InstantForum.NET v4.1.4Arthritis Foundation Forumhttp://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/sitehelp@arthritis.orgWed, 08 Feb 2012 08:43:13 GMT20http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4501723-1928-1.aspxI am looking for anyone who may have had experience obtaining Enbril in Lima, Peru. I am considering a job but am concerned about the out-of-pocket costs associated with Enbril. Is Enbril available other ways? (e.g. support programs/drug company copays/etc)Thank you.Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:41:53 GMTJessica Novakhttp://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4501603-1928-1.aspxFor those living in the LA area, UCLA is conducting a 12-week research study using milnacipran for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and related pain. If you are 55 years of age or older, not currently receiving any medical treatment with effective medications, you may qualify. Evaluation and study drug are provided at no charge. For more information, call UCLA at (310) 794-9523 or message us.Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:48:02 GMTUCLA RAhttp://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4500581-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]WOMEN’S HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGEHealth insurance coverage is a critical factor in making health care accessible to women. Women with health coverage are more likely to obtain needed preventive, primary and specialty care services, and have better access to new advances in women’s health. Among the 96 million women ages 18 to 64, most have some form of coverage. However, the patchwork of different private sector and publicly-funded programs in the U.S. leaves one in five uninsured. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 includes several measures that will change the profile of women’s coverage between now and 2014, when the new law will be implemented.Read more:[url]http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/6000-091.pdf[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:50:15 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4500578-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]WHY THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK FOR WOMEN[/b][u]Roadblocks to Health Care[/u]--Women are more vulnerable to high health care costs than men.[u]A Patchy System of Health Insurance[/u]--The current health insurance framework leaves too many women uncovered.[u]The Failure of the Individual Insurance Market[/u]--Higher costs and inadequate benefits make the individual insurance market an unreliable choice for women.[u]The Price of Access[/u]--As a result, women are more likely than men to experience difficulty accessing care.Read complete article:[url]http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:11:25 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4500465-1928-1.aspx[size=3]Last night I watched Anna Deavere Smith’s play “Let Me Down Easy” online and recommend others give it a look. Smith has taken interviews she’s done – of celebrities and ordinary folks – and reenacts them word for word in this play that some have called “the health care” play.A NYT’s article said of Smith’s one-woman play:[/size][quote][size=2][i]In the case of “Let Me Down Easy,” the resulting theater, in its rawness and honesty, reminds the viewer why the entire health care debate might well end in paralysis: it’s a plagued subject, ultimately about the issues that we spend most of our lives trying not to contemplate. “It’s about, How do we value life and how do think about mortality?” Smith told me. “Through feeling” — feeling the characters’ heartbreak, their hope, their resignation — “we deepen our understanding.”[/i][/size][/quote][size=3]Inspired by work she did at Yale School of Medicine, where she was invited as a visiting professor, Deavere Smith’s play, is about the vulnerability of the human body and the resilience of the human spirit. To view a preview of “Let Me Down Easy” see:[/size][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihZhyaDvFsM[/url][size=3]To view the entire play online see:[/size][url]http://video.kqed.org/video/2186573615[/url][size=3]About the production of “Let Me Down Easy”:[/size][quote][size=2][i]Having been credited with creating a new form of theater, to create Let Me Down Easy Smith interviewed an eclectic group of people (300 on three continents) and performs several in an evening that is funny, moving and engaging.The title resonates on several levels reverberating with meanings of lost love, the faith that sustains people in times of difficulty, and ultimately, the end of life.Smith, through her chameleon-like virtuosity, creates an indelible gallery of portraits, from a rodeo bull rider to a prize fighter to a New Orleans doctor during Hurricane Katrina, as well as boldface names like former Texas Governor Ann Richards, legendary cyclist Lance Armstrong, network film critic Joel Siegel, and supermodel Lauren Hutton. She performs 19 characters in the course of an hour and thirty five minutes. Their stories are alternately humorous and heart-wrenching, and often a blend of both. Building upon each other with hypnotic force, her subjects recount personal encounters with the frailty of the human body, ranging from a mere brush with mortality, coping with an uncertain future in today’s medical establishment, to confronting an end of life transition. The testimony of health care professionals adds further texture to a vivid portrayal of the cultural and societal attitudes to matters of health.With keen observation and understated compassion, Smith – without judgment and maintaining the dignity of her subjects at all times — effortlessly submerges her own persona, and assumes her characters’ vocal and physical mannerisms with unerring accuracy............Called “the most exciting individual in American theater” by Newsweek magazine, Smith (Fires in the Mirror, Twilight: Los Angeles) turns on this occasion to tell a powerful story which points to the financial and psychological cost of care, the preciousness of life and the inevitability of our mortality.[b]“Even in the darkest hour, even where the crisis is the greatest, you’ll often find people who have the gift of grace, the gift of kindness, the gift of healing,” Smith observed. “Ultimately, through this play I am trying to spark a conversation that is easier, and maybe more enjoyable to have through art and entertainment than through politics.”