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

How the Republican health plan could hurt those with employer health insurance

0
0
Reported by MarketWatch 7 hours ago.

Covered California enacts policy to address uncertainty over federal health subsidies

0
0
The board of Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, agreed Thursday on a contingency plan to address concerns that the federal government won’t continue health subsidies many lower-income Californians depend on. The plan dealt with the federal government's so-called cost-sharing reductions. Under the Affordable Care Act, cost-sharing reductions lower the amount of out-of-pocket costs for primary care visits and outpatient services for people at 138 to 250 percent of the federal… Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.

Democratic and GOP Governors Urge Senate To Rethink Health Care Bill

0
0
A bipartisan group of governors has a message for Senate leaders about health care reform: Slow your roll.

Republican governors John Kasich of Ohio, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts joined Democratic governors Steve Bullock of Montana, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania in a letter Friday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“We have watched with great interest the recent debate and House passage of H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act,” the letter begins. “While we certainly agree that reforms need to be made to our nation’s health care system, as governors from both sides of the political aisle, we feel that true and lasting reforms are best approached by finding common ground in a bipartisan fashion.”

So far, that’s the direct opposite of how the Republican-led Congress has approached legislating on health care.

The House passed its version of the American Health Care Act on a party-line vote in May that followed weeks of internal GOP wrangling behind the scenes. Lower chamber Republicans approved this bill without waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze its effects. Eventually, the CBO reported the legislation would result in 23 million fewer people with health coverage over the next decade.

The governors emphasize the importance of improving the private health insurance market and Medicaid, and assert the House legislation ― which the Senate is using as the basis for its bill ― fails to do those things.

“Unfortunately, H.R. 1628, as passed by the House, does not meet these challenges. It calls into question coverage for the vulnerable and fails to provide the necessary resources to ensure that no one is left out, while shifting significant costs to the states,” the governors write.

The Senate is copying the House’s tactics as well as its policies. McConnell skipped the entire committee process in favor of assigning a task force to write his chamber’s version of the bill behind closed doors.

Even Republican senators profess they don’t know what will be in the legislation or what it will do, although none has attempted to force McConnell to change his tack. Senate rules require this particular bill to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office before coming to the floor for a vote.

Senate Democrats have offered to negotiate with Republicans on health care, but only if the goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act were set aside in favor of improving existing health care programs.

In their letter, the governors urge the Senate to act to stabilize the health insurance markets for people who don’t get health benefits from their employers, which comprises insurance purchased directly from insurers or via the Affordable Care Act’s exchange marketplaces like HealthCare.gov.

These markets are troubled by lingering problems with the Affordable Care Act itself that are being worsened by the actions and inaction of President Donald Trump and his administration.

“First and foremost, Congress should focus on improving our nation’s private health insurance system,” the governors write.

The governors ― each of whom leads a state that expanded Medicaid to more poor adults using Affordable Care Act funding ― express serious reservations about the congressional GOP health plan.

The House-passed bill would cut Medicaid funding by one-quarter over the next 10 years by ending the expansions and curtailing federal spending on the program overall, which also serves children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and elderly nursing home residents.

“Medicaid provisions included in this [House] bill are particularly problematic,” the governors write.

The governors also offer a broad set of principles they believe should be the foundation of a new health care reform proposal, including stabilizing insurance markets, preserving Medicaid while offering states greater leeway to run their programs, and promoting more affordable private insurance. 

-- 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.

3 Republican governors sign on to letter rejecting 'Trumpcare'

0
0
3 Republican governors sign on to letter rejecting 'Trumpcare' Three Republican governors — John Kasich of Ohio, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts — signed onto a letter sent to congressional leaders Friday rejecting the current iteration of the GOP healthcare bill.

In the letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, three Republican governors and four Democratic governors called for bipartisan efforts to reform the healthcare system.

"While we certainly agree that reforms need to be made to our nation’s health care system, as Governors from both sides of the political aisle, we feel that true and lasting reforms are best approached by finding common ground in a bipartisan fashion," the letter said.

The governors also admonished the House GOP version of the American Health Care Act for creating more problems in the healthcare system than it solves.

"It calls into question coverage for the vulnerable and fails to provide the necessary resources to ensure that no one is left out, while shifting significant costs to the states," said the letter. "Medicaid provisions included in this bill are particularly problematic. Instead, we recommend Congress address factors we can all agree need fixing."

All three states took advantage of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, which the House bill would phase out.

*Here's the full letter and signees:*

Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer:

We have watched with great interest the recent debate and House passage of H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act. While we certainly agree that reforms need to be made to our nation’s health care system, as Governors from both sides of the political aisle, we feel that true and lasting reforms are best approached by finding common ground in a bipartisan fashion.

To that end, we remain hopeful that there is an opportunity to craft solutions to these challenges that can find support across party lines, delivering improvements to result in a system that is available and affordable for every American.

We believe that, first and foremost, Congress should focus on improving our nation’s private health insurance system. Improvements should be based on a set of guiding principles, included below, which include controlling costs and stabilizing the market, that will positively impact the coverage and care of millions of Americans, including many who are dealing with mental illness, chronic health problems, and drug addiction.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1628, as passed by the House, does not meet these challenges. It calls into question coverage for the vulnerable and fails to provide the necessary resources to ensure that no one is left out, while shifting significant costs to the states. Medicaid provisions included in this bill are particularly problematic. Instead, we recommend Congress address factors we can all agree need fixing.

We stand ready to work with you and your colleagues to develop a proposal that is fiscally sound and provides quality, affordable coverage for our most vulnerable citizens.

Sincerely,

John R. Kasich, Governor of Ohio; Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana; Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada; John W. Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado; Charles D. Baker, Governor of Massachusetts; Tom Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania; John Bel Edwards, Governor of Louisiana

*SEE ALSO: Republicans are doing everything they can to keep their healthcare bill a secret*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Obamas just shelled out $8.1 million for the DC mansion they've been renting since leaving the White House Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.

Health insurance: Readers weigh in

0
0
Save Medicaid I wholeheartedly agree with your editorial that there’s a lot at stake if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. But one thing that continues to be overlooked is access to mental-health care and substance-use treatment. The expansion of Medicaid has made these critical services available to low-income people like never before. Providing mental-health […] Reported by Seattle Times 2 hours ago.

