(Natural News) One of the popular objections to the GOP proposals to reform health insurance markets is that the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”) saved thousands of lives per year, and hence that tinkering with ObamaCare will literally kill lots of people. For example, Hillary Clinton tweeted out: “Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re...
Reported by NaturalNews.com 4 hours ago.
Did Obamacare Really Save Lives?
↧
↧
Premier Health to exit Ohio insurance exchange
Premier Health is leaving the Ohio Health Insurance marketplace, citing uncertainty amid national talk of the future of Obamacare. The company announced Thursday that its Premier Health Plan will end its on-exchange plan at the end of 2017. The company has been evaluating its future on the exchange, where it has been a presence for three years. As of this year, it has about 10,000 customers and serves 16 counties in western Ohio. “The uncertainty in Washington, D.C., around the future of the…
Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.
↧
Chris Christie Has Declared A Government Shutdown In New Jersey
Watch VideoNew Jersey's government is in shutdown mode.Gov. Chris Christie ordered a government shutdown Saturday morning after the state Legislature was unable to agree on a budget before Friday's midnight deadline.
This is the first time New Jersey has had a government shutdown since 2006, which also means it's a first for Christie.
Christie placed blame for the shutdown on Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto. The lawmakers have been at odds over a bill that would affect the state's largest health insurance company.
*SEE MORE: Acting FBI Head Gets More Comey, Russia Questions — At Budget Hearing*
The bill Christie wants passed would allow the government to pull reserve funds from Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield.
But Prieto argues the bill has nothing to do with the state budget and called Christie's actions extortion.
Nonessential facilities like state parks and beaches will likely be closed during the shutdown. State prisons, hospitals, police departments and other essential facilities will remain open. Reported by Newsy 28 minutes ago.
↧
Did Obamacare Really Save Lives?
Authored by Robert Murphy via The Mises Institute,*One of the popular objections to the GOP proposals to reform health insurance markets is that the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”) saved thousands of lives per year, and hence that tinkering with ObamaCare will literally kill lots of people.* For example, Hillary Clinton tweeted out:
Now to be sure, *even if the claim were true, it still wouldn’t follow that coercive redistribution of wealth was morally justified*. However, as happens so often in political controversies, libertarians don’t have to choose between property rights and tolerating widespread suffering.* Believe it or not, the data suggest that if anything, ObamaCare actually caused more Americans to die.*
None of what I write in this piece should be construed as an endorsement of the GOP bills. But *the claim that they would “kill lots of people” is not valid.*
*Oren Cass’s Amazing Takedown*
The researcher who alerted me to these awkward facts was the Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass. *Cass makes three important points in his recent study:*
#1. The various estimates of the alleged lives saved under ObamaCare were not based on actual mortality data. Rather, these pro-ObamaCare studies relied on previous episodes (such as the implementation of “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts) where the expansion of insurance coverage went hand-in-hand with improved health outcomes. Then, taking this correlation as a “fact,” the pro-ObamaCare researchers multiplied by the expansion of insurance under ObamaCare and came up with an estimate of how many Americans’ lives were saved.
Yet as Cass points out, this procedure is flawed. What the literature actually shows is that expansion of private health insurance coverage contributes to improved health outcomes. But under ObamaCare, the amount of private coverage went down relative to what we would have expected in the absence of the legislation. What really drove the increase in insurance coverage under ObamaCare was the expansion of Medicaid. And here, it is much less obvious that this is a boon for health outcomes, as the now infamous Oregon experiment shows.
*Looking at the Aggregate Data*
#2. Now that we’ve undercut the foundations of the pro-ObamaCare figures, we can turn to the actual mortality data from the U.S. After all, as Cass says, if ObamaCare really has been avoiding tens of thousands of deaths per year, we should see that in the data.
And yet, we see the opposite. Although the ACA passed in 2010, the full expansion of insurance coverage didn’t kick in until 2014. So the relevant metric is to see what happened to (age-adjusted) mortality rates before and after 2014. Lo and behold:
*U.S. Age-Adjusted Mortality Rates per 100,000 (Annual, 2002–2015)*
Source: CDC WONDER Database
As the figure shows, *if we control for the aging of the population, the mortality rate tends to fall over time. However, for whatever reason, after falling in 2014, the mortality jumped back up in 2015, erasing all the gains since 2013.*
To see that this isn’t some artifact of this data set, we can cross-reference this information with life expectancy. Some readers may have been aware that researchers were alarmed in late 2016 when the latest figures showed U.S. life expectancy falling “for the first time in decades.”
*Looking at the State-Level Data*
#3. But now we come to the third and most devastating component of the Cass study. He is intellectually honest and concedes that the uptick in mortality in 2015 could be a fluke, or it could be a genuine problem due to something other than ObamaCare. For example, there is a festering opioid epidemic in many parts of the US, so perhaps it was just bad luck (for Obama’s legacy) that this public health crisis happened to hit right when his signature legislature fully kicked in.
