CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner signed legislation Thursday allowing state health insurance and Medicaid coverage for abortions, ending months of speculation after the Republican reversed his stance on the issue last spring. The General Assembly controlled by Democrats approved the measure in May but delayed sending it to Rauner until Monday, in part […]
Reported by Seattle Times 19 hours ago.
Illinois governor signs bill allowing Medicaid for abortions
↧
↧
‘Obamacare’ rates to rise an average of 39 percent in Utah
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah officials say health insurance rates for Utah residents who buy coverage under the Affordable Care Act will rise by an average of 39 percent next year. Utah’s Insurance Department released a sampling of rates Thursday for plans sold in the individual insurance market. Insurance Department spokesman Steve Gooch says […]
Reported by Seattle Times 19 hours ago.
↧
Short-Sellers Take Aim at Health Insurance Innovations Again, Sending Shares Crashing 24% Today
Questions regarding the future survival of the company, stemming from investigations into its business, led to a sharp sell-off in shares earlier this month, and today, more questions about its third-party network of brokers caused another tumble.
Reported by Motley Fool 18 hours ago.
↧
Here's how the Trump tax plan would raise taxes on many middle-income families
Asked Thursday about whether the Republican tax plan would cut taxes on the wealthy, top White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said he didn't think Americans would care what happened to other people's taxes — they would care about getting a tax cut for themselves.
Cohn said a "typical" American family making around $100,000 would get a tax break of about $1,000.
"If we allow a family to keep another $1,000 of their income, what does that mean?" he asked. "They can renovate their kitchen, they can buy a new car, they can take a family vacation, they can increase their lifestyle."
So. About that.
While there are still a lot of details to be filled in, the information we have available suggests the new Republican tax proposal would raise income taxes on many families who make just a bit more than the national average.
I'm going to lay out below one such typical tax situation. Meet Ann and Bob Smith.
Ann and Bob don't have a weird, outlier financial situation. They own a home with a mortgage, they have two kids, they pay income tax in a state with moderate tax rates, they give to charity in an amount proportionate to their income. They take tax deductions accordingly. And Trump's "massive tax cut" would actually appear to increase their tax burden by about $600.
It's hard enough to buy a car for $1,000. Ann and Bob definitely won't be able to buy one for negative $600.
*Let's do Ann and Bob's taxes*
Ann and Bob both work, and they have $120,000 a year of salary income.
This income is comfortable, but it's not that far above average for a nuclear family — according to Pew, the median income in 2015 for a family where both parents work and at least one child lives at home was $102,400. Ann and Bob are not the sort of taxpayers who are usually targeted for a tax increase — especially as part of a tax plan that cuts taxes overall.
Now, let's flesh out their financial situation.
· Their home is worth $420,000, or 3.5 times their income.
· They have a mortgage balance of $252,000, 60% of their home's value. This year, they will pay $8,636 in interest on the mortgage.
· They pay state income taxes of $4,800, which is 4% of their income, and property taxes of $4,620, which is 1.1% of their home's value.
· They give $3,000 to charity, which is 2.5% of their income.
All of these deduction-related figures are close to the national average for a family of this type.
Using the current tax code, Ann and Bob would claim four personal exemptions (two for themselves and one for each of the kids) totaling $16,200, and they would deduct their state income taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions, which total $21,056.
These deductions would leave Ann and Bob with a taxable income of $82,744, yielding tax before credits of $12,163.
Then, they would get a child tax credit of $1,500. This credit is normally $1,000 per child, but because the credit is phased out for families who make more than $110,000, Ann and Bob only get to take part of it.
All told, Ann and Bob would have a federal income tax bill under current laws of *$10,663*. They're in the 25% income tax bracket, but lower brackets and deductions and credits mean they only pay 8.9% of their income in federal income tax.
-Here's a look:-
*Figuring out how to apply the GOP tax framework to Ann and Bob*
The tax plan announced on Wednesday isn't legislation, it's just a "framework." So we don't have enough detail to say for sure how much anyone's tax bill would be. But there is enough detail to make pretty good guesses, as groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) have done.
What detail have seen does not look great for Ann and Bob.
The Republican proposal involves tax brackets (12%, 25%, and 35%) but it doesn't say what incomes those rates will apply to. I assume, as CRFB assumes, the bracket thresholds will align with those in Trump's tax plan from the campaign: 25% starting at $75,000, and 35% starting at $225,000, for married couples.
Remember the $16,200 in personal exemptions Ann and Bob get to take on their taxes now? Those exemptions ($4,050 for the taxpayer, his or her spouse, and each dependent) would be eliminated in the GOP framework.
That's supposed to be offset at least in part by a higher child tax credit, but the framework doesn't say how much higher it will be. CRFB assumed the increase would be $500 per child, since that's what Paul Ryan proposed to offset the elimination of dependent exemptions in his "Better Way" plan last year; I adopt this assumption.*
Finally, the framework also says the tax plan would adjust the income limits on the child tax credit. This is good news for Ann and Bob; I adopt CRFB's assumption that Republicans will propose (as they have in the past) to raise the income limit by enough so they will get to take the entire credit, whatever it is.
*So, with those assumptions made, let's do Ann and Bob's taxes under Trump's plan*
We're still starting from an income of $120,000. Trump's plan allows deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, but Ann and Bob don't have enough of those for it to make sense for them to itemize; they take Trump's enlarged standard deduction of $24,000.