Nevada governor vetoes Medicaid-for-all bill

0
0
There will be no Medicaid-for-all option in Nevada.

Gov. Brian Sandoval waited until the last day he could — Friday — to veto a measure that would have offered a state-sponsored health insurance option to all residents regardless of income. If he hadn’t signed it or vetoed it by midnight, it would... Reported by L.A. Times 16 hours ago.

Someone Trolled A GOP Senator By Signing Him Up To Nickelback Emails

0
0
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) is not diggin’ this at all.

On Friday, he tweeted that someone had signed several of his email accounts up to Nickelback promotional newsletters. “It’s. Not. Funny,” he wrote:


To whoever just subscribed my email accts (family, work, obsolete) to multiple @Nickelback promotional & fan newsletters:

It's. Not. Funny.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 16, 2017


Whilst signing people up to spam email is never to be condoned, Sasse does have major form in trolling the Canadian rock band himself.

Over the past 16 months, he’s repeatedly used Twitter to poke fun at the group:


Is it Nickelback? https://t.co/akxP4fwZDR

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 2, 2017



#EvergreenTweet
cc: @Nickelback https://t.co/LiPM9yOBiV

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 26, 2017



"I have Nickelback tickets" https://t.co/9IT5GZ4FTc

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 18, 2017



The cat in the hat is currently on tour with Nickelback and unavailable to comment https://t.co/lLHKDXYr5A

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 16, 2017



if it weren't for Nickelback, there'd be no risk of a trade war https://t.co/BbP2DIdMoP

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) April 26, 2017



I think I've been clear:
If you don't buy my book, I'm gonna start tweeting Nickelback lyrics.

To make it to stop:https://t.co/muK8YttvuM https://t.co/PX3pz2ZJIw

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) April 26, 2017



#prayingYouNeverDiscover

RT"@RodneyUdell: @BenSasse @mySA ? What is Nickelback"

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) January 29, 2016



The first #GOPdebate candidate that promises an exec order deporting Nickelback has my endorsement: https://t.co/MR6ZXhntBz

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) January 15, 2016


It’s also not the first time someone has added Sasse to the band’s mailing list:


Oddly this is not the first time someone has signed @BenSasse up for Nickelback mailing lists. pic.twitter.com/BzHqAtmogo

— Jason Stern (@IbnLarry) June 16, 2017


Sasse claimed the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was behind the latest prank:


(Update: @senorrinhatch just DM'd me to apologize) https://t.co/cGHoFIqxBu

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 16, 2017


Hatch’s office hasn’t confirmed its role in the joke, but did use the opportunity to indulge in some more trolling:


Just didn't want you to miss this. It must be a big day in the Sasse house. pic.twitter.com/0CVBtbrWMT

— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) June 16, 2017


Sasse saw the funny side, as did many of his Twitter followers:


It’s really, really funny. https://t.co/RqVUVA361T

— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) June 16, 2017



pic.twitter.com/yQhbMRKHtF

— Wonder Chelly (@ChelsIsRight) June 16, 2017



Actually it's hilarious.

— Han in Corbynite (@turnageb) June 16, 2017



Politifact rates this statement false. It is actually very funny.

— YOUNG MT (@MXTracy66) June 16, 2017



Counterpoint: It. Is. Funny. pic.twitter.com/xTIX3QHwU5

— Ben Oren (@TheRealBenOren) June 16, 2017


Some, however, used the exchange to quiz both Sasse and Hatch over the GOP’s health care reform:


Ben, "this is how we remind you" to let us know what's in the bill. Get it. Like the hit Nickelback song

— Patrick Monahan (@pattymo) June 16, 2017



So if you won't listen to Nickelback, will you listen to experts in hearings on healthcare before voting on AHCA?

— Vote4Heyl (@tonyheyl) June 16, 2017



Ha. Hilarious stuff. Now where's the health care bill you're hiding from the tens of millions it will literally condemn to bankruptcy/death?

— Dennis Perkins (@DennisPerkins5) June 16, 2017



How about you unsubscribe from a few mailing lists instead of unsubscribing millions of Americans from health insurance?

— (@jnorris) June 16, 2017
type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58fe55e9e4b06b9cb9194d7c,58b72289e4b0284854b3711d,58a72c07e4b07602ad54380d,5891fac4e4b02772c4ea5f6f

-- 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 15 hours ago.

Cerebral Palsy Didn't Stop This College Junior. Obamacare Repeal Might.

0
0
HILLIARD, Ohio ― Justin Martin, 21, is in many respects a typical junior at Kenyon College. He lives in an off-campus apartment, which he shares with six other guys. He’s majoring in English, helps run a student improv group, and last semester he took five courses instead of the usual four ― a “terrible idea,” he now concedes. Sometimes he pulls all-nighters to write papers or study for exams, drawing sustenance from soda and chocolate-covered almonds. And sometimes he stays up late just to have long arguments with his roommates ― like over whether it’s OK to ban campus speeches by white supremacists (Martin says no) or whether the seventh Harry Potter novel was the worst (Martin says yes).

But in one respect, Martin is unique on the Kenyon campus and rare among college students in general. He has cerebral palsy, the disease that severely impairs muscle movement. Martin cannot walk or care for himself without assistance. His life in college ― getting to room with his fellow students, carrying a more-than-full course load ― is a testimony to many things, including supportive administrators and his own stubborn determination. But, Martin says, none of this would be possible if it wasn’t for the help of government programs. And perhaps the most important among them is Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program that provides coverage to the needy, including people with disabilities.

Most people think of Medicaid as a program for able-bodied, non-elderly adults and their children ― a form of “welfare” that some Americans tolerate and others resent because they think, rightly or wrongly, that it’s subsidizing people too lazy to work. But one-third of the program’s spending is on people with disabilities. Although they account for a much smaller fraction of Medicaid enrollees, there are roughly 9 million people in this category, and almost all have unusually severe health care needs. On average, Medicaid spends more than four times on somebody with disabilities than it does on an able-bodied adult.Martin is living at his family’s home on the outskirts of Columbus for the summer. When I visited him there recently, he pointed out some of the places that Medicaid money goes. There is the lift-and-pulley system that operates along a track in the ceiling, similar to the one in his campus apartment. It takes him from his bedroom into the bathroom when he needs to use the toilet or take a shower. To get around, he uses a motorized wheelchair that can change its shape in order to stretch out his legs or make him stand. For longer trips, there’s a van with a lift for the wheelchair. Martin can’t be truly alone, because he requires help with some basic functions ― a list, he frequently notes, that includes “wiping my butt.” That means paying for caregivers who, at school, must be on call around the clock. 