Yet Cass points out that we still have a pretty good control group to assess the specific impact of the Affordable Care Act’s boost to coverage. Specifically, only 31 states (plus DC) expanded Medicaid under the ACA, while the other 19 states rejected the offer. So if it’s true that the ACA really did “save lives” relative to what otherwise would have happened, but that the absolute mortality rate in the US went up because of some external problem (like the opioid crisis), then we should still expect see mortality rates jumping more in the “red” states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
And yet, as Cass points out in his study, we see the exact opposite. Namely, the states that took advantage of ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion saw a worse impact on their mortality rates than the states that rejected the expansion.
*Conclusion*
Although I personally do not yet have a theory on the specific mechanism that may be responsible, *I am confident in saying that the actual data do not support the breathless claims that rolling back ObamaCare will literally kill many thousands of Americans.*
Fans of the Austrian school should not be shocked, though, to discover that *having the federal government get more heavily involved in the health sector has apparently made things worse.*
Reported by Zero Hedge 2 days ago.
↧
What you should know about the one big thing that shut down your state government
Horizon is no ordinary insurance company. It is the state's only not-for-profit "health insurance corporation," and "a charitable and benevolent institution." But it also paid $543 million in taxes last year.
Reported by NJ.com 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
Bid to make Northeast region a medical tourism hub
Imphal (Manipur), July 02 (ANI): Northeast India has a vast geographical landscape and known for its gateway to Southeast Asian countries, the Centre has laid a strong focus on the overall development of the region for better economic growth. Amongst the many potential sectors on bringing development, health sector in the northeast region can play a major role and can be the most sought after medical tourism hub in the country and its neighboring countries. In a bid to promote health sector in the region, a conference on health sector in northeast region was graced by Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in Imphal, organized by Confederation of Indian Industry in association with the Manipur state gove ment. The conference was aimed not only to build a strong eco-system for quality healthcare facility in the region, but also to invite potential investors in the region for greater development in the health sector. The conference was attended by CEOs and CMDs of leading healthcare providers of the country as well as over 300 stakeholders from healthcare frate ity from across the co er of the country. Investments in diagnostics, paramedical sciences and producing more healthcare professionals can help young girls and boys of the region in paramedical courses like nurses, physiotherapy and other highly skilled professions. During the conference, there were discussions on various sessions like, health education, affordable and accessible healthcare system to all. It showed the keen interest by the stakeholders on healthcare services to the people of Manipur and the region as a whole. Addressing the conference, N Biren Singh said, to enhance medical tourism in the state, the state gove ment has already approached the Union exte al affairs ministry to introduce visa-on-arrival facility for foreign nationals, particularly citizens of Myanmar. Apart from introducing a health insurance scheme in the state to provide financial assistance to those who cannot afford medical treatment, the Chief Minister also disclosed the pipeline project of mobile healthcare facilities in the state. Improving on air connectivity, infrastructure, equipment and manpower in the state as well as the region will help boost the economic growth, job opportunities and bring prosperity to the region. Moreover, the new development in health care facilities will bring in better equipments at an affordable price.
Reported by ANI News 6 hours ago.
Reported by ANI News 6 hours ago.
↧
Breast Care advocate appeals to gov't to Include breast cancer screening in NHIS
President of Breast Care International, Dr. Mrs. Beatrice Wiafe Addai has appealed to government to include breast cancer screening in the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS).
Reported by Myjoyonline 5 hours ago.
↧
The Coming Democratic Infighting Over Single-Payer Health Care
(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Members of the California Nurses Association and supporters rally in the Capitol rotunda in Sacramento, California, on June 28, 2017, call for a single-payer health plan.
Beware Democrats: There's a new litmus test on the way that you'll have to satisfy if you want to avoid being branded an establishment sellout. It concerns single-payer health care, and while this one can get silly in some quarters, there are serious questions that everyone on the left, from the most moderate Democrat to the most committed leftist, will have to answer.
With the Republicans proving that a health plan embodying conservative principles can garner the support of as much as 16 percent of the American public, there has never been a better time for liberals to make the case for an expansion of government's role in health care. No long ago, single-payer was either something supported by fringe figures, or an idea that Democrats would say they would favor if we were starting from scratch, but that the transition from where the system is now to a single-payer system would be too difficult (that was Barack Obama's position). But that's not true anymore.
Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has moved from the maybe-someday-but-not-right-now position on single-payer to saying, "Now it's time for the next step. And the next step is single-payer." Kirsten Gillibrand is on board, too. Other potential 2020 candidates like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris seem to be edging in that direction, though they're quite not there yet.
That's often how parties move, and the way that Democrats eventually embraced marriage equality: The politicians equivocate, they're pressed by activists, and eventually they realize the ground has moved underneath them and they take a clearer position. It's in that transition period that the demands from the grassroots for them to get off the fence can become loudest.
That's what's likely to happen between now and 2020, so before we get there, we should understand exactly what we're talking about. First, we should realize that some on the left are going to cry that Democrats are cowardly corporate shills no matter what position they actually take. For one colorful example, I'd refer you to this article decrying Bernie Sanders—yes, Bernie Sanders—as a traitor to the single-payer cause because he said that the most urgent priority at the moment is defeating the Republican health-care bill.
