WASHINGTON (AP) — After five consecutive years of coverage gains, progress toward reducing the number of uninsured Americans stalled in 2016, according to a government report that underscores the stakes as Republicans try to roll back Barack Obama's law. The politically unpopular GOP bill passed narrowly by the House would limit Medicaid financing and curtail subsidies for many consumers buying their own private policies. Republicans also would repeal the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or risk fines. "The real question is, will we be able to keep the gains that we have made?" Critical of the ACA and co-author of an alternative plan by GOP policy experts, Wilensky nonetheless supports the goal of expanding coverage. To increase coverage, you would have to see more states take up the Medicaid expansion, and some reforms to increase take-up in the individual (private) market. Hillary Clinton, whom Trump defeated, had promised to increase government assistance for private insurance costs, and also work to convince holdout states to expand their Medicaid programs.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 24 minutes ago.
Gov't report: Efforts to reduce US uninsured stalled in 2016
↧
↧
Transgender library employee settles health care lawsuit
CINCINNATI (AP) — An Ohio library employee has settled a lawsuit after the library’s health insurance refused to pay for her gender confirmation surgery. The Cincinnati Enquirer (http://cin.ci/2qo7TCj ) reports the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County now covers transgender surgery under its health care plan. The library also is offering training on LGBT […]
Reported by Seattle Times 20 hours ago.
↧
GOP Lawmaker Asks Why Men Pay For Maternity Care. Woman’s Reply Is Gold.
A GOP congressman asked why men should have to pay for maternity care, and this woman’s response is now resonating across the country.
Barbara Rank, 63, wrote to her local newspaper, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, after Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) made the comments at a town hall last Monday.
Blum said he’d voted in favor of legislation that repeals and replaces major parts of the Affordable Care Act to “get rid of some of these crazy regulations that Obamacare puts on […] such as a 62-year-old male having to have pregnancy insurance.”
*Watch the clip below:*
His remark did not sit well with Rank, however, who was in the audience.
In her letter to the newspaper, which was published Friday, Rank explained how the lawmaker’s comment had caused her to rhetorically ask herself “why should I pay for a bridge I don’t cross, a sidewalk I don’t walk on, a library book I don’t read?”
“Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate?” the retired special education teacher continued. “Why should I pay the salaries of politicians I didn’t vote for, a tax cut that doesn’t affect me, or a loophole I can’t take advantage of?”
This is democracy manifest. from
pics
Rank ended her missive explaining why she did actually believe in people paying for all of those things ― by saying how it was all about “democracy,” “a civil society” and “the greater good.”
Someone posted a photograph of her letter to Reddit over the weekend, and it’s now gone viral, sparking positive reactions across the internet:
Barbara Rank sounds like a hero. https://t.co/xPhupIloTW
— Ashley (@smashleynickel) May 14, 2017
Barbara Rank - American hero. Please run for office. We need elected officials with your perspective! https://t.co/VlDm9q7ssh
— Suzy Q (@SuzyQuest) May 13, 2017
@markmobility @RepRodBlum @ms_sharims Beautiful answer. It fits perfectly.
— E Wbrs (@edeywbr) May 14, 2017
Barbara Rank, wherever you are, thank you. https://t.co/8l6xt8tuJv
— ☇The Almighty Bizzo☇ (@AlmightyBizzo) May 13, 2017
Rank said she’d laughed at the response to her letter because it’s “such a silly little piece.” The conclusion to the note, however, was something she “always” ends up saying, she added.
“Every argument I’ve ever had with somebody, friends or relative: Don’t you want to live in a civil society?” she told The Washington Post. “Government is the structure of the country we live in. It’s not as bad as people make it out to be.”
John Ferland, a representative for Blum, later claimed the congressman’s comment (which can be heard in the clip above) had been “taken out of context.”
“He was referring to the idea of patients being able to choose health insurance policies that fit their needs, rather than one-size-fits-all policies filled with government mandates,” Ferland told the Telegraph Herald. “Obviously, he understands that taxes pay for things that not everybody uses.”
Rank, however, told The Des Moines Register that the popularity of her letter “just shows that a lot of people have the same feelings and thoughts that I did.”type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=5916ddb4e4b0fe039b34e973,591a175ae4b05dd15f0a767e,58bf27f6e4b0cd3872e6cfeb,5873ca9ae4b0eb9e49bfbdd3
-- 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 19 hours ago.
Barbara Rank, 63, wrote to her local newspaper, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, after Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) made the comments at a town hall last Monday.
Blum said he’d voted in favor of legislation that repeals and replaces major parts of the Affordable Care Act to “get rid of some of these crazy regulations that Obamacare puts on […] such as a 62-year-old male having to have pregnancy insurance.”
*Watch the clip below:*
His remark did not sit well with Rank, however, who was in the audience.
In her letter to the newspaper, which was published Friday, Rank explained how the lawmaker’s comment had caused her to rhetorically ask herself “why should I pay for a bridge I don’t cross, a sidewalk I don’t walk on, a library book I don’t read?”
“Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate?” the retired special education teacher continued. “Why should I pay the salaries of politicians I didn’t vote for, a tax cut that doesn’t affect me, or a loophole I can’t take advantage of?”
This is democracy manifest. from
pics
Rank ended her missive explaining why she did actually believe in people paying for all of those things ― by saying how it was all about “democracy,” “a civil society” and “the greater good.”
Someone posted a photograph of her letter to Reddit over the weekend, and it’s now gone viral, sparking positive reactions across the internet:
Barbara Rank sounds like a hero. https://t.co/xPhupIloTW
— Ashley (@smashleynickel) May 14, 2017
Barbara Rank - American hero. Please run for office. We need elected officials with your perspective! https://t.co/VlDm9q7ssh
— Suzy Q (@SuzyQuest) May 13, 2017
@markmobility @RepRodBlum @ms_sharims Beautiful answer. It fits perfectly.
— E Wbrs (@edeywbr) May 14, 2017
Barbara Rank, wherever you are, thank you. https://t.co/8l6xt8tuJv
— ☇The Almighty Bizzo☇ (@AlmightyBizzo) May 13, 2017
Rank said she’d laughed at the response to her letter because it’s “such a silly little piece.” The conclusion to the note, however, was something she “always” ends up saying, she added.
“Every argument I’ve ever had with somebody, friends or relative: Don’t you want to live in a civil society?” she told The Washington Post. “Government is the structure of the country we live in. It’s not as bad as people make it out to be.”
John Ferland, a representative for Blum, later claimed the congressman’s comment (which can be heard in the clip above) had been “taken out of context.”
“He was referring to the idea of patients being able to choose health insurance policies that fit their needs, rather than one-size-fits-all policies filled with government mandates,” Ferland told the Telegraph Herald. “Obviously, he understands that taxes pay for things that not everybody uses.”
Rank, however, told The Des Moines Register that the popularity of her letter “just shows that a lot of people have the same feelings and thoughts that I did.”type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=5916ddb4e4b0fe039b34e973,591a175ae4b05dd15f0a767e,58bf27f6e4b0cd3872e6cfeb,5873ca9ae4b0eb9e49bfbdd3
-- 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 19 hours ago.
↧
Trump Refusal to 'Bail Out' Insurers Might End Up Making Policies Cheaper
It's a weird twist: If the government refuses to reimburse insurance companies for cost-sharing subsidies, it could make health insurance a lot cheaper for people buying on the exchanges in 2018.
Reported by NPR 17 hours ago.
↧
Trump administration takes aim at SHOP exchanges
Federal officials said they plan to propose eliminating the online health insurance exchange for small businesses created und -More-
Reported by SmartBrief 15 hours ago.
↧
↧
Healthy Paws Foundation Partners with the San Francisco SPCA to End Pet Homelessness
Healthy Paws Awards the Non-Profit’s Homeless Pet Program with a $50,000 Grant
Seattle, WA (PRWEB) May 16, 2017
Healthy Paws Pet Insurance and Foundation is proud to support the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SF SPCA), with a $50,000 grant to help end animal abandonment in San Francisco by the year 2020.
As the largest animal welfare organization on the West Coast and founders of the No-Kill movement, the SF SPCA has always been at the forefront of animal welfare. Their Vision 2020 initiative identifies the root causes of pet homelessness—overpopulation, barriers to veterinary care, pet behavior issues—and provides corresponding programs, services, and education to address these issues. The grant from Healthy Paws will directly facilitate charitable medical care, behavioral training, and pet health- and pet parenthood-education.
“On behalf of our pet-passionate customers, we are thrilled to support SF SPCA’s programs to keep animals healthy and in their homes,” says Healthy Paws Pet Insurance and Foundation co-founder Rob Jackson. “Healthy Paws began with the vision to help homeless pets and that work remains core to our mission today. We’re excited to partner with an organization that has a proven track record of impactful work in this area.”