Buying and installing the equipment costs many thousands of dollars. Paying those caregivers costs many thousands more, on an ongoing basis. Martin’s father, who lost his factory job several years ago, drives trucks for a living. His mother, who used to work in state government, now has a job at a university. That position provides health insurance, but the plan, like most commercial insurance policies, wouldn’t cover the array of equipment and services Martin needs ― especially the ones that allow him to live independently. Medicaid, in combination with some other government programs, does. And now some of that coverage is at risk because of Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The American Health Care Act, the bill that the House of Representatives passed in May and that the Senate is now using as the basis for its repeal legislation, would cut approximately $1 trillion from federal health plans over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Although few people realize it, a portion of that cut has nothing to do with “Obamacare” per se. It’s the creation of a different funding formula for Medicaid that would affect the entire program. The purpose of this change is to limit the money Washington sends to the states in order to finance their programs. Conservative lawmakers want to scale back the funding even more, either in the repeal bill itself or in subsequent legislation.

The champions of this legislation, including Trump administration officials like Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Republican leaders in Congress like House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), deny that these cuts would hurt people like Martin. They say eliminating recent Medicaid expansions and putting the program on a tighter budget would ultimately make it more financially sustainable. And they say that states, given more flexibility over how to manage Medicaid within their borders, would respond by finding ways to innovate. “We believe strongly that the Medicaid population will be cared for in a better way under our program,” Price said during a CNN interview in May.

It’s impossible to disprove these claims. But Medicaid’s history offers reason to be highly skeptical. Funding for the program is already threadbare. And plenty of state officials ― mostly, though not exclusively, Republican ― already want to reduce their share of Medicaid appropriations even more. Cuts at the federal level could embolden these officials, or merely force them to respond in kind because of how the program’s financing works. Either way, coverage for disabilities would be a likely target for cuts, in part because that coverage represents such a large fraction of program spending now.


It’s almost incomprehensible what would my life look like without these services, because there would be no ‘my life’ without these services.
Justin Martin describes how Medicaid has influenced his life
Martin knows all about this because he’s watched such efforts play out in Ohio, as state lawmakers have tried to limit spending on programs that affect him. And although he realizes that Medicaid has some big problems, as all large programs do, he thinks few people understand the critical role it plays for people like him ― or the threat that even relatively modest funding cuts pose.

“Really there’s not a single area of my life that hasn’t at some point come into contact with Medicaid dollars,” Martin says. “It’s almost incomprehensible what would my life look like without these services, because there would be no ‘my life’ without these services. It gets impossible to disentangle.”

How Medicaid Quietly Became So Essential

Medicaid has been around for a little more than 50 years. For most of that period, it has been something of a political afterthought. Former President Lyndon Johnson didn’t even mention Medicaid when he signed the bill creating it, instead focusing on Medicare, the program for seniors that the same legislation authorized. Over time, Medicaid grew gradually and frequently without fanfare, with lawmakers like former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) quietly slipping amendments into larger pieces of legislation in order to expand eligibility or services for children and low-income adults. 

Sometimes people with disabilities benefitted directly from such initiatives. And sometimes they benefitted indirectly from other policy changes. Legislation in the early 1970s created a new federal standard for disabilities and, in the process, made millions of people with mental or physical impairments eligible. In the late 1990s, the Supreme Court ruled that states had an obligation to provide people with disabilities a chance to live independently. Most states used their Medicaid programs to comply, by expanding their versions of the program to cover more services outside of institutions, whether in the home or in the community more generally.

All of these expansions have filled critical needs. Lawmakers added coverage of extra medical screenings for children in response to studies showing that poor nutrition, exposure to environmental hazards, and other conditions associated with poverty put these kids at much greater risk of disease and developmental delays. (These screenings would later yield the data that allowed a Michigan public health expert to expose the Flint water crisis.)A similar rationale was behind the expansions of services for people with disabilities. The changes followed exposure of wretched conditions in group homes ― and a growing realization, backed by science, that people with mental and physical limitations can not only live at home but also hold jobs and participate in everyday activities.

The transformation for people with disabilities has been dramatic, if still incomplete, as Martin knows. “Do you want to live independently in your home with your family or in college, or do you want to live in a crappy group home with black mold in the walls that looks like it’s about to keel over any second?” he says. “That’s really the stark reality of what we are dealing with here.”

Providing these services generates large bills. Because Medicaid is an entitlement, the federal government’s commitment to paying those bills is open-ended. Washington offers matching funds to states and, as long as states abide by the program’s rules, the federal government provides however much money it takes to cover everybody who becomes eligible. Over the years, that’s become more and more expensive. Today the program accounts for roughly 10 percent of the federal budget. For states, it’s 15 or 20 percent of total spending, on average, depending on how you count.

Republican Plans Represent A Fundamental Change

Conservatives have responded to Medicaid’s growth by fighting to limit the government’s financial exposure. In the 1990s, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Republicans proposed that the federal government give state officials fixed sums of money each year, based on a predetermined formula, regardless of how expensive care for the Medicaid population had gotten or how many had enrolled. The effort failed, but the idea of transforming Medicaid funding has been a cornerstone of Republican budgets under now-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). It’s a crucial, if underappreciated, feature of the American Health Care Act. Under the legislation’s terms, states would have two options for Medicaid funding going forward ― a newly modified version of the Gingrich “block grants” or a system of “per capita caps.”

Under the per capita caps, the federal government would use a predetermined formula to set the level of its contribution towards state Medicaid programs. That contribution would be on a per-person basis, so that the total federal contribution would vary with enrollment ― rising as more people sign up for the program, falling as fewer do, and thereby making the system more sensitive to changing economic conditions than a block grant would be. House Republicans also set the caps at levels designed to soften their blow ― by, among other things, allowing for the relatively higher expenses from Medicaid’s aged and disabled population. At least initially, the caps might be high enough that the federal contribution would come close to what most states would spend otherwise.