Don't be surprised when a bunch of prominent Democrats come out for single-payer and they're met from at least some people with "Not good enough!" For a certain kind of left activist (many of whom rallied to Sanders's cause in 2016), fighting against a Democratic Party they see as corrupt and impure is the foundation of their political identity. If the party itself moves left, then their demands will move left as well. They cannot be satisfied, because being satisfied would itself be a betrayal of their cause, and their cause is the noble rebellion against whatever Democrats happen to be doing.
That argument will certainly feature in the 2020 primaries. But the best way around its more ridiculous manifestations when it comes to health care is to get as specific as we can about what each of us thinks about the available options. Because most of the time, we throw around the phrase "single-payer" without saying what exactly it is we're talking about.
At its most fundamental, single-payer means, well, a single payer: that there is one insurer (the government) that pays for all health-care costs. But if your single-payer idea is "Medicare for all," you should know that Medicare is not a single-payer program. About a third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, in which their benefits are administered by private insurers. Many others have private Medigap plans that cover cost-sharing expenses Medicare doesn't.
If your single-payer idea is "what they have in the rest of the industrialized world," well, that's not single-payer either. All those other systems have much stronger government regulation than we do, but they all include at least some form of private payment, some more than others. What unites them is that they cover everyone at far lower cost than we do, and they do it through aggressive regulation and price-setting. But it would be absurd to say that someone who favors a version of the British system is a real progressive, while if you favor something like the French system or the Japanese system or the Dutch system then you're a neoliberal sellout.
So as liberals start to think seriously about this issue, it would behoove us all to define exactly the principles and goals that are important; then we can judge what kind of job each competing system does of accomplishing them. Universal coverage is obviously the most important one; everyone has to be covered, full stop. Another is that the system has to be equitable; if people with lower incomes can only afford plans with huge deductibles, it has failed. At a minimum, there has to be a floor of coverage that no one can fall below. I don't have that much of a problem with rich people buying "concierge care" if everyone else is getting high-quality care; it's only offensive when so many people have no coverage at all. And costs have to be brought down; when an appendectomy costs $16,000 in the U.S. but only $2,000 in Spain, we're getting ripped off. That's because other countries regulate health-care prices in ways we don't.
But let's be clear about something. The reason liberals favor a stronger government role for health care isn't because we think that government control is an end in itself. It's because in certain areas, government is the only vehicle, or the best one, to accomplish important goals. The reason that liberals want an EPA that aggressively moves to constrain pollution isn't just that we like the idea of government bureaucrats, it's that we know that without regulation, private industry will pollute the air and water in ways that threaten our health and the health of the planet. At the same time, every liberal knows there are plenty of things government shouldn't do. Nobody is proposing that the federal government nationalize the bread industry; a trip to the supermarket will tell you that the free market is doing a pretty good job of satisfying our bread needs.
But we also know that the market in health care and health insurance isn't like the market for bread. We need a strong government hand in health care because the things we want out of the system can't be achieved without it. That means, however, that when we each come up with our list of goals, there will probably be multiple system designs that satisfy them. Once we admit that—and that it isn't "single-payer" or nothing—then we can start to ask other questions. What would the transition from our current system to another system involve? How long would it take? How much more is it going to cost? What sorts of interim steps (like expanding Medicaid) can help us get there? What kind of political resistance can we expect, and what's the best strategy to confront it?
If you haven't thought about those questions, and your only answer to what we should do about health care is to repeat the words "single-payer," then you just aren't serious about this challenge. We may actually have a chance in the near future to move ourselves on a path to the kind of health-care system that people in other wealthy countries enjoy. So let's not blow it. Reported by The American Prospect 8 hours ago.
Members of the California Nurses Association and supporters rally in the Capitol rotunda in Sacramento, California, on June 28, 2017, call for a single-payer health plan.
Beware Democrats: There's a new litmus test on the way that you'll have to satisfy if you want to avoid being branded an establishment sellout. It concerns single-payer health care, and while this one can get silly in some quarters, there are serious questions that everyone on the left, from the most moderate Democrat to the most committed leftist, will have to answer.
With the Republicans proving that a health plan embodying conservative principles can garner the support of as much as 16 percent of the American public, there has never been a better time for liberals to make the case for an expansion of government's role in health care. No long ago, single-payer was either something supported by fringe figures, or an idea that Democrats would say they would favor if we were starting from scratch, but that the transition from where the system is now to a single-payer system would be too difficult (that was Barack Obama's position). But that's not true anymore.
Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has moved from the maybe-someday-but-not-right-now position on single-payer to saying, "Now it's time for the next step. And the next step is single-payer." Kirsten Gillibrand is on board, too. Other potential 2020 candidates like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris seem to be edging in that direction, though they're quite not there yet.
That's often how parties move, and the way that Democrats eventually embraced marriage equality: The politicians equivocate, they're pressed by activists, and eventually they realize the ground has moved underneath them and they take a clearer position. It's in that transition period that the demands from the grassroots for them to get off the fence can become loudest.
That's what's likely to happen between now and 2020, so before we get there, we should understand exactly what we're talking about. First, we should realize that some on the left are going to cry that Democrats are cowardly corporate shills no matter what position they actually take. For one colorful example, I'd refer you to this article decrying Bernie Sanders—yes, Bernie Sanders—as a traitor to the single-payer cause because he said that the most urgent priority at the moment is defeating the Republican health-care bill.