[/b][/i][/size][/quote][url]http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/let-me-down-easy/about-the-production/1226/[/url]Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:41:03 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4500376-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]Thursday, January 12, 20121% of U.S. Residents Accounting for 20% of Total Health SpendingOne percent of U.S. residents accounted for more than 20% of overall health care spending in 2009, according to a report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HealthLeaders Media reports (Clark, HealthLeaders Media, 1/12).Further, just 5% of U.S. residents accounted for 50% of health spending, the report found (Kennedy, USA Today, 1/11).Read more: [url]http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2012/1/12/1-of-us-residents-accounting-for-20-of-total-health-spending.aspx#ixzz1jIramHfv[/url][/size][/quote]Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:57:53 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499888-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=2]From the WASHINGTON POST[b]Private insurers increasingly reliant on government business[/b]By N.C. Aizenman, Published: January 4 Despite the sluggish economy, the nation’s major health insurers have prospered in large part by expanding their role in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, according to a study released Thursday.The share of large insurers’ revenues contributed by their Medicare and Medicaid business has jumped from 36 to 42 percent over the past three years.......The insurers’ government business involves taking over components of the Medicare and Medicaid programs that government policymakers are increasingly outsourcing in hopes of cutting expenditures.Essentially, the private companies are hired to run managed-care plans as an alternative to the traditional fee-for-service plans provided by the two programs. Under the arrangement, the insurer receives a fixed amount from the state or federal authority ultimately responsible for a given Medicaid or Medicare population. In many cases, the insurer can then keep part of any savings it generates by managing the care of the covered population more cost-effectively....The practice is attractive to states seeking to curb spending on Medicaid, which is funded with a combination of state and federal dollars. Privately run Medicare managed-care plans — called Medicare Advantage Plans — have also long been common....Read complete article here:[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/private-insurers-increasingly-reliant-on-government-business/2012/01/03/gIQAbLuXbP_story.html[/url][/size][/quote]Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:20:17 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499953-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=2]From Kaiser Health News [b]Collaborative Efforts Can Save Money And Improve Care [/b]By Harris MeyerJan 05, 2012......Experts say employers, hospitals, physicians and health plans increasingly are willing to work together because cost and quality problems have reached crisis levels. The goal is to carve out health-care spending that’s wasteful and doesn’t help patients. ........."It all starts when leaders in a community say the current system is not sustainable and we've got to find a different model," says Joe Damore, a vice president at Premier, a national alliance of 200 health systems focused on performance improvement. "Major employers are jumping on board because they see it as an opportunity to improve their employees' health and reduce costs."Intel asked Providence Health & Services, Tuality Healthcare and Cigna to collaborate in 2009 because its employee health costs were rising by more than 10 percent a year, with costs projected to hit $1 billion companywide. The Oregon Public Employees' Benefit Board recently joined the effort.......In Atlantic City, Unite Here Health, a hotel workers' union health plan, persuaded AtlantiCare, a local health care system, to open a special, jointly funded clinic in 2007 to provide intensive outpatient care to high-cost patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease. The program, which the union is replicating in Las Vegas, achieved steep drops in patient smoking, blood pressure and diabetic blood sugar levels, according to AtlantiCare. By keeping patients healthier, it has reduced hospital admissions by 41 percent and emergency department visits by 48 percent. ....There are still many obstacles to such partnerships. It's often difficult to get traditional competitors and antagonists to collaborate, including sharing proprietary medical and financial data.....[b]Perhaps the biggest roadblock is the predominant fee-for-service system, which pays providers to deliver more services, rather than better, more efficient care.[/b] Health-care payers, including private insurers and Medicare, have been slow to change their payment models to reward outcomes rather than volume of care. That sometimes puts providers in the position of losing revenue by doing the right thing for patients. Dr. Donald Storey, who worked on the Seattle collaborative as an Aetna medical director and now is a vice president at Premera Blue Cross, blames insurers' reluctance to change on their having many different contracts with employers and providers. In addition, [b]not everyone wants a more efficient system. "One man’s waste is another man’s income[/b]," he says...Read complete article:[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/January/06/Collaborative-Efforts-Can-Save-Money-And-Improve-Care.aspx[/url][/size][/quote]Fri, 06 Jan 2012 02:59:49 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499707-1928-1.aspxI'm a student from the University of Arizona, helping 2 brilliant scientists to develop a promising new product. We need your help to understand how it could be positioned. Please take a moment to fill out our short poll. Thank you very much!Part 1http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XLJBCMBPart 2http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XVQPC72Sun, 01 Jan 2012 14:55:05 GMTDavid Talenfeldhttp://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499327-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From KAISER HEALTH NEWS[b]Public Can Be Swayed On Health Law’s Mandate, Survey Finds[/b]By Jordan RauDecember 21st, 2011, 12:01 PMThe individual mandate is the Affordable Care Act’s least popular provision and lies at the heart of the legal challenge to the law before the U.S. Supreme Court. But a new poll finds that public opinion can be swayed by how the mandate’s implications are described.In general, only 33 percent of Americans support the individual mandate, while 65 percent oppose it. Opposition swells to 74 percent after people are told the mandate is being challenged as unconstitutional, according this month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.) Opposition spikes to 80 percent when people are told the mandate “could mean that some people would be required to buy health insurance that they find too expensive or did not want.”