But the whole point of introducing a per capita cap is the same as introducing a traditional block grant ― to apply some kind of limit to what government spends on Medicaid. The wonky particulars of the formula (like using 2016 as a base year for calculations) mean that, over time, the gap between those caps and the expense of maintaining today’s coverage levels would likely grow, and that’s assuming the cap in the House bill doesn’t change. Conservative senators are already lobbying hard to tighten it. Even if they don’t succeed, the mere existence of a cap would give lawmakers a simple, potentially more palatable method for dialing back federal contributions in the future. Having brought the cap into existence, they could simply lower it. The federal budget proposal that the Trump administration released last month calls for doing just that.


It’s like cutting your fire department budget while your house is on fire. It doesn’t get rid of the fire. It just gets rid of your firetruck.
Martin on Republican plans to cut funding for Medicaid
The Republicans most enthusiastic about these cuts, and the intellectuals who agree with them, say that restricting the money that states get for Medicaid would prod them into eliminating waste and spending their dollars more judiciously. Even the program’s most ardent defenders would concede it could use improvement. But overall, Medicaid is already an extremely lean program, paying less for medical services than either Medicare or private insurance does. The program’s total, per-beneficiary costs are also rising less quickly than those costs in those other insurance programs.

Medicaid’s most glaring weakness is that many beneficiaries struggle to find specialists willing to accept such low payments ― an issue that Republicans frequently cite when they defend their agenda, as if their reforms would make the problem better. In reality, spending less on Medicaid is bound to make that problem worse. The same goes for other parts of Medicaid that specifically serve people with disabilities and currently have waiting lists because they lack funding to handle more enrollees. (Some conservatives have suggested the Affordable Care Act has made the waiting lists longer, by diverting state money into the expansion of coverage for able-bodied adults. The data does not support this.)

“Cuts in disability spending don’t make the overall number of disabled people requiring services in the state go down,” Martin notes. “Those people are still there. There’s just less money for them. … It’s like cutting your fire department budget while your house is on fire. It doesn’t get rid of the fire. It just gets rid of your firetruck.”

What GOP Plans Would Mean For People With Disabilities

It’s impossible to predict exactly how each state would respond if federal matching funds for Medicaid began to decline. Republicans are telling the truth when they say their proposal would give state officials more discretion over how to allocate Medicaid funds. In theory, those officials could leave services for people with disabilities alone while seeking cuts elsewhere. A few states might actually use the cuts as an impetus to rethink the structure of their Medicaid programs, in order to deliver better, more efficient care. When the right conditions exist, states have found ways to innovate before.

But if history is any indication, the vast majority of states would respond in cruder, simpler ways. They would probably start by trimming further what their programs pay to care providers. After that, they would likely seek to reduce coverage itself. Benefits for people with disabilities would be an obvious target, because that’s where so much of the money is and because key services like home- and community-based care are among those Medicaid treats as optional, making it technically easy for states to scale them back.

“They’re not optional for [the beneficiary] but they’re optional for the state,” says Andy Schneider, who spent decades working on Medicaid in Congress and for the Obama administration before joining the faculty at Georgetown University. “And the state is going to be under relentless pressure, year after year, to find ways to reduce its spending.”

It’s even possible that cutting federal contributions to Medicaid could have precisely the opposite effect that conservatives hope it would ― stifling innovation, like the ongoing effort to move people out of institutions, rather than fostering it. “Those reforms require upfront investments in order to produce savings over the long-run, something states can’t do when they have to make immediate across-the-board cuts in response to the House bill’s cost-shifts,” Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says.


We know where the cost lies in Medicaid ― it lies with the aged and disabled.
John Corlett on the people Medicaid cuts would harm the most
Advocates in Ohio are similarly wary of promises that the Republican health care bill would spare people with disabilities from harm. “We know where the cost lies in Medicaid ― it lies with the aged and disabled,” John Corlett, who ran the state’s Medicaid program before he became president of the Center for Community Solutions, says. “They are vulnerable, they are the most dependent on those Medicaid services, and the effect on them could be much more profound.” In fact, says Michael Kirkman, executive director of Disability Rights Ohio, the real question is how, not whether, the reductions have an impact. “I am confident that cutting Medicaid funding to the state will harm people with disabilities in some fashion, I just don’t know what that is at this point,” he says.

Recent history in the state suggests these fears are well-founded, as Martin can attest. In 2015, as a high school student, he testified before state officials about the potential impact of a proposal to eliminate Medicaid payments for some of his care workers. Earlier this year, he was back in Columbus to protest yet another proposed cut to home care workers ― this time, with a posse of Kenyon classmates alongside him. “There are few people who deserve to be at Kenyon every day, few who have fought to be here and worked their assess off to be here the way that Justin has,” one said of Martin. Another testified about his own disability, autism, and how seeing Martin on campus gave him the courage to be more open about it.Martin’s activism has generated coverage in local papers and, of course, the Kenyon Collegian, though he has mixed feelings about the publicity. “I don’t want to be the person that has to talk about politics and defend my basic humanity over and over again. You know, I have friends, I watch movies, I eat a lot of Cool Ranch Doritos. Everybody deserves to live a life independent from politics,” he says.

But Martin also knows that many people are even more dependent on Medicaid than he is. “I’m actually sort of an easy case when it comes to disability. [Medicaid benefits] allow me to live a full and happy life, allow me to be clean and independent and safe. But they don’t literally, fundamentally keep me alive. They’re not oxygen, or life-saving medication." And many of the people who depend on those things, Martin knows, "don’t have the luxury of going down to the state house to speak.”

The Medicaid Debate Is Bigger Than Medicaid

The alternative to cutting Medicaid, as Republicans now propose, is funding it at current levels or beyond. That entails its own tradeoffs. Money for the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion comes primarily from cuts in what Medicare pays providers and insurers, along with taxes that fall on the wealthy and health care corporations. Republicans plan to repeal those taxes. The rest of Medicaid draws on general revenue, which means the federal government pays for it with some combination of taxes, reduced spending elsewhere and higher deficits.