As I discussed, there are no personal exemptions under Trump's plan, so Ann and Bob don't take any of those. Their taxable income is $96,000 — their income minus the standard deduction.
Their tax before credits is therefore $14,250. Then, the more generous child credit rules mean Ann and Bob get a $3,000 credit, leaving them with a net tax bill of *$11,250*.
Uh oh. That's *$587 more than they pay under current law*. Ann and Bob got hit with a tax increase. Sad!
*Trump's 'doubled standard deduction' is a trap for Ann and Bob*
A key Republican talking point for this tax plan is that it helps low- and middle-income tax filers by nearly doubling the standard deduction.
As I wrote upon the plan's release, that's highly misleading, because while the plan gives with one hand by raising the standard deduction, it takes with another by eliminating personal exemptions (and also the additional standard deduction for senior citizens). As a result, the benefit for taxpayers who currently take the standard deduction is small.
The change is very unfavorable for taxpayers like Ann and Bob, who currently take itemized deductions. That's because currently you get to take personal exemptions and itemized deductions at the same time. Under Trump's plan, you would have to pick — itemized deductions or the enlarged standard deduction, but not both.
This is why Trump's plan greatly increases Ann and Bob's taxable income — currently, they pay tax on less than $83,000 of their income, but under Trump's approach they'd be taxed on $96,000 of income. That's why their tax bill would go up.
There would be a similar trap for a lot of similarly situated families: people with incomes a bit above average, who currently take itemized deductions. If you're in that situation, you should worry you'll end up paying more.
*
*
*Why raise taxes on Ann and Bob? Because that's where the money is*
Republicans could have done an across the board tax cut like George W. Bush did. But they seem to want to do really deep tax cuts for certain kinds of business owners (including people like Trump himself) — tax cuts so deep, they'll need to raise taxes on someone to offset it.
The GOP has a reputation for wanting to soak the poor, but you can't raise much money by taxing people who barely have any money.
This is where Ann and Bob come in.
The dirty secret of tax reform has always been there are only two places to get the money to pay for it: wealthy or upper-middle class.
— Henry Olsen (@henryolsenEPPC) September 27, 2017
But the political problem is, Ann and Bob don't think they're especially comfortable.
Sure, they have a home in the suburbs and good health insurance, and they live in a decent school district. But they haven't been on a vacation in a while. They've been driving the same cars for five years. They're going have to figure out how to pay for Cassie and Daniel's college tuition pretty soon. They're not sure when they'll be able to retire.
Ann and Bob not going to be receptive to the idea that they ought to pay higher taxes — especially if the purpose of that tax increase is to give rich people a tax cut.
And they're going to be pretty angry when they find out that's what the proposal really is.
** Regarding the increase in the child credit: I wish we had more clarity about Republicans' precise intentions here. *
The amount of the child tax credit is an important matter for the finances of most families with children in the US. It says something about Republican priorities that they got the corporate tax rate nailed down before releasing their tax proposal but said they'd decide about the child credit later.
A spokesperson for the House Ways and Means Committee would not speculate on the amount of the child credit increase, saying it would be worked out between the committees in Congress that will write the tax bill. A spokesperson for the White House said the amount is up to Congress "but it will be more than enough to compensate for lost personal exemptions for dependents."
One Republican plan that did make a clear declaration of intention about the child credit was Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" proposal from 2016, which called for abolishing tax exemptions for dependents and raising the child credit by $500. This is enough to offset the loss of the exemption for a taxpayer in the 12% tax bracket, but not for Ann and Bob, who would be in the 25% bracket.
The "more than enough" promise is a tall enough order that I doubt the White House has thought it through, or means it to apply to all families. You would need to raise the credit by $1,500 to hold harmless families all the way up and down the income scale.
You'd also need to do something about the variety of situations where a parent has a dependent child who doesn't qualify for the child credit. The framework specifies that it offers a $500 credit in these situations, which again is enough to make whole some other families with lower incomes, but not Ann and Bob.
All of which is to say, the Smiths can't take "more than enough" to the bank. CRFB assumes a repeat of the Ryan proposal for good reasons — if Republicans intend to promise a materially larger increase than $500, they should announce it.
They'd also have to figure out how to pay for it. Per the CRFB analysis, the revenue losses from the Republican plan already exceed the $1.5 trillion that is likely to be allowed under rules adopted by the Senate, meaning the tax cuts will have to be reduced rather than expanded before passage. Increasing the child credit by $1,500 instead of $500, for example, would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of the tax package.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Why you won't find a garbage can near the 9/11 memorial Reported by Business Insider 17 hours ago.
Cohn said a "typical" American family making around $100,000 would get a tax break of about $1,000.
"If we allow a family to keep another $1,000 of their income, what does that mean?" he asked. "They can renovate their kitchen, they can buy a new car, they can take a family vacation, they can increase their lifestyle."
So. About that.
While there are still a lot of details to be filled in, the information we have available suggests the new Republican tax proposal would raise income taxes on many families who make just a bit more than the national average.
I'm going to lay out below one such typical tax situation. Meet Ann and Bob Smith.
Ann and Bob don't have a weird, outlier financial situation. They own a home with a mortgage, they have two kids, they pay income tax in a state with moderate tax rates, they give to charity in an amount proportionate to their income. They take tax deductions accordingly. And Trump's "massive tax cut" would actually appear to increase their tax burden by about $600.
It's hard enough to buy a car for $1,000. Ann and Bob definitely won't be able to buy one for negative $600.