“We’re so grateful to have Healthy Paws support our lifesaving work,” said Cynthia Kopec, Chief Operating Officer at the SF SPCA. “Giving pet guardians the tools to keep their pets happy and healthy is central to the missions of both the SF SPCA and Healthy Paws, and the first step in preventing animal abandonment.”
The grant was made possible through Healthy Paws’ Every Quote Gives Hope program, where every free quote for pet health insurance results in a donation toward medical care for homeless pets. The Healthy Paws Foundation gives cash grants to organizations for life-saving vaccines, spay/neuter surgeries, and advanced medical treatments. By joining forces with the SF SPCA, Healthy Paws can impact the lives of pets more than ever before.
About Healthy Paws Pet Insurance®
Healthy Paws is one of the leading pet insurance program providers in the U.S. for dogs and cats and ranked #1 by customers on leading review websites. Its insurance policies are provided by Chubb whose U.S. carriers are rated A++ by A.M. Best. The Healthy Paws Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, provides cash grants to pet adoption organizations specifically for life-saving vaccines, spay/neuter surgeries and advanced medical treatments of homeless pets in their care. Learn more about their mission to save more homeless pets and how you can help. For more information about Healthy Paws Pet Insurance, visit http://www.healthypawspetinsurance.com.
About the San Francisco SPCA
The San Francisco SPCA is an independent, community-supported, non-profit animal welfare organization dedicated to saving, protecting and providing immediate care for cats and dogs who are homeless, ill or in need of an advocate. The SF SPCA also works long-term to educate the community, reduce the number of unwanted kittens and puppies through spaying and neutering, and improve the quality of life for animals and their human companions. The organization does not receive government funding and is not affiliated with any national organization. For more information about San Francisco pet adoption, call the SF SPCA at (415) 522-3500 or visit sfspca.org. Reported by PRWeb 17 hours ago.
Seattle, WA (PRWEB) May 16, 2017
Healthy Paws Pet Insurance and Foundation is proud to support the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SF SPCA), with a $50,000 grant to help end animal abandonment in San Francisco by the year 2020.
As the largest animal welfare organization on the West Coast and founders of the No-Kill movement, the SF SPCA has always been at the forefront of animal welfare. Their Vision 2020 initiative identifies the root causes of pet homelessness—overpopulation, barriers to veterinary care, pet behavior issues—and provides corresponding programs, services, and education to address these issues. The grant from Healthy Paws will directly facilitate charitable medical care, behavioral training, and pet health- and pet parenthood-education.
“On behalf of our pet-passionate customers, we are thrilled to support SF SPCA’s programs to keep animals healthy and in their homes,” says Healthy Paws Pet Insurance and Foundation co-founder Rob Jackson. “Healthy Paws began with the vision to help homeless pets and that work remains core to our mission today. We’re excited to partner with an organization that has a proven track record of impactful work in this area.”
“We’re so grateful to have Healthy Paws support our lifesaving work,” said Cynthia Kopec, Chief Operating Officer at the SF SPCA. “Giving pet guardians the tools to keep their pets happy and healthy is central to the missions of both the SF SPCA and Healthy Paws, and the first step in preventing animal abandonment.”
The grant was made possible through Healthy Paws’ Every Quote Gives Hope program, where every free quote for pet health insurance results in a donation toward medical care for homeless pets. The Healthy Paws Foundation gives cash grants to organizations for life-saving vaccines, spay/neuter surgeries, and advanced medical treatments. By joining forces with the SF SPCA, Healthy Paws can impact the lives of pets more than ever before.
About Healthy Paws Pet Insurance®
Healthy Paws is one of the leading pet insurance program providers in the U.S. for dogs and cats and ranked #1 by customers on leading review websites. Its insurance policies are provided by Chubb whose U.S. carriers are rated A++ by A.M. Best. The Healthy Paws Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, provides cash grants to pet adoption organizations specifically for life-saving vaccines, spay/neuter surgeries and advanced medical treatments of homeless pets in their care. Learn more about their mission to save more homeless pets and how you can help. For more information about Healthy Paws Pet Insurance, visit http://www.healthypawspetinsurance.com.
About the San Francisco SPCA
The San Francisco SPCA is an independent, community-supported, non-profit animal welfare organization dedicated to saving, protecting and providing immediate care for cats and dogs who are homeless, ill or in need of an advocate. The SF SPCA also works long-term to educate the community, reduce the number of unwanted kittens and puppies through spaying and neutering, and improve the quality of life for animals and their human companions. The organization does not receive government funding and is not affiliated with any national organization. For more information about San Francisco pet adoption, call the SF SPCA at (415) 522-3500 or visit sfspca.org. Reported by PRWeb 17 hours ago.
↧
Want To Regain The American People’s Trust? Give Us Medicare For All
*In spite of a media black-out, Medicare for All is supported by a majority of Americans. Here’s how it could transform politics—and our society.*
$300 billion over 10 years. That’s how much the wealthy stand to gain if the House version of TrumpCare becomes law, according to The New York Times.*In spite of a media black-out, Medicare for All is supported by a majority of Americans. Here’s how it could transform politics—and our society.*
$300 billion over 10 years. That’s how much the wealthy stand to gain if the House version of TrumpCare becomes law, according to The New York Times.
Nearly everyone else stands to lose. Middle-aged and older workers will likely see a spike in premiums. People with chronic ailments or disabilities, people seeking recovery from addiction or treatment for mental illness could find themselves without insurance, or with unaffordable premiums.
This is the Republican Party at its most callous—ready to consign people to sickness, or even death, in exchange for a big tax break for the most wealthy.
But the Democratic Party establishment doesn’t come across too well in the health care debate, either. Republicans are correct that ObamaCare was flawed. The Democratic Party needs to do better if it wants to re-energize voters and heal the rift created by the 2016 defeat; it needs to advocate for solid and courageous policies, like Medicare for All, that assure health care access for everyone.
*A compromised history*
Beginning when Hillary Clinton led efforts at health care reform under Bill Clinton’s administration, the Democratic Party has prioritized the interests of for-profit health insurance companies over universal and affordable health care.
Under President Obama, leading Democrats continued that legacy. Early in Obama’s term, Senator Max Baucus of Montana convened round tables to set the stage for health care reform, but excluded advocates of one of the most popular policies in the United States: single-payer health care. When those advocates showed up anyway, they were arrested. And the corporate media gave this incident, and the policy they supported, almost no attention at all.
According to a recent article by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, the corporate media has reported vigorously on opponents of Obama’s and Trump’s health care policies—but only on those from the right and the extreme right. Single-payer health care—or Medicare for All—is not extreme. It’s the law of the land in most of the “developed” world. And yet the corporate media won’t cover it.
Nonetheless, 58 percent of Americans support Medicare for All, including 41 percent of Republicans, according to Gallup poll numbers. More than half of those who favored repeal of Obamacare supported replacing it—not by taking coverage from 24 million more people as an earlier version of the House bill would do, but by adopting single-payer health care.*The Democratic Party needs to find its soul and its backbone.*
This much support shouldn’t be a surprise. Americans recognize the expense of supporting an insurance industry built on multi-million-dollar executive pay packages, lavish Wall Street profits, and the complex bureaucracy needed to administer multiple plans, exceptions, and exclusions. Americans spend $361 billion, or 14 percent of our health care expenditures, on administration alone.
Even under the Affordable Care Act, out-of-pocket costs are high for many people who get injured or sick. Medical bills are a leading causes of bankruptcy, even for those who carry insurance.
Many candidates of both parties rely on campaign contributions from powerful health insurance companies. But propping up a failing corporate health insurance system is a losing strategy for the nation as a whole—and for the Democratic Party, in particular, trying to win back the allegiance of millions of disillusioned voters.
The Democratic Party needs to find its soul and its backbone. Instead of celebrating when Republicans fail, it’s time to work for a real win for the American people.
Consider what that would look like. Instead of punishing people who don’t have insurance (as both ObamaCare and TrumpCare do), everyone would simply be covered. The costs would be paid via taxes, and, with progressive taxation, this approach would help combat toxic inequality. (As British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has shown, lowering inequality would, on its own, make us healthier!) People could continue choosing health care providers. Secure access to health care would make it easier to start a new business, or stay home to care for family members, or invest in an education. We would see greater freedom for individuals and greater investments in human capital.
Most importantly, no one in our country would have to remain sick, or even die, for lack of access to health care.
This is a pivotal moment for our country. A health care system that treats corporate profits as a given, but access to health care as provisional, moves us even further toward a society driven by fear and scarcity. Trump and his crowd feed on that fear to divide us.