Martin has thought a lot about how to defend such a large fiscal commitment to Medicaid in the current political climate ― a time when the House speaker recalls dreaming up Medicaid cuts as a college student while jabbering over a keg of beer, and a candidate for president openly mocks a reporter with disabilities yet still manages to win the election. One answer is that misfortune can happen to anybody; in Martin’s case, the misfortune was an extremely premature birth and a damaged cerebellum. And when misfortune can happen to anybody, everybody benefits from a truly protective safety net.

Another answer is that society is richer, metaphorically and literally, when people with disabilities are able to study, work and contribute their skills and talents. For Martin, that means becoming an English teacher, ideally at a public school. “What appeals to me about public education is you take everybody,” he says. “You take the people that get passed over, because I was that kid.”

But ultimately the debate over Medicaid’s future is really a debate over whether America should keep trying to fulfill the basic promise it has made over the past half-century ― not just to those with disabilities but to all groups covered by Medicaid, and to seniors in Medicare, and most recently to the children and working-age adults who have gotten insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of coverage. It’s the promise that access to health care ought to be a right, something every person should have regardless of financial or physical status, and that the American public as a whole will find some way to meet that obligation.

The essence of the Republican argument on health policy, once you strip away all the jargon and step away from all the policy minutiae and see the agenda as one, unified whole, is that America can’t or shouldn't make that kind of commitment. Whether you agree with that position is a question of values and priorities, not facts. For people like Justin, your answer matters a lot.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 14 hours ago.

Colbert: GOP Senate Health Care Plan Is the Only ‘Classified Information That No One Has Leaked Yet’

0
0
“Somehow your health insurance is the one piece of classified information that no one has leaked yet,” he noted. Reported by Mediaite 11 hours ago.

Raises for Philly teachers in deal worth $395M

0
0
If teachers ratify the deal now before them, they will get pay raises and the restoration of "step" increases and compensation for years of experience; they would begin paying part of the cost of their health insurance. But the district does not currently have a clear path to pay for the deal. Reported by philly.com 10 hours ago.

Nevada GOP governor vetoes Medicaid-for-all bill

0
0
Nevada governor vetoes Medicaid-for-all bill LAS VEGAS — There will be no Medicaid-for-all option in Nevada. Gov. Brian Sandoval waited until the last day he could — Friday — to veto a measure that would have offered a state-sponsored health insurance option to all residents regardless of income. If... Reported by Raw Story 8 hours ago.

Saving Medicaid -- An Urgent SOS

0
0
This is an urgent SOS. Right now Republican senators are working behind closed doors on their own version of the terrible American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed by the House of Representatives in early May that would rip away health coverage from 23 million people. They plan to vote on a Senate bill just before they leave Washington for the July 4th recess. We can’t tell you everything that’s in it because Senate leadership is keeping its bill secret and doesn’t plan to reveal it until just before they vote. But we know it’s bad — ending Medicaid as we know it. Your help is needed right now to keep senators from moving forward with this terrible health plan! More than 50 years of progress made in expanding and improving comprehensive child-appropriate health coverage for children across America hangs in the balance*. *Everybody who cares about children needs to mobilize as you have never mobilized before and raise a ruckus to save children’s health care safety net.

When Medicaid was first created in 1965 it provided children with a range of services necessary to treat acute and long-term health conditions, but there was no pediatric- and development-specific benefit. A 1964 government study found 50 percent of military draftees were rejected as a result of poor physical and mental health that could have been diagnosed and successfully treated in childhood and adolescence. The realization that children’s health was a national security issue led to a sea change for children. In 1967 Medicaid added the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit for children up to age 21 to meet their unique and developmental health needs, guaranteeing children a full range of comprehensive primary and preventive care and access to all medically necessary health and mental health services.

Since then we have been striving to live up to the promise of ensuring all young people are able to reach healthy adulthood — laboriously trying to expand coverage to more children thousands by thousands, millions by millions, state by state. Today, thanks to Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 95 percent of children in America have health coverage — a historic high. Medicaid has evolved to be an essential part of the coverage system for children, ensuring 37 million children the health coverage they need to survive and thrive, including 40 percent of all children with special health care needs, and covering more than 40 percent of all births. Medicaid plays a critical role for children with special health care needs — for example, providing services throughout childhood to an infant born with a heart condition or a child with autism. For families struggling to find the financial resources needed to care for their children with disabilities, Medicaid is a lifeline and often the only viable source of financing for their children’s extensive and expensive health care needs. For some children with complex health conditions, Medicaid supplements private health coverage to ensure them access as they grow to needed specialized medical equipment and devices such as hearing aids and wheel chairs. Medicaid is also a valuable source of preventive services, helping children get the well-child visits and screenings they need to support healthy development and prevent expensive complications later.

By investing in child well-being now, our nation and economy will recoup huge benefits later. Medicaid is far more efficient and cost-effective than private insurance for children and research comparing children eligible for Medicaid during childhood to their non-eligible peers found Medicaid-eligible children were more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, make greater contributions as adult taxpayers, and live longer than those without coverage.

Yet despite more than 50 years of progress, improvements, and success, the Senate is on the verge of recklessly crafting a bill to repeal and replace the ACA and end Medicaid as we know it. Like the terrible AHCA bill in the House, Senate Republicans want to convert Medicaid to a “per capita cap,” which means changing Medicaid’s financing structure from a federal guarantee of coverage for all medically necessary services to an annual per person federal payment that does not increase regardless of the extent of use or cost. Please don’t let this misleading jargon fool you — this is emasculation of health coverage for up to 37 million children and a cut cloaked in confusion so people can’t see the magnitude of the damage it will do. For example, it claims to give states “more flexibility” but in reality will force states to increase their own spending dramatically, make deep cuts in benefits, or, more likely, both. Make no mistake: there is no way the Senate can design a Medicaid “per capita cap” or block grant that won’t harm low-income children and children with disabilities. Adults with disabilities, seniors, and others vulnerable Americans would be hurt too. Entire families will be affected. Simply put: Medicaid saves lives. And right now Medicaid’s life hangs in the balance propelled by greed, callousness and political opportunism. These cuts in Medicaid are being used to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy. Children’s crucial health needs should not be a political plaything for any party at any time.