*Let's do Ann and Bob's taxes*
Ann and Bob both work, and they have $120,000 a year of salary income.
This income is comfortable, but it's not that far above average for a nuclear family — according to Pew, the median income in 2015 for a family where both parents work and at least one child lives at home was $102,400. Ann and Bob are not the sort of taxpayers who are usually targeted for a tax increase — especially as part of a tax plan that cuts taxes overall.
Now, let's flesh out their financial situation.
· Their home is worth $420,000, or 3.5 times their income.
· They have a mortgage balance of $252,000, 60% of their home's value. This year, they will pay $8,636 in interest on the mortgage.
· They pay state income taxes of $4,800, which is 4% of their income, and property taxes of $4,620, which is 1.1% of their home's value.
· They give $3,000 to charity, which is 2.5% of their income.
All of these deduction-related figures are close to the national average for a family of this type.
Using the current tax code, Ann and Bob would claim four personal exemptions (two for themselves and one for each of the kids) totaling $16,200, and they would deduct their state income taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions, which total $21,056.
These deductions would leave Ann and Bob with a taxable income of $82,744, yielding tax before credits of $12,163.
Then, they would get a child tax credit of $1,500. This credit is normally $1,000 per child, but because the credit is phased out for families who make more than $110,000, Ann and Bob only get to take part of it.
All told, Ann and Bob would have a federal income tax bill under current laws of *$10,663*. They're in the 25% income tax bracket, but lower brackets and deductions and credits mean they only pay 8.9% of their income in federal income tax.
-Here's a look:-
*Figuring out how to apply the GOP tax framework to Ann and Bob*
The tax plan announced on Wednesday isn't legislation, it's just a "framework." So we don't have enough detail to say for sure how much anyone's tax bill would be. But there is enough detail to make pretty good guesses, as groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) have done.
What detail have seen does not look great for Ann and Bob.
The Republican proposal involves tax brackets (12%, 25%, and 35%) but it doesn't say what incomes those rates will apply to. I assume, as CRFB assumes, the bracket thresholds will align with those in Trump's tax plan from the campaign: 25% starting at $75,000, and 35% starting at $225,000, for married couples.
Remember the $16,200 in personal exemptions Ann and Bob get to take on their taxes now? Those exemptions ($4,050 for the taxpayer, his or her spouse, and each dependent) would be eliminated in the GOP framework.
That's supposed to be offset at least in part by a higher child tax credit, but the framework doesn't say how much higher it will be. CRFB assumed the increase would be $500 per child, since that's what Paul Ryan proposed to offset the elimination of dependent exemptions in his "Better Way" plan last year; I adopt this assumption.*
Finally, the framework also says the tax plan would adjust the income limits on the child tax credit. This is good news for Ann and Bob; I adopt CRFB's assumption that Republicans will propose (as they have in the past) to raise the income limit by enough so they will get to take the entire credit, whatever it is.
*So, with those assumptions made, let's do Ann and Bob's taxes under Trump's plan*
We're still starting from an income of $120,000. Trump's plan allows deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, but Ann and Bob don't have enough of those for it to make sense for them to itemize; they take Trump's enlarged standard deduction of $24,000.
As I discussed, there are no personal exemptions under Trump's plan, so Ann and Bob don't take any of those. Their taxable income is $96,000 — their income minus the standard deduction.
Their tax before credits is therefore $14,250. Then, the more generous child credit rules mean Ann and Bob get a $3,000 credit, leaving them with a net tax bill of *$11,250*.
Uh oh. That's *$587 more than they pay under current law*. Ann and Bob got hit with a tax increase. Sad!
*Trump's 'doubled standard deduction' is a trap for Ann and Bob*
A key Republican talking point for this tax plan is that it helps low- and middle-income tax filers by nearly doubling the standard deduction.
As I wrote upon the plan's release, that's highly misleading, because while the plan gives with one hand by raising the standard deduction, it takes with another by eliminating personal exemptions (and also the additional standard deduction for senior citizens). As a result, the benefit for taxpayers who currently take the standard deduction is small.
The change is very unfavorable for taxpayers like Ann and Bob, who currently take itemized deductions. That's because currently you get to take personal exemptions and itemized deductions at the same time. Under Trump's plan, you would have to pick — itemized deductions or the enlarged standard deduction, but not both.
This is why Trump's plan greatly increases Ann and Bob's taxable income — currently, they pay tax on less than $83,000 of their income, but under Trump's approach they'd be taxed on $96,000 of income. That's why their tax bill would go up.
There would be a similar trap for a lot of similarly situated families: people with incomes a bit above average, who currently take itemized deductions. If you're in that situation, you should worry you'll end up paying more.
*
*
*Why raise taxes on Ann and Bob? Because that's where the money is*
Republicans could have done an across the board tax cut like George W. Bush did. But they seem to want to do really deep tax cuts for certain kinds of business owners (including people like Trump himself) — tax cuts so deep, they'll need to raise taxes on someone to offset it.
The GOP has a reputation for wanting to soak the poor, but you can't raise much money by taxing people who barely have any money.
This is where Ann and Bob come in.
The dirty secret of tax reform has always been there are only two places to get the money to pay for it: wealthy or upper-middle class.
— Henry Olsen (@henryolsenEPPC) September 27, 2017
But the political problem is, Ann and Bob don't think they're especially comfortable.