A political party that rejects pro-corporate policies that impoverish our country, that fights for health care for all, that puts people first—that’s a party that could electrify the nation and take back our country in 2018 and beyond.
—————
Sarah van Gelder wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Sarah is a co-founder and columnist at YES! Her new book, “The Revolution Where You Live: Stories from a 12,000-Mile Journey Through a New America” is available now. Get the new discussion guide for the book here, and follow her on Twitter @sarahvangelder.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.
$300 billion over 10 years. That’s how much the wealthy stand to gain if the House version of TrumpCare becomes law, according to The New York Times.*In spite of a media black-out, Medicare for All is supported by a majority of Americans. Here’s how it could transform politics—and our society.*
$300 billion over 10 years. That’s how much the wealthy stand to gain if the House version of TrumpCare becomes law, according to The New York Times.
Nearly everyone else stands to lose. Middle-aged and older workers will likely see a spike in premiums. People with chronic ailments or disabilities, people seeking recovery from addiction or treatment for mental illness could find themselves without insurance, or with unaffordable premiums.
This is the Republican Party at its most callous—ready to consign people to sickness, or even death, in exchange for a big tax break for the most wealthy.
But the Democratic Party establishment doesn’t come across too well in the health care debate, either. Republicans are correct that ObamaCare was flawed. The Democratic Party needs to do better if it wants to re-energize voters and heal the rift created by the 2016 defeat; it needs to advocate for solid and courageous policies, like Medicare for All, that assure health care access for everyone.
*A compromised history*
Beginning when Hillary Clinton led efforts at health care reform under Bill Clinton’s administration, the Democratic Party has prioritized the interests of for-profit health insurance companies over universal and affordable health care.
Under President Obama, leading Democrats continued that legacy. Early in Obama’s term, Senator Max Baucus of Montana convened round tables to set the stage for health care reform, but excluded advocates of one of the most popular policies in the United States: single-payer health care. When those advocates showed up anyway, they were arrested. And the corporate media gave this incident, and the policy they supported, almost no attention at all.
According to a recent article by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, the corporate media has reported vigorously on opponents of Obama’s and Trump’s health care policies—but only on those from the right and the extreme right. Single-payer health care—or Medicare for All—is not extreme. It’s the law of the land in most of the “developed” world. And yet the corporate media won’t cover it.
Nonetheless, 58 percent of Americans support Medicare for All, including 41 percent of Republicans, according to Gallup poll numbers. More than half of those who favored repeal of Obamacare supported replacing it—not by taking coverage from 24 million more people as an earlier version of the House bill would do, but by adopting single-payer health care.*The Democratic Party needs to find its soul and its backbone.*
This much support shouldn’t be a surprise. Americans recognize the expense of supporting an insurance industry built on multi-million-dollar executive pay packages, lavish Wall Street profits, and the complex bureaucracy needed to administer multiple plans, exceptions, and exclusions. Americans spend $361 billion, or 14 percent of our health care expenditures, on administration alone.
Even under the Affordable Care Act, out-of-pocket costs are high for many people who get injured or sick. Medical bills are a leading causes of bankruptcy, even for those who carry insurance.
Many candidates of both parties rely on campaign contributions from powerful health insurance companies. But propping up a failing corporate health insurance system is a losing strategy for the nation as a whole—and for the Democratic Party, in particular, trying to win back the allegiance of millions of disillusioned voters.
The Democratic Party needs to find its soul and its backbone. Instead of celebrating when Republicans fail, it’s time to work for a real win for the American people.
Consider what that would look like. Instead of punishing people who don’t have insurance (as both ObamaCare and TrumpCare do), everyone would simply be covered. The costs would be paid via taxes, and, with progressive taxation, this approach would help combat toxic inequality. (As British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has shown, lowering inequality would, on its own, make us healthier!) People could continue choosing health care providers. Secure access to health care would make it easier to start a new business, or stay home to care for family members, or invest in an education. We would see greater freedom for individuals and greater investments in human capital.
Most importantly, no one in our country would have to remain sick, or even die, for lack of access to health care.
This is a pivotal moment for our country. A health care system that treats corporate profits as a given, but access to health care as provisional, moves us even further toward a society driven by fear and scarcity. Trump and his crowd feed on that fear to divide us.
A political party that rejects pro-corporate policies that impoverish our country, that fights for health care for all, that puts people first—that’s a party that could electrify the nation and take back our country in 2018 and beyond.
—————
Sarah van Gelder wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Sarah is a co-founder and columnist at YES! Her new book, “The Revolution Where You Live: Stories from a 12,000-Mile Journey Through a New America” is available now. Get the new discussion guide for the book here, and follow her on Twitter @sarahvangelder.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.
↧
The percentage of Americans without health insurance hit an all-time low
The percentage of Americans that did not have health insurance coverage set another record low in 2016.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health Interview Survey, 9.0% of Americans did not have health insurance in 2016. That was down slightly from 9.1% in 2015 and down from 16.0% in 2010.
The drop was also more pronounced for Americans between the ages of 18 and 64.
"From 1997 through 2013, the percentage of adults aged 18-64 who were uninsured at the time of interview generally increased," said the CDC report. "More recently, the percentage of uninsured adults aged 18–64 decreased, from 20.4% in 2013 to 12.4% in 2016."
In terms of income, the CDC reported there was "no significant change in the percentage uninsured" among low-income Americans between 2015 and 2016, but the most recent numbers confirmed the precipitous drop since 2010 for that group.
"A decrease was noted in the percentage of uninsured adults from 2010 through 2016 among all three poverty status groups," said the report. "However, the greatest decreases in the uninsured rate since 2013 were among adults who were poor or near poor."
The decline since 2010 corresponds with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
*SEE ALSO: Americans overwhelmingly like Obamacare more than Trumpcare*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: The Marine Corps is testing a machine gun-wielding robot controlled with just a tablet and a joystick Reported by Business Insider 13 hours ago.
↧
Oregon's larger health insurers turn a profit in Q1
Moda Health Plan’s fortunes took a turn for the better in the first quarter of the year, with a nearly $4.6 million gain from its health insurance business. Add in its capital gains and the plan made $16 million in the quarter, much improved from a $31 million loss during the same period in 2016, when the company was struggling on the brink of receivership due to unexpectedly high claims. An Affordable Care Act program that Moda had counted on to help offset those losses came up far short, leaving…
Reported by bizjournals 13 hours ago.
↧
↧
Miss USA Says She Actually Does Consider Herself A Feminist
Miss USA is a feminist.
On Sunday night, Miss District of Columbia Kára McCullough was crowned Miss USA 2017. The 25-year-old government scientist ― dubbed by pageant officials as “one of the most intelligent contestants in recent memory” ― came under fire for some of her comments about health care and feminism during the Q&A portion of the program.
McCullough referred to health care as a “privilege” not a right in response to one question and, later, told the audience she doesn’t consider herself a feminist when asked if she considered herself one.
“I don’t really want to consider myself ― try not to consider myself like this diehard, you know, like, ‘Oh, I don’t really care about men,’” McCullough said. “But one thing I’m gonna say, though, is women, we are just as equal as men when it comes to opportunity in the workplace.”
Watch her full response below.
Hi from #MissUSA, where Miss DC just announced she's not a feminist, but an "equalist" who's "not one of those die hards" pic.twitter.com/EIJoWhSAUI
— Maeve McDermott (@maeve_mcdermott) May 15, 2017
In an interview with Cosmopolitan published Tuesday, McCullough clarified her comments on both feminism and health care. She said that it can be very difficult to get your full opinion across when you only have 30 seconds to answer such in-depth questions.“If it were up to me that would have been a four-hour long discussion [about healthcare]... If I have the opportunity just to clarify, I would definitely love to let people know that, yes I am privileged to have health insurance — it’s a privilege for me, and I’m thankful for that,” she said. “But I also do believe health insurance is a right for everyone.”
McCullough also added that she’s “all about women’s rights.”
“Yes, I would have to say I am a feminist,” she said. “... And you know, the word [feminism] can carry different connotations [depending on what] generation you come from, or what background, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m not an active [supporter of] women’s rights. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, please call me.”
Back to back, queen to queen. DC is your #MissUSA 2017.
A post shared by Kára McCullough (@missusa) on May 14, 2017 at 8:16pm PDT
McCullough told Cosmo that she hopes to promote science and education with her new platform. The newly crowned Miss USA holds a degree in chemistry with a concentration in radiochemistry from South Carolina State University.
“I run after-school programs, and tutoring sessions and symposiums. It’s about any or all of the sciences, although I am biased; I love to see people major in chemistry ― because the numbers [in that field] are so low,” she said. “I was actually the only person in my class to graduate with a degree in radiochemistry, and so every summer I had a phenomenal internship and I got paid! That’s why I always try to encourage students to find joy in science, because the opportunities are endless.”