The time for you to tell your senators that you will not stand for a bill being drafted in secret to end Medicaid as we know it is right now. The flood of phone calls generated by upset constituents when the House was first considering the AHCA must be repeated and increased dramatically and we urgently need you to flood the stealthy Senate with phone calls right now and flush them out of their hiding place. Tell your senators not to let children move backwards and undermine the critical health care safety net. *Urge your senators specifically to reject any structural changes or cuts to Medicaid. America’s future depends on the health of our young and Medicaid works for children. In fact it works for multiple generations. We must not turn back the clock. *Call, tweet, visit and organize right now to urge your senators to protect Medicaid for America’s children and families and #KeepKidsCovered.

-- 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 9 hours ago.

GOP Senators Still Frustrated With Obamacare Repeal Bill, Still Doing Nothing About It

0
0
A bunch of Republican senators are frustrated with leadership plans to pass a sweeping health care bill with almost no public deliberation.

In fact, they are so frustrated that they seem to have forgotten it would take just three of them to force a slower, more open process.

The latest GOP senator to express concern is Marco Rubio, of Florida. Toward the end of his appearance Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” his discussion with host Jake Tapper turned to health care legislation ― specifically, the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.


On Senate health care bill, @marcorubio says every other senator "should have an opportunity, to weigh in and make...or propose changes"

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 18, 2017


When the House passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), its version of the legislation, Republican senators were quick to decry both the bill and the debate that led to it. They said the House had acted brashly ― hatching legislation behind closed doors and then rushing to vote before the public could get a good look at it. Republican senators also said the proposal itself was too harsh ― breaking promises to protect people with pre-existing conditions and taking insurance away from 23 million people, according to Congressional Budget Office predictions.

Now it’s clear that the Senate process won’t play out so differently after all.

A group of GOP senators has been writing the bill in private. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to take legislation directly to the Senate floor, where it will most likely get just 20 hours of formal discussion. Neither the Finance Committee nor the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee ― the two with jurisdiction ― plan to hold hearings. (In 2009 and 2010, Democrats held literally hundreds of hours of hearings, as part of a process for the Affordable Care Act that took more than a year to complete.)

The Senate legislation itself is likely to look resemble that House bill so many GOP senators insisted they couldn’t tolerate. It might propose to unwind the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid a little more slowly and offer marginally more financial assistance to lower-income and older consumers, but overall, the impact of the bill would be nearly the same. Many millions of people would lose health insurance, and millions more would lose consumer protections that guarantee access for people with serious medical problems.

Rubio, asked about all of this on Sunday, vowed that the process would be open: 

That bill has to at least have a vote in the Senate, and I hope it’s a vote that allows plenty of time for debate, analysis, and changes. And input.

And if that’s the process we follow, it will be fine. If it is an effort to rush from a small group of people straight to the floor in an up-or-down vote, that would be a problem. The Senate rules are not conducive to that sort of action.


As Topher Spiro, the former Senate aide now at the Center for American Progress pointed out on Twitter, Rubio’s vow is essentially meaningless. The Senate rules for the debate McConnell envisions would give all senators a chance to weigh in, but it would be during that brief, 20-hour window of final debate ― this, for legislation that would affect one-sixth of the economy and the insurance arrangements for tens of millions of Americans.


Rubio, of course, means nothing by this. He's referring to vote-a-rama once the bill is already on the floor. https://t.co/DM7DLnA9Zl

— Topher Spiro (@TopherSpiro) June 18, 2017


Last week, Vox published a series of interviews with eight Republican senators. It was a remarkable piece of journalism, in that Vox reporters asked the senators what might seem like the simplest of questions ― what they knew about the contents of the emerging Senate legislation and what they hoped it would achieve.  

The answers were vague and in a few cases nonsensical, and several lawmakers, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), were openly critical of the way the legislation is coming together.

Is it the framework of the House-passed bill and then we’re filling in our own details? I don’t know. We just don’t know. My constituents expect me to know, and if we had utilized the process that goes through a committee, I would be able to answer not only your questions but my constituents’ questions.

At least a dozen other Republican senators have made similarly critical comments in the last few months, as their party’s health legislation has taken shape. Republicans have only 52 seats in the Senate, and because it will take 50 to pass legislation, McConnell would have to listen if at least three of them demanded a change. As Sarah Kliff, also of Vox, wrote late last week, “The health care bill only gets to remain secret if Republican senators allow it to. They could force it into the sunlight if that was their desire.”

But so far that desire has not been there. The process is unfolding just as McConnell wants it to, the bill is sounding more and more like its House counterpart, and all of these Republican senators are going along.

It’s enough to make you wonder whether they’re really all that worried and upset ― or whether they are just complaining to the cameras in order to duck political responsibility for what they know is an unpopular, ill-advised piece of legislation. 

-- 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 6 hours ago.

United States: The Rise Of The Group Health Insurance Captive - Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

0
0
There is large cohort of American workers who, before the ACA, were not offered major medical coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan. Reported by Mondaq 11 hours ago.

Fidelis launches campaign to boost health insurance for children

0
0
The Queens-based health plan hopes to reach the families of 100,000-plus uninsured children. Reported by bizjournals 17 hours ago.

Medicaid Is the Future of American Health Insurance -- If It Can Survive the Next Two Weeks

0
0
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Participants hold signs during the Senate Democrats' rally against Medicaid cuts in front of the U.S. Capitol. 

While liberals often say that their ultimate goal in health care is "Medicare for all," the current debate over the Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act should show us that if there's a path to a universal and secure health-care system, it may be more likely to come through Medicaid, which is now America's largest insurer. That is, if Medicaid can survive the next two weeks.

Republicans in the Senate are hoping to vote before the July 4 congressional recess on their health-care plan, which they will do without holding a single public hearing or committee markup (where amendments are voted on). In fact, their terror that the public might actually get a look at their bill is so complete that most of the Republican senators haven't even been told what's in it. But one thing we do know is that it represents an outright assault on Medicaid, despite the fact that supposedly moderate GOP senators were reluctant to eviscerate the program that has benefited so many of their constituents.