Sure, they have a home in the suburbs and good health insurance, and they live in a decent school district. But they haven't been on a vacation in a while. They've been driving the same cars for five years. They're going have to figure out how to pay for Cassie and Daniel's college tuition pretty soon. They're not sure when they'll be able to retire.
Ann and Bob not going to be receptive to the idea that they ought to pay higher taxes — especially if the purpose of that tax increase is to give rich people a tax cut.
And they're going to be pretty angry when they find out that's what the proposal really is.
** Regarding the increase in the child credit: I wish we had more clarity about Republicans' precise intentions here. *
The amount of the child tax credit is an important matter for the finances of most families with children in the US. It says something about Republican priorities that they got the corporate tax rate nailed down before releasing their tax proposal but said they'd decide about the child credit later.
A spokesperson for the House Ways and Means Committee would not speculate on the amount of the child credit increase, saying it would be worked out between the committees in Congress that will write the tax bill. A spokesperson for the White House said the amount is up to Congress "but it will be more than enough to compensate for lost personal exemptions for dependents."
One Republican plan that did make a clear declaration of intention about the child credit was Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" proposal from 2016, which called for abolishing tax exemptions for dependents and raising the child credit by $500. This is enough to offset the loss of the exemption for a taxpayer in the 12% tax bracket, but not for Ann and Bob, who would be in the 25% bracket.
The "more than enough" promise is a tall enough order that I doubt the White House has thought it through, or means it to apply to all families. You would need to raise the credit by $1,500 to hold harmless families all the way up and down the income scale.
You'd also need to do something about the variety of situations where a parent has a dependent child who doesn't qualify for the child credit. The framework specifies that it offers a $500 credit in these situations, which again is enough to make whole some other families with lower incomes, but not Ann and Bob.
All of which is to say, the Smiths can't take "more than enough" to the bank. CRFB assumes a repeat of the Ryan proposal for good reasons — if Republicans intend to promise a materially larger increase than $500, they should announce it.
They'd also have to figure out how to pay for it. Per the CRFB analysis, the revenue losses from the Republican plan already exceed the $1.5 trillion that is likely to be allowed under rules adopted by the Senate, meaning the tax cuts will have to be reduced rather than expanded before passage. Increasing the child credit by $1,500 instead of $500, for example, would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of the tax package.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Why you won't find a garbage can near the 9/11 memorial Reported by Business Insider 17 hours ago.
↧
Medica to leave ND health insurance exchange in 2018
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Medica plans to leave North Dakota’s health insurance exchange in 2018, but coverage will remain available through two other insurers, the state’s insurance commissioner said Thursday. Commissioner Jon Godfread said Minnetonka, Minnesota-based Medica does not intend to sign an agreement with the federal government to offer individual health insurance through the […]
Reported by Seattle Times 17 hours ago.
↧
↧
United States: Could A Captive Insurance Company Reduce Health Care Costs And Save Your Business Taxes? - Brown Smith Wallace
If your business offers health insurance benefits to employees, there's a good chance you've seen a climb in premium costs in recent years — perhaps a dramatic one.
Reported by Mondaq 2 hours ago.
↧
KPT and Zur Rose are launching an innovative model for basic insurance
EQS Group-News: Zur Rose Group AG / Key word(s): Product Launch
29.09.2017 / 07:00
--------------------
Frauenfeld, 29 September 2017
*Press release*
*Purchasing drugs from Zur Rose*
*KPT and Zur Rose are launching an innovative model for basic insurance*
*The mail-order pharmacy and wholesale supplier to medical doctors Zur Rose is marketing an innovative basic insurance model in cooperation with the health insurance company KPT: For a premium discount of up to 20%, the insured parties sign an obligation to contact a telemedicine consulting service before utilising medical services. They obtain prescription drugs exclusively from an attending doctor or from **Zur Rose- by mail or in the Zur Rose pharmacy shops. Together, the two companies want to make a contribution to saving costs in the medicines sector.*
Parties insured under the new KPTwin.easy model will consult the telemedicine consulting centre Medi24 before utilising medical services. The experts at the consulting centre will point out the clinical pathway after talking to the insured party and refer the patient to a general physician or specialist if required.
*Purchase of drugs through Zur Rose and generics substitution*
If drugs are prescribed, the insured parties promise to purchase the medicines exclusively from Zur Rose - through the mail-order channel or from the Zur Rose pharmacy shops. Cases in which the medication needs to be taken urgently are excluded from this regulation. The parties insured under KPTwin.easy also declare their agreement to prescribed original preparations being replaced by generics insofar as these are cheaper and there are no objections for medical reasons.
*Contribution to reducing health costs*
Purchasing of drugs by mail order is a response to customers' needs. It saves time because there is no need to visit the pharmacy and it is inexpensive: Prescription drugs are 12% cheaper at Zur Rose on average than in other pharmacies because the company grants discounts and does not charge for medication checking and patient dossier. The CEO of the Zur Rose Group, Walter Oberhänsli, is convinced: "With the new model, we make a contribution to lowering health costs and at the same time offer the insured parties an extremely reliable, inexpensive and attractive drugs supply."
*Contact:*
Lisa Lüthi, Head of Corporate Communications
e-mail: lisa.luethi@zurrose.com, telephone: +41 52 724 08 14
*Zur Rose*
Zur Rose, a subsidiary of the Swiss Zur Rose Group AG, is a mail-order pharmacy and a wholesale supplier to medical doctors, as well as a service provider in the health sector in Switzerland and Germany. Through its business model, it helps to ensure safe, reliable and high-quality pharmaceutical care, The Zur Rose Group is Europe's leading mail-order pharmacy. More information can be found at zurrosegroup.com and zurrose.ch.