Head over to Cosmopolitan to read the full interview. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5919176de4b00f308cf6396a,59193e17e4b0fe039b35aa65
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.
On Sunday night, Miss District of Columbia Kára McCullough was crowned Miss USA 2017. The 25-year-old government scientist ― dubbed by pageant officials as “one of the most intelligent contestants in recent memory” ― came under fire for some of her comments about health care and feminism during the Q&A portion of the program.
McCullough referred to health care as a “privilege” not a right in response to one question and, later, told the audience she doesn’t consider herself a feminist when asked if she considered herself one.
“I don’t really want to consider myself ― try not to consider myself like this diehard, you know, like, ‘Oh, I don’t really care about men,’” McCullough said. “But one thing I’m gonna say, though, is women, we are just as equal as men when it comes to opportunity in the workplace.”
Watch her full response below.
Hi from #MissUSA, where Miss DC just announced she's not a feminist, but an "equalist" who's "not one of those die hards" pic.twitter.com/EIJoWhSAUI
— Maeve McDermott (@maeve_mcdermott) May 15, 2017
In an interview with Cosmopolitan published Tuesday, McCullough clarified her comments on both feminism and health care. She said that it can be very difficult to get your full opinion across when you only have 30 seconds to answer such in-depth questions.“If it were up to me that would have been a four-hour long discussion [about healthcare]... If I have the opportunity just to clarify, I would definitely love to let people know that, yes I am privileged to have health insurance — it’s a privilege for me, and I’m thankful for that,” she said. “But I also do believe health insurance is a right for everyone.”
McCullough also added that she’s “all about women’s rights.”
“Yes, I would have to say I am a feminist,” she said. “... And you know, the word [feminism] can carry different connotations [depending on what] generation you come from, or what background, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m not an active [supporter of] women’s rights. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, please call me.”
Back to back, queen to queen. DC is your #MissUSA 2017.
A post shared by Kára McCullough (@missusa) on May 14, 2017 at 8:16pm PDT
McCullough told Cosmo that she hopes to promote science and education with her new platform. The newly crowned Miss USA holds a degree in chemistry with a concentration in radiochemistry from South Carolina State University.
“I run after-school programs, and tutoring sessions and symposiums. It’s about any or all of the sciences, although I am biased; I love to see people major in chemistry ― because the numbers [in that field] are so low,” she said. “I was actually the only person in my class to graduate with a degree in radiochemistry, and so every summer I had a phenomenal internship and I got paid! That’s why I always try to encourage students to find joy in science, because the opportunities are endless.”
Head over to Cosmopolitan to read the full interview. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5919176de4b00f308cf6396a,59193e17e4b0fe039b35aa65
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.
↧
Three health insurers plan double-digit rate hikes for third quarter
Three Massachusetts insurers will see double-digit rate hikes in the third quarter, which the state's Division of Insurance says is largely due to volatility of the Affordable Care Act's risk adjustment program. The third-quarter increases, released by the state on Tuesday, will affect people renewing their annual insurance plans this quarter through their small employer. Often, small employers shop for health insurance for their members on the state’s health insurance website. On average, insurance…
Reported by bizjournals 12 hours ago.
↧
The Uninsured Rate Has Never Been Lower. Don't Get Used To It.
A larger share of Americans had health insurance coverage last year than ever before. Get ready for that trend to reverse.
On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published its most-recent survey report on the uninsured, which shows 9 percent of the U.S. population, or 28.6 million people, lacked health coverage in 2016. That rate is virtually the same as the previous year’s. The finding is also consistent with surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau, Gallup and others over the past four years.
The role of the Affordable Care Act in bringing about this change is clear from the data. Since the law’s coverage expansion began in 2014, 20 million more people have gained insurance, and the national uninsured rate has fallen from 14.4 percent in 2013, the CDC found.
The decline in the uninsured was seen across all age groups, all racial and ethnic groups, and in every state, with larger effects in the 31 states and the District of Columbia where policymakers opted to expand Medicaid under the law.
The Affordable Care Act caused the biggest expansion in health coverage since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. It’s probably over now ― and the trend will begin moving in the opposite direction if President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress get their way.
American Adults Insured and Uninsured, 1997-2016The House passed the American Health Care Act earlier this month. The Congressional Budget Office had projected that an earlier version of that bill would lead to 24 million fewer Americans having health coverage over the coming decade; there is no score yet of the language the House approved.
The legislation would end the Medicaid expansion, reduce overall federal Medicaid spending by one-quarter, and replace the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits for low- and middle-income households with smaller tax credits pegged to age. Senate Republicans are currently working to revise the House’s text, but the general structure of their bill is expected to be consistent with the House version, and thus lead to millions fewer Americans having health coverage.
Already there are signs that actions taken by the Trump administration could suppress health coverage even before Congress sends an Obamacare repeal-and-”replace” bill to the White House.
Shortly after Trump became president, the Department of Health and Human Services canceled ads and outreach efforts that the Obama administration had scheduled for the end of the annual sign-up period for coverage through the insurance exchanges. The last sign-up days proved crucial to attracting more customers during the first three open enrollment periods, with reminders of the pending deadline driving procrastinators to HealthCare.gov and the state-run exchanges.
This year enrollment on the exchanges was lower than in 2016, and people couldn’t help blaming, in part, the Trump administration halting those efforts to reach people. Gallup found that the uninsured rate ticked up during the first quarter of 2017.
Looking ahead to the open enrollment period for 2018, which is set to begin in November, other steps taken ― or not taken ― by the administration could further discourage enrollment.
·
Trump issued an executive order on Inauguration Day instructing agencies to relax Affordable Care Act rules and enforcement.·
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services halved the duration of the 2018 sign-up campaign to six weeks.·
The administration has sent mixed messages to health insurers and consumers about whether it will enforce the law’s individual mandate that most U.S. residents obtain health coverage.·
Trump repeatedly threatens to withhold money the federal government owes insurance companies that serve poor customers, increasing the risk that those firms will dramatically hike rates to make up for the lost money or abandon the exchanges entirely.
Combined with the steeply rising prices and diminishing competition predicted in many states before Trump took office, the administration’s approach to Obamacare could result in more uninsured Americans, even if Congress fails to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published its most-recent survey report on the uninsured, which shows 9 percent of the U.S. population, or 28.6 million people, lacked health coverage in 2016. That rate is virtually the same as the previous year’s. The finding is also consistent with surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau, Gallup and others over the past four years.
The role of the Affordable Care Act in bringing about this change is clear from the data. Since the law’s coverage expansion began in 2014, 20 million more people have gained insurance, and the national uninsured rate has fallen from 14.4 percent in 2013, the CDC found.
The decline in the uninsured was seen across all age groups, all racial and ethnic groups, and in every state, with larger effects in the 31 states and the District of Columbia where policymakers opted to expand Medicaid under the law.
The Affordable Care Act caused the biggest expansion in health coverage since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. It’s probably over now ― and the trend will begin moving in the opposite direction if President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress get their way.
American Adults Insured and Uninsured, 1997-2016The House passed the American Health Care Act earlier this month. The Congressional Budget Office had projected that an earlier version of that bill would lead to 24 million fewer Americans having health coverage over the coming decade; there is no score yet of the language the House approved.
The legislation would end the Medicaid expansion, reduce overall federal Medicaid spending by one-quarter, and replace the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits for low- and middle-income households with smaller tax credits pegged to age. Senate Republicans are currently working to revise the House’s text, but the general structure of their bill is expected to be consistent with the House version, and thus lead to millions fewer Americans having health coverage.
Already there are signs that actions taken by the Trump administration could suppress health coverage even before Congress sends an Obamacare repeal-and-”replace” bill to the White House.
Shortly after Trump became president, the Department of Health and Human Services canceled ads and outreach efforts that the Obama administration had scheduled for the end of the annual sign-up period for coverage through the insurance exchanges. The last sign-up days proved crucial to attracting more customers during the first three open enrollment periods, with reminders of the pending deadline driving procrastinators to HealthCare.gov and the state-run exchanges.
This year enrollment on the exchanges was lower than in 2016, and people couldn’t help blaming, in part, the Trump administration halting those efforts to reach people. Gallup found that the uninsured rate ticked up during the first quarter of 2017.
Looking ahead to the open enrollment period for 2018, which is set to begin in November, other steps taken ― or not taken ― by the administration could further discourage enrollment.
·
Trump issued an executive order on Inauguration Day instructing agencies to relax Affordable Care Act rules and enforcement.·
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services halved the duration of the 2018 sign-up campaign to six weeks.·
The administration has sent mixed messages to health insurers and consumers about whether it will enforce the law’s individual mandate that most U.S. residents obtain health coverage.·
Trump repeatedly threatens to withhold money the federal government owes insurance companies that serve poor customers, increasing the risk that those firms will dramatically hike rates to make up for the lost money or abandon the exchanges entirely.