Apparently, those senators have gotten over their doubts. From various reports we've learned that the Senate plan would roll back the ACA's Medicaid expansion over seven years (as opposed to the three years in the House bill), but that's just the beginning. In order to pay for a massive tax cut for the wealthy, they're considering deep cuts to the program over and above what rescinding the expansion would entail. And they want to eliminate Medicaid's guarantee of coverage for poor Americans, turning it into a block grant and giving states "flexibility" to slash benefits and kick people off the program.

We don't know if they'll get away with it—if enough public pressure gets applied over the next two weeks over this plan to take health coverage away from millions of people, a few of those senators may back down. Meanwhile though, liberals are realizing that strengthening and expanding Medicaid is one of the simplest ways to move the country toward truly universal coverage.

In Nevada, Republican governor Brian Sandoval vetoed a bill on Friday that some were calling "Medicaid for all," though it was essentially a public option—it would have established a government insurance plan within Medicaid that would have been sold on the state's insurance exchange, and which anyone could buy. By everyone's admission the details weren't fully worked out, but what's remarkable is that it passed both houses of the legislature in this swing state, and even Sandoval said some nice things about the basic idea.

If we put aside for a moment the way Washington Republicans are hell-bent on destroying Medicaid as we know it, there are multiple factors that make it a ripe target for expansion, should Democrats get the chance. Changing the eligibility requirements for Medicaid would be a legislative task much more than an administrative one, making it simpler than creating a new, national public option from whole cloth. And Medicaid is simpler than Medicare, which is divided into multiple parts (Part A for hospitalization, Part B for routine care, Part D for prescription drugs) and includes significant involvement by private insurers through Medicare Advantage.

Furthermore, while we think of Medicaid as being more politically vulnerable than Medicare—its poor beneficiaries are a far less potent constituency than Medicare's elderly ones, who are organized and vote religiously—that could actually make expanding the program easier. As the Prospect's Paul Starr notes in his proposal for a "Midlife Medicare" program that would open up Medicare to anyone over 50, "many seniors insist that Medicare is their program, and they fear—or can be made to fear—that extending the program to others will jeopardize their coverage." Whatever the political obstacles, we wouldn't have to fear a revolt from Medicaid recipients if it were expanded.

Let's imagine for a moment that the current Republican health-care effort fails. In attempting to undo the ACA, they managed something Democrats tried and failed to do for seven years: They made the law's benefits clear, and made Americans (justifiably) fear what would happen if those benefits were taken away. More than ever, there's a desire in the public for simple, secure, affordable health coverage.

Which is exactly what Medicaid can offer, if it is expanded beyond its current status as a program for the poor. In fact, it could be the gateway to something like the highly successful hybrid systems in place in countries like France, in which there's a government insurer that covers everyone's basic health care needs, and then everyone is free to buy private supplemental insurance that offers more benefits. In theory anyway, that's a system that even conservatives could find at least somewhat appealing, since it allows rich people to have fancier coverage than the rest of us. Medicaid could be that basic program, or at least a backstop for anyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer, regardless of their income.

There are a lot of complications to the kind of transformation in Medicaid I'm suggesting here. The program is jointly administered by the federal government and the states; the latter set the eligibility levels, which means that in Republican-run states, particularly in the South, you have to be desperately poor to be eligible (one example: in Texas, if you're an adult in a family of four and you make $3,691 a year, you're too rich to qualify). The ACA tried to eliminate the state-to-state disparities with the Medicaid expansion, but the Supreme Court ruled that as long as it was jointly administered, states could refuse the free money the federal government was offering to insure more poor citizens, and that's just what 19 Republican states did.

So the best option might be to federalize the entire program, offering everyone the same benefits whatever state you're in. That, of course, would require an increase in federal taxes (though it would enable cuts in state taxes), which wouldn't be easy to pass.

There's no question that a dramatic expansion of Medicaid would be politically difficult. The reality is that any attempt to broaden Medicaid—making the benefits uniform, allowing people who aren't poor to buy it as an insurance option—would require not just a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, but a president and Congress that were fiercely determined to make sweeping health care reforms no matter the political obstacles.

Might we get it one day? It's certainly possible. The backlash from the shockingly cruel bill Republicans passed in the House has already been felt, though we'll have to see what happens in the Senate. It requires little imagination to envision Democrats taking the House in a 2018 sweep, then having an equally good 2020 election, in which a deeply unpopular Donald Trump is tossed from office and they win back the Senate as well. Should that occur, the voters who put them in office may demand that something ambitious be done on health care, and fast. A quick transition to a completely single-payer system may be a practical impossibility, even if support for (usually vaguely defined) single-payer is on its way to becoming a majority position within the Democratic Party. But an expansion of Medicaid could accomplish a lot of what Americans want out of their insurance. And it just might be possible—if Republicans don't drive a stake through its heart in the coming days. Reported by The American Prospect 17 hours ago.

Fire company eyes billing insurers for ambulance use

0
0
The Great Neck Vigilant Engine & Hook and Ladder Company is hosting a public meeting Monday to discuss billing directly to health insurance companies for ambulance calls, a potential shift in how the company has operated for 80 years. Reported by Newsday 16 hours ago.

More than 300 new packages to be included in Bhamashah Health Scheme: CM Raje

0
0
Jaipur (Rajasthan), June 19 (ANI): Under the chairmenship of Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje a review meeting on Bhamashah  Health Insurance scheme was organized at her Residence in Jaipur. In the Meeting CM approved more than 300 new packages to be included in the Bhamashah Health Insurance Scheme. She also instructed the conce ed officials to implement this popular flagship scheme more efficiently. There is a proposal to add Nephrology,  gastrology, neurology and also psychiatry in the package.  Reported by ANI News 13 hours ago.

New study says House GOP healthcare bill would lead to the loss of almost 1 million jobs in 10 years

0
0
New study says House GOP healthcare bill would lead to the loss of almost 1 million jobs in 10 years A new study from the Commonwealth Fund and George Washington University presented some unflattering potential effects from the enacting of the American Health Care Act.

According to the study from Leighton Ku, Erika Steinmetz, Erin Brantley, Nikhil Holla, and Brian K. Bruen, the US economy would see a short-term boost from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act's taxes. But the decrease of federal spending on healthcare under the GOP's American Health Care Act would cause harm in the long-run.