--------------------
End of Corporate News --------------------
Language: English
Company: Zur Rose Group AG
Walzmühlestrasse 60
8500 Frauenfeld
Switzerland
Phone: +41 52 724 08 14
Internet: www.zurrosegroup.com
ISIN: CH0199729366, CH0042615283
Listed: SIX Swiss Exchange
End of News EQS Group News Service Reported by EQS Group 10 hours ago.
29.09.2017 / 07:00
--------------------
Frauenfeld, 29 September 2017
*Press release*
*Purchasing drugs from Zur Rose*
*KPT and Zur Rose are launching an innovative model for basic insurance*
*The mail-order pharmacy and wholesale supplier to medical doctors Zur Rose is marketing an innovative basic insurance model in cooperation with the health insurance company KPT: For a premium discount of up to 20%, the insured parties sign an obligation to contact a telemedicine consulting service before utilising medical services. They obtain prescription drugs exclusively from an attending doctor or from **Zur Rose- by mail or in the Zur Rose pharmacy shops. Together, the two companies want to make a contribution to saving costs in the medicines sector.*
Parties insured under the new KPTwin.easy model will consult the telemedicine consulting centre Medi24 before utilising medical services. The experts at the consulting centre will point out the clinical pathway after talking to the insured party and refer the patient to a general physician or specialist if required.
*Purchase of drugs through Zur Rose and generics substitution*
If drugs are prescribed, the insured parties promise to purchase the medicines exclusively from Zur Rose - through the mail-order channel or from the Zur Rose pharmacy shops. Cases in which the medication needs to be taken urgently are excluded from this regulation. The parties insured under KPTwin.easy also declare their agreement to prescribed original preparations being replaced by generics insofar as these are cheaper and there are no objections for medical reasons.
*Contribution to reducing health costs*
Purchasing of drugs by mail order is a response to customers' needs. It saves time because there is no need to visit the pharmacy and it is inexpensive: Prescription drugs are 12% cheaper at Zur Rose on average than in other pharmacies because the company grants discounts and does not charge for medication checking and patient dossier. The CEO of the Zur Rose Group, Walter Oberhänsli, is convinced: "With the new model, we make a contribution to lowering health costs and at the same time offer the insured parties an extremely reliable, inexpensive and attractive drugs supply."
*Contact:*
Lisa Lüthi, Head of Corporate Communications
e-mail: lisa.luethi@zurrose.com, telephone: +41 52 724 08 14
*Zur Rose*
Zur Rose, a subsidiary of the Swiss Zur Rose Group AG, is a mail-order pharmacy and a wholesale supplier to medical doctors, as well as a service provider in the health sector in Switzerland and Germany. Through its business model, it helps to ensure safe, reliable and high-quality pharmaceutical care, The Zur Rose Group is Europe's leading mail-order pharmacy. More information can be found at zurrosegroup.com and zurrose.ch.
--------------------
End of Corporate News --------------------
Language: English
Company: Zur Rose Group AG
Walzmühlestrasse 60
8500 Frauenfeld
Switzerland
Phone: +41 52 724 08 14
Internet: www.zurrosegroup.com
ISIN: CH0199729366, CH0042615283
Listed: SIX Swiss Exchange
End of News EQS Group News Service Reported by EQS Group 10 hours ago.
↧
North American Pet Health Insurance Association Names Rick Faucher of IHC Specialty Benefit Its New President
Rick Faucher of IHC Specialty Benefits (IHC SB), a member of The IHC Group (IHC) was elected President of the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) by its Board of Directors.
Phoenix, AZ (PRWEB) September 29, 2017
Rick Faucher of IHC Specialty Benefits (IHC SB), a member of The IHC Group (IHC) was elected President of the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) by its Board of Directors. Mr. Faucher is President of IHC SB’s Pet Health division, President of PetPartners, Inc., oversees the company’s pet health enterprise, which includes PetPlace.com.
“Rick has a great vision and strong understanding of animal health, pet insurance and pet product marketplaces,” remarked Kristen Lynch, Executive Director of NAPHIA. “This combined with his background in human health insurance gives him a unique perspective and tremendous insight into the future of our industry.”
As President, Mr. Faucher will oversee NAPHIA’s key initiatives, board and sub-committees activities which include veterinary relations, research and benchmarking, membership growth, anti-fraud and regulatory advancements and industry events such as the Leadership Forum for member organizations.
“What an amazing privilege it is to serve as President of NAPHIA, a truly rare and outstanding environment that is comprised of executive leadership from competing companies,” said Mr. Faucher. “Our rapid growth and establishment is a testament to this unique collaboration, all working toward common causes of improved pet health and support for pet parents. Our membership represents companies from the USA, Canada and UK, and I look forward to serving them and continuing to advance the goals of pet health insurance industry through new initiatives and partnerships.”
According to NAPHIA’s State of the Industry report released this past July, close to 1.8 million pets are insured in North America. The market shows robust growth year over year with an annual average growth rate of 12%.
For more information on pet health insurance, please contact Rick Faucher at 602-395-7083 or Rick.Faucher(at)IHCGroup(dot)com.