Combined with the steeply rising prices and diminishing competition predicted in many states before Trump took office, the administration’s approach to Obamacare could result in more uninsured Americans, even if Congress fails to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
The share of Americans without health insurance stops shrinking
Five years of progress reducing the number of Americans without health insurance has come to a halt, according to a government report out Tuesday, showing the stakes in the Republican drive to roll back the Affordable Care Act.
The report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates... Reported by L.A. Times 10 hours ago.
The report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates... Reported by L.A. Times 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
Medios AG continues its dynamic growth in the 1st quarter and confirms its sales revenue forecast for fiscal year 2017
DGAP-News: Medios AG / Key word(s): Quarter Results
17.05.2017 / 10:00
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
--------------------
*Corporate News*
*Medios AG continues its dynamic growth in the 1st quarter and confirms its sales revenue forecast for fiscal year 2017 *
*- *Sales revenue in the 1st quarter of 2017 reach EUR 51.8 million and thereby already more than a quarter of expected annual sales revenue
- The high demand for personalized medicine continues
Berlin, 17 May 2017 - Medios AG, a competence partner and solution provider in the Speciality Pharma segment, has continued its dynamic growth in the 1st quarter of 2017 and confirms its sales revenue forecast for fiscal year 2017. In the period from January to March, the company already generated sales revenue of EUR 51.8 million (IFRS), more than a quarter of the around EUR 200 million sales revenue expected for the entire year. The forecast for earnings before taxes (EBT) of around EUR 7 million also remains unchanged.
*Manfred Schneider, CEO of Medios AG:* "Thanks to the sustained high demand for personalized medicine, we have started the new fiscal year off very positively and are well on our way to reaching our 2017 sales revenue goal of around 200 million euro. In the first three months, we have laid the groundwork for long-term growth by forming our new subsidiary, Medios Digital, and by investing in the significant expansion of our manufacturing capacities."
In January, Medios AG announced the foundation of a wholly owned subsidiary, Medios Digital GmbH. The goal of the company's in-house system service provider is to bundle the software development activities performed by the Medios Group and to drive the digitalization of the pharma trade with specialty drugs forward.
In March, Medios AG purchased a property in Berlin-Charlottenburg to significantly expand production for its subsidiary, Medios Manufaktur GmbH, and to merge all activities of the Medios Group on one site. The total investment in this property amounts to around EUR 11 million.
In the same month, the new law on strengthening pharmaceutical supply in statutory health insurance was passed by the German parliament and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat. It has taken effect in May and, according to the management board, could not only improve healthcare for patients but could also have a positive impact on the growth opportunities of Medios AG.
In April, Medios AG published its first annual report. According to this report, the company was able to continue its dynamic growth in 2016 thanks to extremely positive development in the Specialty Pharma market. Based on the pro forma profit and loss statement (IFRS), the corporation's sales revenue rose by 78 percent to EUR 160.4 million compared to the prior year. Earnings before taxes (EBT) likewise increased significantly by 106.1 percent to EUR 5.77 million.
*About Medios AG*
Medios AG positions itself - along with its sister companies Medios Pharma, Medios Manufaktur and Medios Digital - as a competence partner and solution provider for the Specialty Pharma segment. Medios AG interconnects individual actors within the market and turns them into co-operating partners. It is our goal to guarantee best possible pharmaceutical care for patients while providing our partners and clients with integrated solutions along the supply chain. Specialty Pharma medicine are pharmaceuticals for patients with rare and chronic diseases such as certain cancer types and autoimmune / infectious diseases, which are time-consuming and cost-intensive to cure.
*Contact*
Kirchhoff Consult AG
Nikolaus Hammerschmidt
Herrengraben 1
20459 Hamburg
Telefon: +49 40 60918618
Fax: +49 40 60918660
E-mail: nikolaus.hammerschmidt@kirchhoff.de
www.kirchhoff.de
*Disclaimer*
This notification contains forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Future results may significantly deviate from currently expected results, specifically due to various risk factors and uncertainties such as changes in business, economic, and competitive circumstances, exchange rate fluctuations, uncertainties about legal disputes or investigations, and the availability of financial resources. Medios AG assumes no responsibility whatsoever for updating the forward-looking statements contained in this notification.
--------------------
17.05.2017 Dissemination of a Corporate News, transmitted by DGAP - a service of EQS Group AG.
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
The DGAP Distribution Services include Regulatory Announcements, Financial/Corporate News and Press Releases.
Archive at www.dgap.de --------------------
Language: English
Company: Medios AG
Friedrichstraße 113a
10117 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49 30 232 566 - 800
Fax: 030 / 8321 8377
E-mail: ir@medios.ag
Internet: www.medios.ag
ISIN: DE000A1MMCC8
WKN: A1MMCC
Listed: Regulated Market in Frankfurt (General Standard), Hamburg; Regulated Unofficial Market in Dusseldorf
End of News DGAP News Service Reported by EQS Group 1 hour ago.
17.05.2017 / 10:00
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
--------------------
*Corporate News*
*Medios AG continues its dynamic growth in the 1st quarter and confirms its sales revenue forecast for fiscal year 2017 *
*- *Sales revenue in the 1st quarter of 2017 reach EUR 51.8 million and thereby already more than a quarter of expected annual sales revenue
- The high demand for personalized medicine continues
Berlin, 17 May 2017 - Medios AG, a competence partner and solution provider in the Speciality Pharma segment, has continued its dynamic growth in the 1st quarter of 2017 and confirms its sales revenue forecast for fiscal year 2017. In the period from January to March, the company already generated sales revenue of EUR 51.8 million (IFRS), more than a quarter of the around EUR 200 million sales revenue expected for the entire year. The forecast for earnings before taxes (EBT) of around EUR 7 million also remains unchanged.
*Manfred Schneider, CEO of Medios AG:* "Thanks to the sustained high demand for personalized medicine, we have started the new fiscal year off very positively and are well on our way to reaching our 2017 sales revenue goal of around 200 million euro. In the first three months, we have laid the groundwork for long-term growth by forming our new subsidiary, Medios Digital, and by investing in the significant expansion of our manufacturing capacities."
In January, Medios AG announced the foundation of a wholly owned subsidiary, Medios Digital GmbH. The goal of the company's in-house system service provider is to bundle the software development activities performed by the Medios Group and to drive the digitalization of the pharma trade with specialty drugs forward.
In March, Medios AG purchased a property in Berlin-Charlottenburg to significantly expand production for its subsidiary, Medios Manufaktur GmbH, and to merge all activities of the Medios Group on one site. The total investment in this property amounts to around EUR 11 million.
In the same month, the new law on strengthening pharmaceutical supply in statutory health insurance was passed by the German parliament and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat. It has taken effect in May and, according to the management board, could not only improve healthcare for patients but could also have a positive impact on the growth opportunities of Medios AG.
In April, Medios AG published its first annual report. According to this report, the company was able to continue its dynamic growth in 2016 thanks to extremely positive development in the Specialty Pharma market. Based on the pro forma profit and loss statement (IFRS), the corporation's sales revenue rose by 78 percent to EUR 160.4 million compared to the prior year. Earnings before taxes (EBT) likewise increased significantly by 106.1 percent to EUR 5.77 million.
*About Medios AG*
Medios AG positions itself - along with its sister companies Medios Pharma, Medios Manufaktur and Medios Digital - as a competence partner and solution provider for the Specialty Pharma segment. Medios AG interconnects individual actors within the market and turns them into co-operating partners. It is our goal to guarantee best possible pharmaceutical care for patients while providing our partners and clients with integrated solutions along the supply chain. Specialty Pharma medicine are pharmaceuticals for patients with rare and chronic diseases such as certain cancer types and autoimmune / infectious diseases, which are time-consuming and cost-intensive to cure.
*Contact*
Kirchhoff Consult AG
Nikolaus Hammerschmidt
Herrengraben 1
20459 Hamburg
Telefon: +49 40 60918618
Fax: +49 40 60918660
E-mail: nikolaus.hammerschmidt@kirchhoff.de
www.kirchhoff.de
*Disclaimer*
This notification contains forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Future results may significantly deviate from currently expected results, specifically due to various risk factors and uncertainties such as changes in business, economic, and competitive circumstances, exchange rate fluctuations, uncertainties about legal disputes or investigations, and the availability of financial resources. Medios AG assumes no responsibility whatsoever for updating the forward-looking statements contained in this notification.