From the report:

"It initially raises the federal deficit when taxes are repealed, leading to 864,000 more jobs in 2018. In later years, reductions in support for health insurance cause negative economic effects. By 2026, 924,000 jobs would be lost, gross state products would be $93 billion lower, and business output would be $148 billion less. About three-quarters of jobs lost (725,000) would be in the health care sector."

Put another way, there would be two primary effects: Aggregate employment would decrease, leading to a drag on economic activity.

Currently, the number of people working in the healthcare sector has steadily increased due to a combination of the lower uninsured rate (people are more likely to seek care if they have coverage) and the aging Baby Boomer population.

With more people seeking care, healthcare providers have boosted employment and the segment has been one of the biggest gainers since the financial crisis.

Under the AHCA, the study said, cuts to Medicaid and federal subsidies for people to access health insurance would lead to a curtailing of the employment growth as federal funds dried up and fewer people utilized care services.

"Healthcare has been one of the main areas of job growth in recent years," the report said. "Under the AHCA, the sector would lose jobs immediately, with a loss of 24,000 jobs in 2018. By 2026, 725,000 fewer health sector jobs would exist. This would be a major reversal from current trends."

The losses, according to the study, would vary by state, with New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida taking the biggest hits. The only states that would gain employment from the law would be Washington, Utah, Hawaii, and Colorado, the study said.

Here's a breakdown by state:

From there, the study said, the problems would spread. Lower employment means fewer people with disposable income to spend on other goods and services. The trickle-down effect would then result in a drag on overall economic output.

"It is likely that the business cycle will eventually slow down again," the report said. "In that event, the AHCA could accentuate job loss and economic contraction. Combined with major increases in the number of uninsured, this could contribute to a period of economic and medical hardship in the US. The AHCA could exaggerate both the highs and lows of the business cycle."

*Read the full report at the Commonwealth Fund »*

*SEE ALSO: The fight over healthcare is leading some to consider something radical*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Do you even understand what you're asking?': Putin and Megyn Kelly have a heated exchange over Trump-Russia ties Reported by Business Insider 10 hours ago.

Granting Wishes: Petplan Sponsors Grant Program with National Police Dog Foundation

0
0
Program will protect police K-9s with pet insurance; police departments encouraged to apply

Newtown Square, PA (PRWEB) June 19, 2017

Petplan pet insurance today announced the launch of the National Police Dog Foundation (NPDF) K-9 Health Insurance Grant. The endowment, a joint effort between Petplan and the Foundation, will donate funds to pay for one year of pet insurance for five currently active police dogs and is open to police and other working K-9 units throughout the U.S.

In addition to hereditary health conditions a K-9 officer’s breed may dictate, occupational hazards like gunshot or stab wounds, lacerations, tail injuries, and exposure to highly toxic substances like illegal drugs all threaten a police dog’s health (and a local police department’s budget).

Veterinary care can run in the thousands to treat these types of injuries, so protecting four-footed police with pet insurance like Petplan, which reimburses up to 90% of the bill, makes good fiscal sense for municipalities.

“Police dogs may have the heart of a lion, but their bodies aren’t always so brawny—and they deserve the best protection in return for their years of heroic service,” says Natasha Ashton, co-founder and co-CEO of Petplan. “When Chris and I learned that K-9 units are notoriously underfunded and that police dogs are at risk for shorter and less comfortable lives because of the burden of the cost of their medical care, we knew had to get involved.”

The NPDF K-9 Health Insurance Fund, which is supported by donations, backs the grant awards. While the initial grant is for active working dogs, Petplan and the NPDF plan to expand the program to include retired K-9s, when the burden of their medical care shifts to the adopter. As donations to the Fund grow, more grants will be made available to K-9 handlers.

“Petplan’s support of the K-9 Health Insurance Grant, and their passion for improving quality of life and access to essential veterinary care for K-9 officers, dovetails perfectly with our mission,” says Jim Reilly, NPDF President. “Our hope is that this grant program will not only help cash-strapped police departments take the best care of four-legged officers, but also that it gets the message out to the public that there’s a simple way they can help ensure K-9s get medical treatment—and that is by donating to the grant fund.”

The first five pet insurance grants will be awarded in early September, 2017 and all municipalities and other working K-9 units are encouraged to apply at: https://nationalpolicedogfoundation.org/k9-health-ins-grant-app/.

To make a direct donation to support grant funding, or to learn more about Petplan’s sponsorship of the NPDF, citizens can point their paws to https://nationalpolicedogfoundation.org/petplan/.

###

ABOUT PETPLAN
Petplan has built the industry’s leading pet insurance for pet parents who demand a higher pedigree of care for their best friends. We’ve leveraged 40 years of global experience to create completely customizable coverage pet parents can feel confident in, and world-class claims service that operates 24 hours a day, every day.

Petplan’s innovative approach to pet insurance has been recognized by Forbes, Financial Times, Bloomberg, Inc. magazine, Smart CEO, the Communicator Awards, Ernst & Young and many others.

Petplan policies are underwritten in the U.S. by XL Specialty Insurance Company and in Canada by XL Specialty Insurance Company-Canadian Branch. The company is rated A+ by S&P (2017). Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions. For more information about Petplan pet insurance, visit http://www.petplan.com or call 1-866-467-3875.

ABOUT NATIONAL POLICE DOG FOUNDATION
The National Police Dog Foundation is a volunteer organization that promotes education and awareness, and raises funds for the purchase, training and ongoing veterinary care for active and retired police K-9s.

In 1998 the Ventura Police Dog Foundation began as a local group helping to fund the K-9 program for the City of Ventura, CA, and in 2004 the National Police Dog Foundation expanded its support to law enforcement K-9 units throughout the United States.

Most law enforcement agencies simply cannot meet their ever-increasing costs related to their K-9 units. The Foundation has become a unique resource for these agencies, to get the assistance they need with the purchasing of the K-9s, their initial training, and the ongoing veterinary care for active and retired police K-9s. The Foundation’s network of veterinarians includes some of the country’s most valued specialists in many varying areas of health care.

The Foundation’s efforts are all done to support America’s selfless and courageous K-9 Heroes.
For more information about The National Police Dog Foundation, visit http://www.nationalpolicedogfoundation.org or call 1-888-459-7768. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images