Don't be surprised when a bunch of prominent Democrats come out for single-payer and they're met from at least some people with "Not good enough!" For a certain kind of left activist (many of whom rallied to Sanders's cause in 2016), fighting against a Democratic Party they see as corrupt and impure is the foundation of their political identity. If the party itself moves left, then their demands will move left as well. They cannot be satisfied, because being satisfied would itself be a betrayal of their cause, and their cause is the noble rebellion against whatever Democrats happen to be doing.
That argument will certainly feature in the 2020 primaries. But the best way around its more ridiculous manifestations when it comes to health care is to get as specific as we can about what each of us thinks about the available options. Because most of the time, we throw around the phrase "single-payer" without saying what exactly it is we're talking about.
At its most fundamental, single-payer means, well, a single payer: that there is one insurer (the government) that pays for all health-care costs. But if your single-payer idea is "Medicare for all," you should know that Medicare is not a single-payer program. About a third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, in which their benefits are administered by private insurers. Many others have private Medigap plans that cover cost-sharing expenses Medicare doesn't.
If your single-payer idea is "what they have in the rest of the industrialized world," well, that's not single-payer either. All those other systems have much stronger government regulation than we do, but they all include at least some form of private payment, some more than others. What unites them is that they cover everyone at far lower cost than we do, and they do it through aggressive regulation and price-setting. But it would be absurd to say that someone who favors a version of the British system is a real progressive, while if you favor something like the French system or the Japanese system or the Dutch system then you're a neoliberal sellout.
So as liberals start to think seriously about this issue, it would behoove us all to define exactly the principles and goals that are important; then we can judge what kind of job each competing system does of accomplishing them. Universal coverage is obviously the most important one; everyone has to be covered, full stop. Another is that the system has to be equitable; if people with lower incomes can only afford plans with huge deductibles, it has failed. At a minimum, there has to be a floor of coverage that no one can fall below. I don't have that much of a problem with rich people buying "concierge care" if everyone else is getting high-quality care; it's only offensive when so many people have no coverage at all. And costs have to be brought down; when an appendectomy costs $16,000 in the U.S. but only $2,000 in Spain, we're getting ripped off. That's because other countries regulate health-care prices in ways we don't.
But let's be clear about something. The reason liberals favor a stronger government role for health care isn't because we think that government control is an end in itself. It's because in certain areas, government is the only vehicle, or the best one, to accomplish important goals. The reason that liberals want an EPA that aggressively moves to constrain pollution isn't just that we like the idea of government bureaucrats, it's that we know that without regulation, private industry will pollute the air and water in ways that threaten our health and the health of the planet. At the same time, every liberal knows there are plenty of things government shouldn't do. Nobody is proposing that the federal government nationalize the bread industry; a trip to the supermarket will tell you that the free market is doing a pretty good job of satisfying our bread needs.
But we also know that the market in health care and health insurance isn't like the market for bread. We need a strong government hand in health care because the things we want out of the system can't be achieved without it. That means, however, that when we each come up with our list of goals, there will probably be multiple system designs that satisfy them. Once we admit that—and that it isn't "single-payer" or nothing—then we can start to ask other questions. What would the transition from our current system to another system involve? How long would it take? How much more is it going to cost? What sorts of interim steps (like expanding Medicaid) can help us get there? What kind of political resistance can we expect, and what's the best strategy to confront it?
If you haven't thought about those questions, and your only answer to what we should do about health care is to repeat the words "single-payer," then you just aren't serious about this challenge. We may actually have a chance in the near future to move ourselves on a path to the kind of health-care system that people in other wealthy countries enjoy. So let's not blow it. Reported by The American Prospect 8 hours ago.
↧
Rand Paul: Republicans ‘Have Insufficient Confidence in What Made America Great’
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a repeal-and-replace advocate, says he wants to expand the number of people who get health insurance at a cheaper price.
-- Reported by CNSNews.com 12 hours ago.
-- Reported by CNSNews.com 12 hours ago.
↧
↧
Pet Insurance Is Worth Considering
If you're contemplating purchasing health insurance for your pet, make sure you know what you're getting.
Reported by Motley Fool 9 hours ago.
↧
Here's how much health insurance premiums could increase under the Senate healthcare bill
Republicans have made lower insurance premiums one of their biggest promises on healthcare.Despite this goal, an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that, once you factor in tax credits, the end point premium payment for most Americans in the individual health insurance market would actually increase under the Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) healthcare overhaul bill.
The nonpartisan health policy think tank broke down just how much premiums, factoring the effect of tax credits in the proposed law, for a silver-level plan in the individual insurance market would increase for people of different ages.
While the individual market only makes up around 7% of the population, the premiums in the market have become a central part of the debate over the future of healthcare. Republicans often bring up the increase in premiums in this market as a reason that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, needs to be replaced.
Overall, Kaiser found that premiums after tax credits in the market would increase by 74% under the BCRA compared to the ACA.
Additionally, older Americans would see an even steeper increase for a variety of reasons.
For one thing, older people can be charged more under the BCRA than the ACA. Under current law, older Americans can only be charged three times as much for premiums as younger Americans. Under the Senate bill, this age band would increase to five times.