#
About The IHC Group
Independence Holding Company (NYSE: IHC) is a holding company that is principally engaged in underwriting, administering and/or distributing group and individual specialty benefit products, including disability, supplemental health, pet, and group life insurance through its subsidiaries since 1980. The IHC Group owns three insurance companies (Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company), and IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc., a technology-driven insurance sales and marketing company that creates value for insurance producers, carriers and consumers (both individuals and small businesses) through a suite of proprietary tools and products (including ACA plans and small group medical stop-loss). All products are placed with highly rated carriers.
About NAPHIA
The North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) is comprised of reputable pet health insurance (PHI) organizations from across Canada and the United States. NAPHIA’s membership makes up over 99% of all pet health insurance coverage in effect in North America.
As a coalition, NAPHIA works to advance and grow the PHI industry through proactive research, data sharing, benchmarking initiatives, advocacy efforts, strategic partnerships, resource sharing and the dissemination of information to collaboratively address challenges and opportunities.
For more information about NAPHIA, visit http://www.naphia.org, or contact: Katherine Hardy, Communications Coordinator at communications(at)naphia(dot)org or call 877-962-7442. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
Phoenix, AZ (PRWEB) September 29, 2017
Rick Faucher of IHC Specialty Benefits (IHC SB), a member of The IHC Group (IHC) was elected President of the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) by its Board of Directors. Mr. Faucher is President of IHC SB’s Pet Health division, President of PetPartners, Inc., oversees the company’s pet health enterprise, which includes PetPlace.com.
“Rick has a great vision and strong understanding of animal health, pet insurance and pet product marketplaces,” remarked Kristen Lynch, Executive Director of NAPHIA. “This combined with his background in human health insurance gives him a unique perspective and tremendous insight into the future of our industry.”
As President, Mr. Faucher will oversee NAPHIA’s key initiatives, board and sub-committees activities which include veterinary relations, research and benchmarking, membership growth, anti-fraud and regulatory advancements and industry events such as the Leadership Forum for member organizations.
“What an amazing privilege it is to serve as President of NAPHIA, a truly rare and outstanding environment that is comprised of executive leadership from competing companies,” said Mr. Faucher. “Our rapid growth and establishment is a testament to this unique collaboration, all working toward common causes of improved pet health and support for pet parents. Our membership represents companies from the USA, Canada and UK, and I look forward to serving them and continuing to advance the goals of pet health insurance industry through new initiatives and partnerships.”
According to NAPHIA’s State of the Industry report released this past July, close to 1.8 million pets are insured in North America. The market shows robust growth year over year with an annual average growth rate of 12%.
For more information on pet health insurance, please contact Rick Faucher at 602-395-7083 or Rick.Faucher(at)IHCGroup(dot)com.
#
About The IHC Group
Independence Holding Company (NYSE: IHC) is a holding company that is principally engaged in underwriting, administering and/or distributing group and individual specialty benefit products, including disability, supplemental health, pet, and group life insurance through its subsidiaries since 1980. The IHC Group owns three insurance companies (Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company), and IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc., a technology-driven insurance sales and marketing company that creates value for insurance producers, carriers and consumers (both individuals and small businesses) through a suite of proprietary tools and products (including ACA plans and small group medical stop-loss). All products are placed with highly rated carriers.
About NAPHIA
The North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) is comprised of reputable pet health insurance (PHI) organizations from across Canada and the United States. NAPHIA’s membership makes up over 99% of all pet health insurance coverage in effect in North America.
As a coalition, NAPHIA works to advance and grow the PHI industry through proactive research, data sharing, benchmarking initiatives, advocacy efforts, strategic partnerships, resource sharing and the dissemination of information to collaboratively address challenges and opportunities.
For more information about NAPHIA, visit http://www.naphia.org, or contact: Katherine Hardy, Communications Coordinator at communications(at)naphia(dot)org or call 877-962-7442. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
↧
Live Answering Services, Automated Phone Systems to Overtake Onsite Receptionists by 2024
Conversational analyzes data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing answering service and call center employment is projected to rise 14% by 2024, while onsite receptionist growth will slow down considerably.
(PRWEB) September 29, 2017
The Bureau of Labor Statistics updates the Occupational Outlook Handbook on a yearly basis. This year’s data shows that the number of answering service and call center employees is expected to increase 14% by 2024. Receptionists expected to increase just overall 10% by 2024, with most increases being in the healthcare industry. Other industries outside of healthcare will see significant drops in receptionist employment due to the lower cost and advancing technologies in live answering services and phone systems. Below is an excerpt from the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Job Outlook page for receptionists.
“Employment growth of receptionists in most other industries is expected to be slower as organizations continue to automate or consolidate administrative functions, such as by using computer software or websites to interact with the public or customers. In addition, organizations will continue to use technology, such as automated phone and online systems, further reducing the need for receptionists.” -Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016-17 Edition
As businesses become more aware of the options available to them as receptionist alternatives, more will adopt new technologies and increasingly work with live or automated answering services instead of traditional, onsite receptionists. The healthcare industry alone will see increases in receptionist numbers due to a higher ratio of aging citizens in the U.S. and federal health insurance reform, as the Occupational Outlook Handbook states: “This growth is expected due to an aging population and because federal health insurance reform should increase the number of individuals who have access to health insurance.”
As answering services continue to respond to growing demand of their services across industries, the number of answering service employees increases in direct correlation to that demand. Put this way, answering service demand will rise 14% by 2024, compared to just 10% for onsite receptionists. A 4% increase in demand over traditional receptionists is a clear depiction of a trend that’s only beginning.