--------------------
17.05.2017 Dissemination of a Corporate News, transmitted by DGAP - a service of EQS Group AG.
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
The DGAP Distribution Services include Regulatory Announcements, Financial/Corporate News and Press Releases.
Archive at www.dgap.de --------------------
Language: English
Company: Medios AG
Friedrichstraße 113a
10117 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49 30 232 566 - 800
Fax: 030 / 8321 8377
E-mail: ir@medios.ag
Internet: www.medios.ag
ISIN: DE000A1MMCC8
WKN: A1MMCC
Listed: Regulated Market in Frankfurt (General Standard), Hamburg; Regulated Unofficial Market in Dusseldorf
End of News DGAP News Service Reported by EQS Group 1 hour ago.
↧
NDC must unite to wrestle power from NPP in 2020 - Sylvester Mensah
Former boss of the National Health Insurance Scheme, Sylvester Mensah has called on supporters of the opposition National Democratic Congress to unite ahead of the 2020 general elections.
Reported by Myjoyonline 33 minutes ago.
↧
More health insurance woes looming: blame Trump or Obama?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Another year of big premium increases and dwindling choice is looking like a distinct possibility for many consumers who buy their own health insurance — but why, and who's to blame? Many insurers in the subsidized markets created by the Affordable Care Act are still struggling to overcome financial losses. Insurers are also worried that under Trump the IRS will ease up enforcing the health law's unpopular requirement that most individuals have coverage, which can help drive healthy people into the market. [...] the GOP legislation in Congress would cut private insurance and Medicaid subsidies indirectly flowing to the companies. The impact will vary by state and insurer, but "I think it is the case that the uncertainty we are dealing with is adding to the premium increases this year," said Cori Uccello of the American Academy of Actuaries, which represents experts who make long-range cost estimates for health care and pension programs. [...] in Tennessee, a major company's CEO cited the potential impact of political uncertainty as a factor in premiums in a recent letter to insurance Commissioner Julie Mix McPeak. "Given the potential negative effects of federal legislative and/or regulatory changes, we believe it will be necessary to price-in those downside risks, even at the prospect of a higher-than-average margin for the short term, or until stability can be achieved," wrote JD Hickey of BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 56 minutes ago.
↧
The Republican Plan To Cover Sick People Might Sort Of Work, But Nobody Really Knows
WASHINGTON ― Republicans think they have a better way to organize the individual health insurance market and deal with people who are already sick: throwing them a sad pool party.
The health care bill Republicans passed in the House earlier this month would allow states to opt out of the protections that the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” established for people with pre-existing medical conditions, but only if they set up so-called “high-risk pools” instead. These pools would accept people who are considered “risky” to insurance companies because their health histories suggest their future medical claims will cost the companies a lot of money.
It’s not a new concept. High-risk pools have existed since the 1970s and were in operation in 35 states when the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. They’ve never had a ton of funding, and only insured about 220,000 people when they were phased out ― which is far fewer than the estimated 25 million with pre-existing conditions and no insurance.
House Speaker Paul Ryan touted his state’s version as an example earlier this month. “In Wisconsin, we had a really successful high-risk pool,” said Ryan, adding that 10 percent of Wisconsinites on the individual insurance market bought plans from the pool, which was called the Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan.
“They could go to any doctor or any hospital they wanted. And their premiums and co-pays were cheaper than they are under Obamacare today.”The Wisconsin pool covered about 20,000 people each year before it folded as the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies and protections for individual health insurance consumers took effect in 2014. The typical enrollee in the Wisconsin pool had a $5,000 deductible ― the amount they would have to pay before their plan would begin to cover claims ― and lifetime benefits were capped at $2 million, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Plans. Wisconsin, like many other states with these high-risk pools, required new enrollees to wait six months before the program paid claims relating to pre-existing conditions, as a way to limit expenses.
Sue and Dan Wilson of Appleton, Wisconsin, had to use the state’s high-risk pool in 2011, after Dan retired from his job as a journalist at a local paper. Dan has high blood pressure, and Sue has diabetes. They searched for an affordable plan on the private market, but were rejected ― even for policies charging as much as $1,200 a month. They found they could get coverage through the Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan for about $800 a month.
But they could only afford one policy ― two was too expensive. Sue enrolled, while Dan went without insurance for about a year ― and even then, they had to dip into their savings to pay for it until they both were able to qualify for Medicare in 2012.
“It was better than nothing,” said Sue Wilson in an interview. “I had insurance and my husband had no insurance. It was scary.”
Wisconsin’s high-risk pool brought in $104 million in revenue from premiums in 2011 and paid out $178 million, which was typical for these programs more broadly ― losses in state pools across the country amounted to $1.2 billion that year, even with premiums that could be twice as high as market rates. States tried to make up the difference by imposing fees on insurance companies, and Congress chipped in with millions of dollars through occasional grants over the years, according to the Congressional Research Service.
I had insurance and my husband had no insurance. It was scary.
Sue Wilson
The details of the GOP’s American Health Care Act are still sketchy, even after the House voted to send the legislation to the Senate. But its basic idea is to funnel an unprecedented amount of federal money into new state high-risk pools ― as much as $138 billion over 10 years ― though the legislation doesn’t say that states actually have to use that cash for the pools. Just last year, Ryan proposed only $25 billion for the policy.
During a hearing in February ― one of only a few hearings held on what eventually became the House legislation ― Wisconsin’s deputy insurance commissioner testified that when the state’s high-risk pool closed, premiums for everybody else in the state went up because the pool’s 20,000 enrollees were put on the state’s individual insurance market with healthier people.
“Wisconsin insurers were quickly faced with an uncertain influx of individuals with serious health conditions,” deputy insurance commissioner J.P. Wieske said in his written testimony.
The Republican bill would allow states to resegregate those sicker customers in pools, though it’s unclear if $138 billion in federal funds would be enough to subsidize states’ costs. The liberal Center for American Progress estimated that Republicans would need to throw another $200 billion into the state pools over 10 years just to cover 3 percent of the 31 million people currently insured in small group and individual markets. A 2014 study said creating a national high-risk pool that covered 15 million people would cost $178 billion per year.
Both those estimates reflect what it would cost for high-risk pools to be effective in every state; Republicans say this is unfair because their legislation merely gives states the choice of creating such pools in lieu of Obamacare’s requirement to cover people with pre-existing conditions without charging them higher premiums. It’s not clear how many states would seek a waiver from Obamacare in order to do so.
“I think they’re going to be under tremendous pressure from their insurance industry to get one of these waivers,” Sabrina Corlette, an expert with Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said in an interview. She pointed out that the Republican bill would also remove the Obamacare requirement that everyone either buy insurance or pay a penalty ― meaning insurance companies would probably lose some of their healthier, less expensive customers.Given the uncertain funding, Corlette said states that do set up pools would probably look for ways to control costs through measures like imposing lifetime limits on benefit payouts and waiting periods for people with pre-existing conditions.
“It’s just an incredibly inefficient way and frankly fiscally irresponsible if the goal is truly to provide a safety net for people with pre-existing conditions,” Corlette said.
Congress tried to do high-risk pools on a large scale once before ― when it passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ― and the example isn’t encouraging. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, as it was known, operated in every state, even in states that already had their own pools. Democrats intended the program to serve as a stopgap measure for sick people before Obamacare’s insurance reforms took effect in 2014. It also served as the clearest demonstration of how hard it is to predict what will happen with a high-risk pool.
The $5 billion plan didn’t exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, but it only accepted applicants who’d been uninsured for at least six months. The Obama administration figured a few hundred thousand would enroll, but only about 100,000 did ― and their claims were so expensive that the administration closed the program to new enrollment a year early.
For the people who do get insurance from high-risk pools, though, the programs can be lifesavers.
Jill Morin of Raleigh, North Carolina, spent about six months uninsured after her husband’s company, which provided insurance for their family of four, went out of business in 2011. Morin, a real estate agent, has heart disease and had suffered cardiac arrest in 2009. She assumed nobody would sell her a policy they could afford on her commissions.
“I couldn’t sleep at night,” Morin, 46, said in an interview. “I was so scared of what might happen to me it also affected my performance in my job.”
When she found out North Carolina had a risk pool that offered premium subsidies for people with low incomes, she signed up immediately. At first, she was thrilled, but after paying about $600 in premiums per month, and not coming close to meeting her deductible, she was less thrilled.
“It just didn’t make sense,” she said. (Morin’s husband has since obtained a new job that provided health insurance.)
Jeanette Hauser, 60, also heard about the North Carolina pool, which she thought sounded pretty good. There was just one problem: She lived in Arizona.
She had previously had insurance through a statewide business association that allowed her to buy into a costly group plan, but the association announced it was going to stop offering it in 2013. She had a seizure disorder she controlled with medication, the result of a rare autoimmune disease, and knew she wasn’t going to have an easy time finding private insurance in Arizona.