Additionally, the premium tax credit structure would be changed. The formula for how much of a person's income is supposed to be spent towards premiums would gradually increase as individuals age under the BCRA.
Add it all up and almost everyone would see an increase in their premiums for a silver plan, with the increases getting more dramatic the older someone gets.
Given the premium increases, there is also a good chance that people would end up getting less generous health insurance.
According to the CBO, this kind of jump would mean that some people on the individual market who currently have a plan in the silver bracket or higher might trade down to a bronze plan, which has lees generous coverage. Under a silver plan, 70% of healthcare costs are covered by the insurer, while a bronze plan only covers 58%.
Insurers paying a lower percentage of costs means that patients would have to make up the difference, leading to higher deductibles and co-pays. So in order to get affordable premiums, people would have to get plans that have higher out-of-pocket costs.
The situation could be worse for low-income people, according to the Kasier study, who would see much less generous tax credits for the same silver plan.
While the raw dollar jump for those making above 200% of the federal poverty line would be dramatic, the percentage increase for low-income people would be worse. According to Kaiser, the premium increase for someone between 55 and 64 years old with an income above 200% of the federal poverty line would be 96%, to $782 a month from $399. For someone of the same age bracket making less than 200% of the poverty line, however, it would be a whopping 294% jump, to $272 from $69.
In the end, regardless of how much people make or how old they are, it's not a question of whether premiums after tax credits would increase, but by how much.
*SEE ALSO: Trump could be hurting the Obamacare repeal effort more than he's helping*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: IAN BREMMER: 'The biggest opportunity out there right now has got to be India' Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.
↧
STOCKS JUMP: Here's what you need to know
The Dow Jones industrial average surged in a holiday-shortened trading day on Monday, but finished just shy of a record close.The Dow and S&P 500 both gained, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq slipped.
As a reminder, US markets will be closed tomorrow in observance of Independence Day.
We've got all the headlines, but first, the scoreboard:
· *Dow:* 21,479.27, +129.64, (+0.61%)
· *S&P 500:* 2,429.01, +5.60, (+0.22%)
· *Nasdaq:* 6,110.06, -30.36, (-0.47%)
· *US 10-year yield: *2.345%, (+0.043)
1. Two out of the three big US automakers beat sales expectations. The big US automakers all saw their sales decline, but Chrysler and Ford came in slightly above expectations while GM dropped more than economists forecasted.
2. Tesla announced its release date for the Model 3. CEO Elon Musk announced that the new Tesla model will begin deliveries on July 28 after the car passed regulatory hurdles. The stock popped on the news, but finished the day slightly in the red.
3. Steve Bannon is pushing for a tax hike on rich Americans. The nationalist, populist chief strategist reportedly wants to raise taxes on the top income bracket from the current 39.6% to somewhere in the 40s, according to Axios.
4. Chinese president Xi Jinping warned Trump "negative factors" are weighing on the US-China relationship. The Chinese leader's comments in a phone call with Trump follow Beijing's displeasure over US arms sales to China's rival Taiwan, US sanctions against a Chinese bank over its dealings with North Korea, and, most recently, the sailing of a US destroyer within the territorial seas limit of a Chinese-claimed island in the South China Sea.
Additionally:
BANK OF AMERICA: We may have just witnessed the 'first step' towards the end of the bull market
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bitcoin could see a big drop then surge to almost $4,000
Here's how much health insurance premiums could increase under the Senate healthcare bill
Tesla is about to do something it's never done before
The Fed’s rosy worldview rests on a misleading premise
*SEE ALSO: The 19 hottest housing markets in the world*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: An economist explains the key issues that Trump needs to address to boost the economy Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.
↧
Tampa Bay's hottest stock market performers for the first half of 2017
Ongoing debate about the future of health insurance propelled two Tampa Bay companies to the top of the list of best performing stocks in the first half of 2017. WellCare Health Plans Inc. (NYSE: WCG), a Tampa-based managed care provider for Medicaid and Medicare, had a 29.7 percent increase in stock price between Jan. 3 and June 30. Health Insurance Innovations Inc. (NASDAQ: HIIQ), a Tampa company that develops, distributes and administers cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans…
Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
Brown signs Medicaid package; Parrish set to file challenge
Gov. Kate Brown today signed into law a measure that imposes new taxes on insurers and hospitals to cover a shortfall in the state's Medicaid program. The new law could be short-lived. Rep. Julie Parrish said earlier today that as soon as Brown signed House Bill 2391, she would take the first step to derail the bill, which raises $673 million during the next biennium through a 1.5 percent assessment on commercial health insurance premiums and a .7 percent tax on hospitals. The West Linn Republican…
Reported by bizjournals 1 day ago.
↧
Who pays when someone without insurance shows up in the ER?
The question of who pays if a patient can't is important as Republicans debate health care legislation that could result in more than 20 million fewer Americans having health insurance.
Reported by Delawareonline 22 hours ago.
Reported by Delawareonline 22 hours ago.
↧
Paul Craig Roberts: "Once Only Blacks Were Enslaved, Now We All Are"
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
*The 4th of July is upon us. *
*
*
*We will hear all sorts of patriotic BS about how wonderful we are and how thankful we are to our brave military which defends our liberty.*
Not a word will be said about the *destruction by the Bush and Obama regimes of the US Constitution,* which once protected our liberty far better than any military action.