Conversational is a 5-star answering service with a reputation for quality and superior value. One of the few live answering services to offer a full 30 day free trial, Conversational is known for its economical pricing and flexibility. Start a 30 day free trial with no obligation to sign up after the trial period ends here. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
(PRWEB) September 29, 2017
The Bureau of Labor Statistics updates the Occupational Outlook Handbook on a yearly basis. This year’s data shows that the number of answering service and call center employees is expected to increase 14% by 2024. Receptionists expected to increase just overall 10% by 2024, with most increases being in the healthcare industry. Other industries outside of healthcare will see significant drops in receptionist employment due to the lower cost and advancing technologies in live answering services and phone systems. Below is an excerpt from the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Job Outlook page for receptionists.
“Employment growth of receptionists in most other industries is expected to be slower as organizations continue to automate or consolidate administrative functions, such as by using computer software or websites to interact with the public or customers. In addition, organizations will continue to use technology, such as automated phone and online systems, further reducing the need for receptionists.” -Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016-17 Edition
As businesses become more aware of the options available to them as receptionist alternatives, more will adopt new technologies and increasingly work with live or automated answering services instead of traditional, onsite receptionists. The healthcare industry alone will see increases in receptionist numbers due to a higher ratio of aging citizens in the U.S. and federal health insurance reform, as the Occupational Outlook Handbook states: “This growth is expected due to an aging population and because federal health insurance reform should increase the number of individuals who have access to health insurance.”
As answering services continue to respond to growing demand of their services across industries, the number of answering service employees increases in direct correlation to that demand. Put this way, answering service demand will rise 14% by 2024, compared to just 10% for onsite receptionists. A 4% increase in demand over traditional receptionists is a clear depiction of a trend that’s only beginning.
Conversational is a 5-star answering service with a reputation for quality and superior value. One of the few live answering services to offer a full 30 day free trial, Conversational is known for its economical pricing and flexibility. Start a 30 day free trial with no obligation to sign up after the trial period ends here. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
↧
↧
Trump preparing executive order to let Americans purchase health insurance across state lines
President Trump is preparing an executive order to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines, a reform conservatives have long championed as a way to bring costs down and stir greater competition in the national marketplace.
Reported by FOXNews.com 4 hours ago.
↧
State’s health-exchange rates to jump 24%
Health-insurance rates through the Washington Health Benefit Exchange will see the largest increase since the exchange went live in 2013.
Reported by Seattle Times 3 hours ago.
↧
Mark Farrah Associates Provides Insights into Mid-Year Health Insurance Segment Profitability
MCMURRAY, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mark Farrah Associates (MFA) assessed mid-year 2017 profitability for commercial and government lines of health insurance business.
Reported by Business Wire 1 hour ago.
↧
The Klein Law Firm Announces a Class Action Complaint on Behalf of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. Shareholders and a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of November 13, 2017
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
Reported by Business Wire 27 minutes ago.
↧
↧
Economic View: Why Public Health Insurance Could Help, Even if You Don’t Want It
A public option could put competitive pressure on private health insurers. Markets in India and Mexico show how that might work in the United States.
Reported by NYTimes.com 1 day ago.
↧
How Graham-Cassidy could give Texans better health insurance at lower costs
Reported by DallasNews 1 day ago.
↧
Squeezed again: Americans burdened by Obamacare now face even higher costs under Trump
Jim Hansen and his wife considered themselves fortunate when they retired five years ago.
The Denver couple, both electrical engineers, were healthy. They’d socked away an ample nest egg. And they found health insurance that, if not cheap, seemed reasonable for two people in their late 50s.
Then,... Reported by L.A. Times 22 hours ago.
The Denver couple, both electrical engineers, were healthy. They’d socked away an ample nest egg. And they found health insurance that, if not cheap, seemed reasonable for two people in their late 50s.
Then,... Reported by L.A. Times 22 hours ago.
↧
Congress just blew a chance to save healthcare for 9 million children
Advocates for children’s health started worrying months ago that Congressional incompetence would jeopardize the nation’s one indisputable healthcare success—the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has reduced the uninsured rate among kids to 5% from 14% over the two decades of its existence.
... Reported by L.A. Times 21 hours ago.
... Reported by L.A. Times 21 hours ago.
↧
↧
How to choose a health insurance policy
Being smart about choosing your health insurance plan can save you thousands of dollars and a lot of pain and suffering.
Reported by USATODAY.com 21 hours ago.
Reported by USATODAY.com 21 hours ago.
↧
3 carriers plan to continue health coverage in Tennessee
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — All three carriers offering health insurance through the Federally Facilitated Marketplace in Tennessee have signed agreements to provide coverage next year. The Tennessee Department Commerce and Insurance says open enrollment will begin on Nov. 1. The agency plans to hold its annual public meeting with health insurance companies in Nashville on […]
Reported by Seattle Times 19 hours ago.