“I spent approximately 60 days putting together a spreadsheet, trying to figure out which state would allow me to get insurance by one technique or another,” Hauser said.
She and her husband decided to move to Raleigh, where she could apply for the state’s high-risk pool. Once she established residency, she applied for private insurance ― a prerequisite so she could then show pool administrators a rejection letter. But to her surprise, a North Carolina company actually accepted her application and offered several plans ― and she’s still covered by that company today.
Hauser, a retired administrator for an accounting firm, said she and her husband are happy with their new home, even though they only moved there for the insurance. She’s not sorry she didn’t even have to use the state pool. At the time she moved, after all, state pools were facing upheaval from the Affordable Care Act, which itself has faced constant threats from Republicans in Congress.
“I was much more comfortable with taking a regular insurance plan,” she said.
-- 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 23 hours ago.
The health care bill Republicans passed in the House earlier this month would allow states to opt out of the protections that the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” established for people with pre-existing medical conditions, but only if they set up so-called “high-risk pools” instead. These pools would accept people who are considered “risky” to insurance companies because their health histories suggest their future medical claims will cost the companies a lot of money.
It’s not a new concept. High-risk pools have existed since the 1970s and were in operation in 35 states when the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. They’ve never had a ton of funding, and only insured about 220,000 people when they were phased out ― which is far fewer than the estimated 25 million with pre-existing conditions and no insurance.
House Speaker Paul Ryan touted his state’s version as an example earlier this month. “In Wisconsin, we had a really successful high-risk pool,” said Ryan, adding that 10 percent of Wisconsinites on the individual insurance market bought plans from the pool, which was called the Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan.
“They could go to any doctor or any hospital they wanted. And their premiums and co-pays were cheaper than they are under Obamacare today.”The Wisconsin pool covered about 20,000 people each year before it folded as the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies and protections for individual health insurance consumers took effect in 2014. The typical enrollee in the Wisconsin pool had a $5,000 deductible ― the amount they would have to pay before their plan would begin to cover claims ― and lifetime benefits were capped at $2 million, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Plans. Wisconsin, like many other states with these high-risk pools, required new enrollees to wait six months before the program paid claims relating to pre-existing conditions, as a way to limit expenses.
Sue and Dan Wilson of Appleton, Wisconsin, had to use the state’s high-risk pool in 2011, after Dan retired from his job as a journalist at a local paper. Dan has high blood pressure, and Sue has diabetes. They searched for an affordable plan on the private market, but were rejected ― even for policies charging as much as $1,200 a month. They found they could get coverage through the Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan for about $800 a month.
But they could only afford one policy ― two was too expensive. Sue enrolled, while Dan went without insurance for about a year ― and even then, they had to dip into their savings to pay for it until they both were able to qualify for Medicare in 2012.
“It was better than nothing,” said Sue Wilson in an interview. “I had insurance and my husband had no insurance. It was scary.”
Wisconsin’s high-risk pool brought in $104 million in revenue from premiums in 2011 and paid out $178 million, which was typical for these programs more broadly ― losses in state pools across the country amounted to $1.2 billion that year, even with premiums that could be twice as high as market rates. States tried to make up the difference by imposing fees on insurance companies, and Congress chipped in with millions of dollars through occasional grants over the years, according to the Congressional Research Service.
I had insurance and my husband had no insurance. It was scary.
Sue Wilson
The details of the GOP’s American Health Care Act are still sketchy, even after the House voted to send the legislation to the Senate. But its basic idea is to funnel an unprecedented amount of federal money into new state high-risk pools ― as much as $138 billion over 10 years ― though the legislation doesn’t say that states actually have to use that cash for the pools. Just last year, Ryan proposed only $25 billion for the policy.
During a hearing in February ― one of only a few hearings held on what eventually became the House legislation ― Wisconsin’s deputy insurance commissioner testified that when the state’s high-risk pool closed, premiums for everybody else in the state went up because the pool’s 20,000 enrollees were put on the state’s individual insurance market with healthier people.
“Wisconsin insurers were quickly faced with an uncertain influx of individuals with serious health conditions,” deputy insurance commissioner J.P. Wieske said in his written testimony.
The Republican bill would allow states to resegregate those sicker customers in pools, though it’s unclear if $138 billion in federal funds would be enough to subsidize states’ costs. The liberal Center for American Progress estimated that Republicans would need to throw another $200 billion into the state pools over 10 years just to cover 3 percent of the 31 million people currently insured in small group and individual markets. A 2014 study said creating a national high-risk pool that covered 15 million people would cost $178 billion per year.
Both those estimates reflect what it would cost for high-risk pools to be effective in every state; Republicans say this is unfair because their legislation merely gives states the choice of creating such pools in lieu of Obamacare’s requirement to cover people with pre-existing conditions without charging them higher premiums. It’s not clear how many states would seek a waiver from Obamacare in order to do so.
“I think they’re going to be under tremendous pressure from their insurance industry to get one of these waivers,” Sabrina Corlette, an expert with Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said in an interview. She pointed out that the Republican bill would also remove the Obamacare requirement that everyone either buy insurance or pay a penalty ― meaning insurance companies would probably lose some of their healthier, less expensive customers.Given the uncertain funding, Corlette said states that do set up pools would probably look for ways to control costs through measures like imposing lifetime limits on benefit payouts and waiting periods for people with pre-existing conditions.
“It’s just an incredibly inefficient way and frankly fiscally irresponsible if the goal is truly to provide a safety net for people with pre-existing conditions,” Corlette said.
Congress tried to do high-risk pools on a large scale once before ― when it passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ― and the example isn’t encouraging. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, as it was known, operated in every state, even in states that already had their own pools. Democrats intended the program to serve as a stopgap measure for sick people before Obamacare’s insurance reforms took effect in 2014. It also served as the clearest demonstration of how hard it is to predict what will happen with a high-risk pool.
The $5 billion plan didn’t exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, but it only accepted applicants who’d been uninsured for at least six months. The Obama administration figured a few hundred thousand would enroll, but only about 100,000 did ― and their claims were so expensive that the administration closed the program to new enrollment a year early.
For the people who do get insurance from high-risk pools, though, the programs can be lifesavers.
Jill Morin of Raleigh, North Carolina, spent about six months uninsured after her husband’s company, which provided insurance for their family of four, went out of business in 2011. Morin, a real estate agent, has heart disease and had suffered cardiac arrest in 2009. She assumed nobody would sell her a policy they could afford on her commissions.
“I couldn’t sleep at night,” Morin, 46, said in an interview. “I was so scared of what might happen to me it also affected my performance in my job.”
When she found out North Carolina had a risk pool that offered premium subsidies for people with low incomes, she signed up immediately. At first, she was thrilled, but after paying about $600 in premiums per month, and not coming close to meeting her deductible, she was less thrilled.
“It just didn’t make sense,” she said. (Morin’s husband has since obtained a new job that provided health insurance.)
Jeanette Hauser, 60, also heard about the North Carolina pool, which she thought sounded pretty good. There was just one problem: She lived in Arizona.
She had previously had insurance through a statewide business association that allowed her to buy into a costly group plan, but the association announced it was going to stop offering it in 2013. She had a seizure disorder she controlled with medication, the result of a rare autoimmune disease, and knew she wasn’t going to have an easy time finding private insurance in Arizona.
“I spent approximately 60 days putting together a spreadsheet, trying to figure out which state would allow me to get insurance by one technique or another,” Hauser said.
She and her husband decided to move to Raleigh, where she could apply for the state’s high-risk pool. Once she established residency, she applied for private insurance ― a prerequisite so she could then show pool administrators a rejection letter. But to her surprise, a North Carolina company actually accepted her application and offered several plans ― and she’s still covered by that company today.
Hauser, a retired administrator for an accounting firm, said she and her husband are happy with their new home, even though they only moved there for the insurance. She’s not sorry she didn’t even have to use the state pool. At the time she moved, after all, state pools were facing upheaval from the Affordable Care Act, which itself has faced constant threats from Republicans in Congress.
“I was much more comfortable with taking a regular insurance plan,” she said.
-- 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 23 hours ago.
↧
↧
More Health Insurance Woes Looming: Blame Trump or Obama?
Another year of big premium increases and dwindling choice is looking like a distinct possibility for many consumers who buy their own health insurance - but why, and who's to blame?
Reported by Newsmax 21 hours ago.
↧
3 Small Cap-Growth Stocks You Can Buy Now
Upland Software, Paylocity, and Health Insurance Innovations could have what it takes to deserve a spot in your growth-stock portfolio.
Reported by Motley Fool 21 hours ago.