Not a word will be said about *Washington’s 16 years of purely gratuitous war in the Middle East and North Africa that has destroyed in whole or part seven countries, *sending millions of war refugees to overrun the Western World and change the quality of life for Western peoples.
Not a word will be said about Washington’s ongoing* insane provocations of Russia and China and Iran and Syria and North Korea* that are likely to end in nuclear Armageddon.
Speeches will celebrate “the exceptional, indispensable USA,” and *fireworks will go off, preludes to the onrushing nuclear Armageddon.*
While we listen to speeches of our wonderful fairy tale life, how lucky we are to be so beloved by our Great Democratic Government, *the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has issued an all points bulletin urging its members to wake up and to urge their US Senators “...to oppose the American Health Care Act passed by the House..."*
"This harmful bill gives billions of dollars to special interests while sticking ordinary Americans with huge premium hikes.
It includes an age tax that would force older Americans to pay thousands of dollars more for their health insurance.
It weakens Medicare and removes protections for people with pre-existing conditions. I urge you to represent my interests—not those of the drug and insurance companies.”
*The last sentence astounded me. *How is it possible that a lobby group for retired people can possibly believe that the House and Senate have any interest in serving the American people?
The* House and Senate serve the people who have money, and those people are not the elderly. *Thanks to the Federal Reserve, the elderly have not had any interest income on their savings for a decade.
Moreover, thanks to jobs offshoring, *the middle class is shrinking, and grandparents are having to support out of their savings both children and grandchildren. *Savings are being drawn down and used up. Retired Americans simply do not have the resources to compete in Washington with the pharmaceutical and insurance corporations who are determined to pillage the elderly.
In the USA money resides in the hands of the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby (US taxpayers give the money to them), Wall Street and the Banks Too Big To Fail, real estate and insurance, and environmental polluters such as energy, mining, electricity production, and agribusiness. *No one else has any money. Therefore, these interest groups determine US domestic and foreign policy.*
*The policy of the US government is easy to sum up.* It consists of driving the American population into the ground and fomenting war abroad. This is what serves the money interests that control the government.
*Democracy does not exist in America. *All the bombast you will hear on the 4th is designed to keep you locked in The Matrix.
The talk about *“taking back your government” is nonsense*. The government doesn’t belong to you. *You can’t take it back.*
Chris Hedges says that *your only alternatives are to overthrow the criminal class in Washington or to accept your slavery.*
*
* Reported by Zero Hedge 19 hours ago.
*The 4th of July is upon us. *
*
*
*We will hear all sorts of patriotic BS about how wonderful we are and how thankful we are to our brave military which defends our liberty.*
Not a word will be said about the *destruction by the Bush and Obama regimes of the US Constitution,* which once protected our liberty far better than any military action.
Not a word will be said about *Washington’s 16 years of purely gratuitous war in the Middle East and North Africa that has destroyed in whole or part seven countries, *sending millions of war refugees to overrun the Western World and change the quality of life for Western peoples.
Not a word will be said about Washington’s ongoing* insane provocations of Russia and China and Iran and Syria and North Korea* that are likely to end in nuclear Armageddon.
Speeches will celebrate “the exceptional, indispensable USA,” and *fireworks will go off, preludes to the onrushing nuclear Armageddon.*
While we listen to speeches of our wonderful fairy tale life, how lucky we are to be so beloved by our Great Democratic Government, *the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has issued an all points bulletin urging its members to wake up and to urge their US Senators “...to oppose the American Health Care Act passed by the House..."*
"This harmful bill gives billions of dollars to special interests while sticking ordinary Americans with huge premium hikes.
It includes an age tax that would force older Americans to pay thousands of dollars more for their health insurance.
It weakens Medicare and removes protections for people with pre-existing conditions. I urge you to represent my interests—not those of the drug and insurance companies.”
*The last sentence astounded me. *How is it possible that a lobby group for retired people can possibly believe that the House and Senate have any interest in serving the American people?
The* House and Senate serve the people who have money, and those people are not the elderly. *Thanks to the Federal Reserve, the elderly have not had any interest income on their savings for a decade.
Moreover, thanks to jobs offshoring, *the middle class is shrinking, and grandparents are having to support out of their savings both children and grandchildren. *Savings are being drawn down and used up. Retired Americans simply do not have the resources to compete in Washington with the pharmaceutical and insurance corporations who are determined to pillage the elderly.
In the USA money resides in the hands of the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby (US taxpayers give the money to them), Wall Street and the Banks Too Big To Fail, real estate and insurance, and environmental polluters such as energy, mining, electricity production, and agribusiness. *No one else has any money. Therefore, these interest groups determine US domestic and foreign policy.*
*The policy of the US government is easy to sum up.* It consists of driving the American population into the ground and fomenting war abroad. This is what serves the money interests that control the government.
*Democracy does not exist in America. *All the bombast you will hear on the 4th is designed to keep you locked in The Matrix.
The talk about *“taking back your government” is nonsense*. The government doesn’t belong to you. *You can’t take it back.*
Chris Hedges says that *your only alternatives are to overthrow the criminal class in Washington or to accept your slavery.*
*
* Reported by Zero Hedge 19 hours ago.