↧
Even The Cheapest Obamacare Plans Are "Unaffordable" In 94% Of American Cities, New Study Finds
We've frequently warned that Obamacare is locked in an inescapable death spiral that will result in its inevitable failure. The problem is that the folks who make too much to qualify for subsidies (currently defined as roughly $80,000 for a family of 3) are increasingly being priced out of the market for individual insurance by Obamacare's 30%+ price hikes that consistently come year after year. Meanwhile, those "rich" families making $80,000 a year are the ones expected to overpay for their health insurance so that a portion of their premiums can be "spread around a little bit" (as Obama likes to say) to subsidize the premiums of others. *Of course, it's easy to see the circularity here as higher premiums equals less "full-paying" customers and less subsidies equals higher premiums...until the whole system collapses. *
Luckily you no longer have to take our word for it as* eHealth.com has just published a new study that finds that, even by Obamacare's own definition of "affordability", residents in 47 out of 50 cities surveyed can't afford the cheapest Obamacare plan.*
According to a study released today by eHealth, Inc., which operates eHealth.com, the average family of three earning slightly too much to qualify for subsidies in 2018 would need to increase its household income by nearly $29,000 before health insurance became “affordable” based on Obamacare criteria.
*The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) considers health insurance to be “unaffordable” when annual premiums for the lowest-priced plan in a market cost more than 8.16% of a household’s modified adjusted gross income (or MAGI).* When health insurance is unaffordable by this standard, individuals and families may qualify for an exemption from Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy health insurance.
*“Coverage under the Affordable Care Act is becoming seriously unaffordable for many families, even by Obamacare’s own rules,” *said eHealth CEO Scott Flanders. “I find it hard to believe that the framers of the law ever intended the cost of family health insurance to rival that of a second mortgage. Without the introduction of lower-cost options into the market or expanded government subsidies, many middle-income Americans are in danger of being priced out of the health insurance market entirely.”
Meanwhile, if anything, the study conducted by eHealth was somewhat conservative as it only assumed a 10% premium increase in 2018.
In preparing its analysis, eHealth reviewed the lowest-price 2017 plan available for families of three comprised of two adults age 35 and one child. The same family model was analyzed using data from Healthcare.gov in 40 cities, data from eHealth.com in 9 cities not utilizing Healthcare.gov, and data from the New York state exchange for New York City.
After applying a relatively modest annual rate increase of 10% to 2017 rates to project 2018 rates, eHealth discovered the following:
· *In 47 of 50 cities surveyed, the lowest-priced plan would be officially unaffordable under Obamacare affordability standards for families earning 401% of the federal poverty level* (about $82,000 per year in the contiguous US, making them ineligible for Obamacare subsidies).
· Among these, *the average three-person household would need to earn an additional $28,939 per year before the lowest-cost plan becomes affordable* according to Obamacare rules.
To put eHealth's findings in perspective, *a family of 3 in Charlotte, NC, with an annual income of $81,884, would have to spend 18% of their gross income in 2018 just to purchase the cheapest Obamacare plan for their family.* On a post-tax basis, that expenditure would be well over 20%. Moreover, as eHealth points out, that family of 3 would have to find a way to make an extra $102,245 per year to meet the "affordability" test included in the Obamacare legislation.
Here's how other cities compared on Obamacare "affordability":
Sure, Obamacare is working just fine and should be left alone... Reported by Zero Hedge 19 hours ago.
Luckily you no longer have to take our word for it as* eHealth.com has just published a new study that finds that, even by Obamacare's own definition of "affordability", residents in 47 out of 50 cities surveyed can't afford the cheapest Obamacare plan.*
According to a study released today by eHealth, Inc., which operates eHealth.com, the average family of three earning slightly too much to qualify for subsidies in 2018 would need to increase its household income by nearly $29,000 before health insurance became “affordable” based on Obamacare criteria.
*The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) considers health insurance to be “unaffordable” when annual premiums for the lowest-priced plan in a market cost more than 8.16% of a household’s modified adjusted gross income (or MAGI).* When health insurance is unaffordable by this standard, individuals and families may qualify for an exemption from Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy health insurance.
*“Coverage under the Affordable Care Act is becoming seriously unaffordable for many families, even by Obamacare’s own rules,” *said eHealth CEO Scott Flanders. “I find it hard to believe that the framers of the law ever intended the cost of family health insurance to rival that of a second mortgage. Without the introduction of lower-cost options into the market or expanded government subsidies, many middle-income Americans are in danger of being priced out of the health insurance market entirely.”
Meanwhile, if anything, the study conducted by eHealth was somewhat conservative as it only assumed a 10% premium increase in 2018.
In preparing its analysis, eHealth reviewed the lowest-price 2017 plan available for families of three comprised of two adults age 35 and one child. The same family model was analyzed using data from Healthcare.gov in 40 cities, data from eHealth.com in 9 cities not utilizing Healthcare.gov, and data from the New York state exchange for New York City.
After applying a relatively modest annual rate increase of 10% to 2017 rates to project 2018 rates, eHealth discovered the following:
· *In 47 of 50 cities surveyed, the lowest-priced plan would be officially unaffordable under Obamacare affordability standards for families earning 401% of the federal poverty level* (about $82,000 per year in the contiguous US, making them ineligible for Obamacare subsidies).
· Among these, *the average three-person household would need to earn an additional $28,939 per year before the lowest-cost plan becomes affordable* according to Obamacare rules.
To put eHealth's findings in perspective, *a family of 3 in Charlotte, NC, with an annual income of $81,884, would have to spend 18% of their gross income in 2018 just to purchase the cheapest Obamacare plan for their family.* On a post-tax basis, that expenditure would be well over 20%. Moreover, as eHealth points out, that family of 3 would have to find a way to make an extra $102,245 per year to meet the "affordability" test included in the Obamacare legislation.
Here's how other cities compared on Obamacare "affordability":
Sure, Obamacare is working just fine and should be left alone... Reported by Zero Hedge 19 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....