↧
Why Gutting Health Care As Boomers Turn 80 Is A Really Bad Idea
For decades, health care providers and policy wonks have known the time would come when aging baby boomers would need a lot more support than the generations that preceded them, including long-term services.
Now, just as the oldest boomers are moving into retirement, the House Obamacare replacement bill would strip away funding that nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and home health agencies depend on to care for the most vulnerable seniors.
“What we’re talking about here is straight-up rationing care,” said Judith Feder, who studies health policy at the Urban Institute think tank.
Medicaid’s big role in elder care
Nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and intensive home services are too expensive for most families to pay for out of pocket, and Medicare usually doesn’t cover them either.
So today Medicaid pays for more than half of long-term care costs in the U.S. Typically, an older person who needs help with basic activities like bathing and eating will spend all their money on care services, eventually becoming poor enough that Medicaid starts picking up the bills.
But if the Medicaid provisions in the House bill make it through the Senate and become law, it’s going to be harder to get those services paid for.
Starting in 2020, instead of providing state Medicaid programs with funding based on residents’ needs, the federal government would give them a fixed pot of money. That could take the form of a simple block grant that doesn’t adjust to population changes or a per capita allocation, which would base payments on the number of state residents who fall into particular categories, like poor children or disabled adults.
Payments would rise each year, but only at the inflation rate for medical care services. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that will be less than the actual growth in enrollees’ costs between now and 2026, creating a growing gap.
Over the next few decades, the problem will get even worse as boomers go from “young-old” to “old-old.” Between 2015 and 2060, the Census predicts that the population aged 65 to 84 will grow 89 percent. Meanwhile, the number of people 85 and older will more than triple. It’s those older seniors who are most likely to need long-term care. But the “elderly” category in the House plan lumps everyone over 65 together, setting the baseline for per-capita costs based on the population mix in 2016, which is much more heavily weighted toward younger, healthier seniors.The way the bill sets the baseline, it also entrenches decisions many states have made to try to keep their costs down. States that offered stingy benefits in 2016 would be forced to keep doing so, unless they can find all the money for expansion in their own budgets.
“When you put these kinds of lids on spending, and given the constrained spending we’ve had before, what you’re doing is freezing in place gross inequities across states,” Feder said. “Essentially you’re denying federal resources that would enable low-spending states to catch up.”
Cost control
Rhonda Richards, a senior legislative representative at AARP, said states that don’t have the money to pay for the care their older residents’ needs might tighten their eligibility rules. That would leave more people without any care at all. Or they might reduce the rates they pay providers ― even though Medicaid already generally pays less than Medicare or private insurance for a given service. Richards said that could have a big impact on nursing homes and other facilities.
“Certain providers might decide not to provide services whose care is being paid for by Medicaid,” she said. “It could also impact the quality of care that’s provided.”The bill would be even worse for home health and community-based long-term care. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to cover residential facilities, but not the kinds of care that let people keep living in their own homes. Faced with less money to go around, this might well be the easiest place to make cuts.
“We’re really focused on the impact this has on older adults’ ability to live independently in their homes and communities,” Richards said.
Getting care at home is much cheaper than moving to a nursing home, and most people prefer it. But Feder said states have been slow to cover home and community care precisely because they’re so popular that the programs can be overwhelmed with demand ― unlike with nursing homes, which are almost always a last resort.
“The concern that states have had is it will serve more people,” she said. “That’s the objective, but that has made them reluctant.”
Under the Republican health bill, rather than continue to slowly expand coverage for home and community health, states would be likely to roll it back.What’s the alternative?
Ultimately, the single biggest problem facing the long-term care system, and American health care at large, is that health services are expensive. The conservatives seeking to cut Medicaid have been denouncing it as an “out of control” entitlement for decades. And, indeed, under current law the program is expected to be 2 ½ times bigger in 2025 than it was in 2009. But private health insurance spending is growing nearly as fast.
Regardless of politics, people will need more help as they get older. If authorities cut the spending that lets seniors get that help, the burden will fall elsewhere, often on family members who end up overburdened and financially strained. And, of course, some seniors simply won’t have anyone willing or able to help them for free.
Lawmakers ― including Republicans ― know this. It’s the reason Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), one of the last holdouts before the House bill passed, expressed strong reservations. He only relented when the Trump administration assured him that they were “committed to find a solution” to keep nursing home care fully funded.
As the Senate drafts its own Affordable Care Act replacement bill, we’ll find out just how seriously the Republican Party takes the notion that this is a problem that needs to be solved.
-- 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 20 hours ago.
Now, just as the oldest boomers are moving into retirement, the House Obamacare replacement bill would strip away funding that nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and home health agencies depend on to care for the most vulnerable seniors.
“What we’re talking about here is straight-up rationing care,” said Judith Feder, who studies health policy at the Urban Institute think tank.
Medicaid’s big role in elder care
Nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and intensive home services are too expensive for most families to pay for out of pocket, and Medicare usually doesn’t cover them either.
So today Medicaid pays for more than half of long-term care costs in the U.S. Typically, an older person who needs help with basic activities like bathing and eating will spend all their money on care services, eventually becoming poor enough that Medicaid starts picking up the bills.
But if the Medicaid provisions in the House bill make it through the Senate and become law, it’s going to be harder to get those services paid for.
Starting in 2020, instead of providing state Medicaid programs with funding based on residents’ needs, the federal government would give them a fixed pot of money. That could take the form of a simple block grant that doesn’t adjust to population changes or a per capita allocation, which would base payments on the number of state residents who fall into particular categories, like poor children or disabled adults.
Payments would rise each year, but only at the inflation rate for medical care services. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that will be less than the actual growth in enrollees’ costs between now and 2026, creating a growing gap.
Over the next few decades, the problem will get even worse as boomers go from “young-old” to “old-old.” Between 2015 and 2060, the Census predicts that the population aged 65 to 84 will grow 89 percent. Meanwhile, the number of people 85 and older will more than triple. It’s those older seniors who are most likely to need long-term care. But the “elderly” category in the House plan lumps everyone over 65 together, setting the baseline for per-capita costs based on the population mix in 2016, which is much more heavily weighted toward younger, healthier seniors.The way the bill sets the baseline, it also entrenches decisions many states have made to try to keep their costs down. States that offered stingy benefits in 2016 would be forced to keep doing so, unless they can find all the money for expansion in their own budgets.
“When you put these kinds of lids on spending, and given the constrained spending we’ve had before, what you’re doing is freezing in place gross inequities across states,” Feder said. “Essentially you’re denying federal resources that would enable low-spending states to catch up.”
Cost control
Rhonda Richards, a senior legislative representative at AARP, said states that don’t have the money to pay for the care their older residents’ needs might tighten their eligibility rules. That would leave more people without any care at all. Or they might reduce the rates they pay providers ― even though Medicaid already generally pays less than Medicare or private insurance for a given service. Richards said that could have a big impact on nursing homes and other facilities.
“Certain providers might decide not to provide services whose care is being paid for by Medicaid,” she said. “It could also impact the quality of care that’s provided.”The bill would be even worse for home health and community-based long-term care. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to cover residential facilities, but not the kinds of care that let people keep living in their own homes. Faced with less money to go around, this might well be the easiest place to make cuts.
“We’re really focused on the impact this has on older adults’ ability to live independently in their homes and communities,” Richards said.
Getting care at home is much cheaper than moving to a nursing home, and most people prefer it. But Feder said states have been slow to cover home and community care precisely because they’re so popular that the programs can be overwhelmed with demand ― unlike with nursing homes, which are almost always a last resort.
“The concern that states have had is it will serve more people,” she said. “That’s the objective, but that has made them reluctant.”
Under the Republican health bill, rather than continue to slowly expand coverage for home and community health, states would be likely to roll it back.What’s the alternative?
Ultimately, the single biggest problem facing the long-term care system, and American health care at large, is that health services are expensive. The conservatives seeking to cut Medicaid have been denouncing it as an “out of control” entitlement for decades. And, indeed, under current law the program is expected to be 2 ½ times bigger in 2025 than it was in 2009. But private health insurance spending is growing nearly as fast.
Regardless of politics, people will need more help as they get older. If authorities cut the spending that lets seniors get that help, the burden will fall elsewhere, often on family members who end up overburdened and financially strained. And, of course, some seniors simply won’t have anyone willing or able to help them for free.
Lawmakers ― including Republicans ― know this. It’s the reason Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), one of the last holdouts before the House bill passed, expressed strong reservations. He only relented when the Trump administration assured him that they were “committed to find a solution” to keep nursing home care fully funded.
As the Senate drafts its own Affordable Care Act replacement bill, we’ll find out just how seriously the Republican Party takes the notion that this is a problem that needs to be solved.
-- 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 20 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