↧
The scary truth about single-payer
State lawmakers are packing their bags and putting the lid on another legislative session. They’re heading back to their respective districts without agreeing on a health care bill that, in my opinion, should never see the light of day. The New York Health Act, also known as single-payer, would provide government-sponsored health insurance to all state residents with no out-of-pocket costs and no network restrictions. Sound too good to be true? That’s because it is. According to estimates from…
Reported by bizjournals 18 hours ago.
↧
↧
Health insurance complaints on the rise
The Commonwealth Ombudsman says private health insurers need to do more in dealing with complaints.
Reported by SBS 19 hours ago.
↧
AllMed Achieves HITRUST Certification for Information Technology Security
AllMed Healthcare Management becomes one of few independent review organizations in the country to earn the coveted HITRUST certification.
Portland, OR (PRWEB) July 05, 2017
AllMed Healthcare Management, Inc., a leading national independent review organization (IRO) providing physician review solutions to payer and provider organizations, announced today that it has earned HITRUST certification for Information Technology Security. AllMed is one of few IROs in the country to earn this certification. The HITRUST certification demonstrates AllMed’s commitment to exceeding client expectations while ensuring adherence to security-related regulatory requirements, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and state laws, to support the flow of healthcare information.
In the ever-changing environment of health care, the HITRUST certification allows AllMed to remain current and improve efficiencies by providing a robust platform that tracks, updates, interprets, and consolidates federal and state regulations, industry standards and best practices, and trends in risk management. AllMed is among a select group of organizations worldwide committed to high standards in privacy and security that have achieved the distinction of the certification.
The healthcare industry is under constant pressure to keep up with continually evolving security, compliance, and regulatory requirements to protect patient records. Organizations that are certified by HITRUST save their clients the time and expense of audit requests and internal assessments. “AllMed is proud to be one of few IROs to receive the HITRUST certification for Information Technology Security,” said Andrew Rowe, Chief Executive Officer of AllMed. “This achievement speaks volumes to the professionalism of our staff and AllMed’s commitment to our client’s information security and privacy needs.”
“The HITRUST certification is the gold standard for information security compliance in the healthcare industry. AllMed has earned the coveted HITRUST certification for Information Technology Security after a long and arduous, but very worthwhile, journey,” said Gordon Ferlitsch, Vice President, Chief Technology Officer, and Chief Security Officer of AllMed. He added, “There is now another reason to distinguish AllMed as a leader in the healthcare market.”
“No certification as encompassing as HITRUST can be done by one department” said Joel Campbell, Information Security Officer of AllMed. “The entire organization focuses on maintaining data security. This commitment is just one of the differences that separates AllMed from other IRO’s in the industry.”
About AllMed
Founded in 1995, AllMed Healthcare Management is an independent review organization that provides comprehensive physician review solutions to payer and provider organizations across the nation. AllMed’s team integrates with its clients, providing medical, copy editing and customer resources that enable them to improve both their services and business goals. AllMed’s clients include leading health plans, medical management organizations, TPAs, disability carriers, hospital groups and ambulatory surgery centers.
111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1400, Portland, Oregon 97204
503-274-9916 | http://www.allmedmd.com Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
Portland, OR (PRWEB) July 05, 2017
AllMed Healthcare Management, Inc., a leading national independent review organization (IRO) providing physician review solutions to payer and provider organizations, announced today that it has earned HITRUST certification for Information Technology Security. AllMed is one of few IROs in the country to earn this certification. The HITRUST certification demonstrates AllMed’s commitment to exceeding client expectations while ensuring adherence to security-related regulatory requirements, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and state laws, to support the flow of healthcare information.
In the ever-changing environment of health care, the HITRUST certification allows AllMed to remain current and improve efficiencies by providing a robust platform that tracks, updates, interprets, and consolidates federal and state regulations, industry standards and best practices, and trends in risk management. AllMed is among a select group of organizations worldwide committed to high standards in privacy and security that have achieved the distinction of the certification.
The healthcare industry is under constant pressure to keep up with continually evolving security, compliance, and regulatory requirements to protect patient records. Organizations that are certified by HITRUST save their clients the time and expense of audit requests and internal assessments. “AllMed is proud to be one of few IROs to receive the HITRUST certification for Information Technology Security,” said Andrew Rowe, Chief Executive Officer of AllMed. “This achievement speaks volumes to the professionalism of our staff and AllMed’s commitment to our client’s information security and privacy needs.”
“The HITRUST certification is the gold standard for information security compliance in the healthcare industry. AllMed has earned the coveted HITRUST certification for Information Technology Security after a long and arduous, but very worthwhile, journey,” said Gordon Ferlitsch, Vice President, Chief Technology Officer, and Chief Security Officer of AllMed. He added, “There is now another reason to distinguish AllMed as a leader in the healthcare market.”
“No certification as encompassing as HITRUST can be done by one department” said Joel Campbell, Information Security Officer of AllMed. “The entire organization focuses on maintaining data security. This commitment is just one of the differences that separates AllMed from other IRO’s in the industry.”
