler. This has increased five times compared to the earlier figure which was 27%

· 70% of the participants felt the initiative had a positive impact and had encouraged other kids to wear a helmet when riding a bike

· 78% respondents believe such workshops would contribute towards reducing head injuries and should be conducted more frequently

· 85% respondents are happy with the quality of material used

· 80% of the participants are happy with the color of the helmets reveals the study

 

*About ICICI Lombard General Insurance*

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. is a joint venture between ICICI Bank Limited and Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, a Canada-based diversified financial services company engaged in general insurance, reinsurance, insurance claims management and investment management. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. is one of the leading private sector general insurance companies in India with a Gross Written Premium (GWP) of Rs 83.07 billion for the year ended March 31, 2016. The company issued over 15.80 million policies and settled over 1.62 million claims as on March 31, 2016.

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance has been declared the ‘Most Innovative Health Insurance Company of the Year’ at ‘*The 2016 Frost & Sullivan India Best Practices Awards*’.  It has also been conferred with the Association for Talent Development (ATD) Best Award 2016 for the fourth time. ICICI Lombard has won the ‘*Claim Service Leader*’ (General Insurance – Large category) and ‘*Technology Innovation*’ Awards at the Indian Insurance Awards, 2016. The company received the ‘Claim Service Leader’ award for its excellent track record in claim settlement across product segments. It was given the ‘*Technology Innovation*’ recognition for its technology driven initiatives especially the ‘*RiskInspect*’ App, a mobile application developed to capture risk information of low sum insured property risk. ICICI Lombard General Insurance has been adjudged the ‘Non-life Insurer of the Year’ at the coveted Outlook Money Awards, 2015. Non-life Insurance as a category has been included for the first time at the Outlook Money awards, which were introduced more than a decade ago. It is a matter of pride that ICICI Lombard has been chosen as the Winner in the introductory year of the award category. ICICI Lombard General Insurance has been conferred the coveted 'Golden Peacock Corporate Social Responsibility Award 2015'. The award recognizes the company for it continuous contribution to CSR and especially for its ‘*Caring Hands*’ initiative, an employee volunteering CSR program.

 

ICICI Lombard was adjudged the award ‘Golden Peacock Innovation Management Award, 2015’ for demonstrating innovation across multiple functions of its business operations and promoting the '*culture of innovation*'. The award ‘*Golden Peacock Award for Business Excellence, 2015*’ recognizes best management practices that act as the basis for business excellence. ICICI Lombard General Insurance received the award for its robust risk management practices and customer centric initiatives. ICICI Lombard was conferred with the ‘*E-Business Leader*’ Award in the General Insurance Category at the 5th annual edition of the Indian Insurance Award 2015 for its performance, growth, product and market innovation, customer service and technology. ICICI Lombard was also named as the ‘Best Travel Insurance Company’ by CNBC Awaaz Travel Awards 2015 presented by the Chattisgarh Government based on an online and on-air survey. Reported by NewsVoir 1 hour ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images