About AllMed
Founded in 1995, AllMed Healthcare Management is an independent review organization that provides comprehensive physician review solutions to payer and provider organizations across the nation. AllMed’s team integrates with its clients, providing medical, copy editing and customer resources that enable them to improve both their services and business goals. AllMed’s clients include leading health plans, medical management organizations, TPAs, disability carriers, hospital groups and ambulatory surgery centers.
111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1400, Portland, Oregon 97204
503-274-9916 | http://www.allmedmd.com Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
↧
NOYES Attracts Million Dollar Producer to Its Wealth Management Team
New Hire to Be Based in Chicago and Skokie, IL Offices
CHICAGO, IL (PRWEB) July 05, 2017
NOYES, a 109 years old wealth management and investment banking firm, announced today the hiring of million-dollar producer Jim Allen CFP®, as Senior Vice President, Wealth Management.
Allen joins after spending nearly two decades at Citigroup Global Markets in Chicago and will be based in NOYES’ Chicago and Skokie, IL offices. At Citigroup, he focused on providing wealth management counsel to a variety of clients, including traders, academics, business owners, professional executives, CEO's, nursing home owners and many individuals who built their wealth through commercial real estate investments.
For the greater part of his tenure at Citigroup, Allen has been a million-dollar producer and recognized as the firm’s top national leader in alternative investments.
“Jim is a momentous addition to our wealth management team and an incontrovertible testimonial to NOYES’ growth and ability to attract top talent,” stated Jim Lynch, Market Leader and Managing Director, NOYES. “We are delighted to bring on such industry talent to accelerate our growth. Jim is a highly regarded wealth management executive with the experience and proven track record that will allow him to immediately add significant value to our wealth business. His philosophy and mission are perfectly aligned with NOYES’ and he possesses a deep understanding of our firm’s strategic goals and culture.”
“In NOYES I have found the ideal long-term partner that cares about my clients and about looking after their interests in a fiduciary capacity, as much as I have incessantly done throughout my career,” Allen declared. “It’s a delight to join a dynamic firm characterized by an unparalleled entrepreneurial spirit, flexibility, independent thinking and an unwavering commitment to help advisors provide their clients with a vast range of solutions and exceptional service. It is a true privilege to work with some of the finest advisors in the industry.”
Allen began her career in at Bear Stearns in Chicago. After that, he joined St. Paul Federal Banks Investment Network as a Financial Advisor. Allen holds Life and Health Insurance licenses, as well as FINRA Licenses Series 7 and 65. He’s a graduate of Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business.
About NOYES
NOYES through its subsidiaries, David A. & Company and NOYES Advisors, LLC is a full-service investment firm headquartered in downtown Chicago with branches throughout the Midwest. Founded in 1908, the firm is one of the oldest securities firms in Chicago, and has served the Indianapolis area for nearly 80 years. The employee owned firm offers a comprehensive menu of products and services to individual and institutional clients. NOYES has seven offices in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. For more visit http://www.danoyes.com. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.
CHICAGO, IL (PRWEB) July 05, 2017
NOYES, a 109 years old wealth management and investment banking firm, announced today the hiring of million-dollar producer Jim Allen CFP®, as Senior Vice President, Wealth Management.
Allen joins after spending nearly two decades at Citigroup Global Markets in Chicago and will be based in NOYES’ Chicago and Skokie, IL offices. At Citigroup, he focused on providing wealth management counsel to a variety of clients, including traders, academics, business owners, professional executives, CEO's, nursing home owners and many individuals who built their wealth through commercial real estate investments.
For the greater part of his tenure at Citigroup, Allen has been a million-dollar producer and recognized as the firm’s top national leader in alternative investments.
“Jim is a momentous addition to our wealth management team and an incontrovertible testimonial to NOYES’ growth and ability to attract top talent,” stated Jim Lynch, Market Leader and Managing Director, NOYES. “We are delighted to bring on such industry talent to accelerate our growth. Jim is a highly regarded wealth management executive with the experience and proven track record that will allow him to immediately add significant value to our wealth business. His philosophy and mission are perfectly aligned with NOYES’ and he possesses a deep understanding of our firm’s strategic goals and culture.”
“In NOYES I have found the ideal long-term partner that cares about my clients and about looking after their interests in a fiduciary capacity, as much as I have incessantly done throughout my career,” Allen declared. “It’s a delight to join a dynamic firm characterized by an unparalleled entrepreneurial spirit, flexibility, independent thinking and an unwavering commitment to help advisors provide their clients with a vast range of solutions and exceptional service. It is a true privilege to work with some of the finest advisors in the industry.”
Allen began her career in at Bear Stearns in Chicago. After that, he joined St. Paul Federal Banks Investment Network as a Financial Advisor. Allen holds Life and Health Insurance licenses, as well as FINRA Licenses Series 7 and 65. He’s a graduate of Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business.
About NOYES
NOYES through its subsidiaries, David A. & Company and NOYES Advisors, LLC is a full-service investment firm headquartered in downtown Chicago with branches throughout the Midwest. Founded in 1908, the firm is one of the oldest securities firms in Chicago, and has served the Indianapolis area for nearly 80 years. The employee owned firm offers a comprehensive menu of products and services to individual and institutional clients. NOYES has seven offices in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. For more visit http://www.danoyes.com. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