[b]But opinions change when poll respondents are told that without the mandate, people might wait until they are seriously ill to obtain coverage, driving up insurance costs for everyone. Forty-seven percent support the mandate after being told this, while 45 percent oppose it. A larger plurality (49 percent) backs the mandate when told that without it, insurers could refuse to cover sick people and when told people would be excused from having to buy insurance if the cost would “consume too large a share of their income.”[/b]One pro-mandate argument tilts the public decisively in favor of the individual mandate. [b]Sixty-one percent of those surveyed support it when told most Americans would still get their coverage through their employers [/b]and thus wouldn’t be affected by the mandate.Overall, the public remains ambivalent about the law, with 43 percent opposing it, 41 favoring it, and 17 percent undecided or refusing to answer. The poll’s margin of error was +/- 3 percent, and it was conducted from December 8 through December 13 among 1,212 adults.[url]http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/12/public-can-be-swayed-on-health-laws-mandate-survey-finds/[/url][/size][/quote]Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:17:09 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499274-1928-1.aspxHello, I am a freshman from high school. I am participating in the Alameda County Science and Engineering Fair and am doing an epidemiology study on the correlation between rheumatoid arthritis and meat consumption. For this I have made surveys. Please fill this online anonymous survey which should take no longer than 2 minutes. Even if you do not have RA please fill this survey out. Here is the link(copy and paste into URL)http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22DMHBDJTNJ Thank You so much :)Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:15:45 GMTSraKaka1234http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499254-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]Merck to pay $24m in overcharging case[/b][i]In all, suing drug makers netted $47.4m[/i]By Robert WeismanGlobe Staff December 21, 2011Merck & Co. has agreed to pay $24 million to the state Medicaid program to settle long-running civil charges that it charged too much for some drugs, in the largest single-case Medicaid fraud settlement in Massachusetts history.....The state previously recovered a total of $23.4 million from the other 12 companies involved...........(the) Medicaid fraud division wanted to hold accountable drug companies that defraud taxpayers. ....The state’s eight-year-old complaint against the 13 companies accused them of knowingly submitting inflated prices to price-reporting services between 1995 and 2003. Initially, the suit named Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corp., a generic drug unit of the former Schering-Plough Corp.; it was bought by Merck for $41 billion in 2009.......The suit alleged that Warrick reported false and inflated prices to services such as First Data Bank for a trio of treatments for asthma and other respiratory diseases.More than 40 state Medicaid programs - including the one in Massachusetts - rely on the reporting services to determine their reimbursements to pharmacies that fill prescriptions. Commercial health insurance carriers also consult the services.......Massachusetts and other states, including Texas and Wisconsin - as well as the federal government - have mounted Medicaid fraud prosecutions against drug makers in recent years in areas such as false pricing, kickbacks, and off-label promotion of treatments.....Read complete article here:[url]http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2011/12/21/merck-pay-overcharging-case/05zJqmztpJGuD3elBs0HkM/story.html[/url][/size][/quote]Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:22:40 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499193-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=2][b]Supreme Court to hear arguments in March on healthcare law[/b][i]The justices schedule 5 1/2 hours of argument, the most for a case since the 1960s, a sign they see it as a landmark test of federal regulatory power[/i].By David G. Savage, Washington BureauDecember 19, 2011, 5:54 p.m.The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear arguments over three days in late March to decide the constitutionality of President Obama's healthcare law, another sign the justices see the case as a once-in-a-generation test of the federal government's regulatory power.The 5 1/2 hours of argument are believed to be the most time devoted to a single case since the 1960s............The court will decide whether the Constitution gave Congress the power to require all Americans to have health insurance by 2014.The justices will focus on a single lawsuit that began in Florida.........[b]The justices said last month that they would debate and decide four separate questions that arose from the one suit. Each of the issues will be argued as though it were a separate case.[/b][b]On Monday, March 26, the court will consider an issue that could derail a decision for now. [/b]A 19th century law known as the Anti-Injunction Act forbids judges from striking down taxes until the taxpayer has paid the tax and then sought a refund. Under the healthcare law, a citizen who has no health insurance in 2014 would have to pay a "penalty" on his or her tax form that is due in April 2015. If this penalty is deemed a "tax," the Anti-Injunction Act says no judge could rule on it until 2015.......On March 27, the court will .....Read more here:[url]http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-healthcare-20111220,0,7552715.story[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:49:29 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499124-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From the LOS ANGELES TIMES[b]New partnerships aim to lower Medicare costs, improve care[/b]By Noam N. LeveyDecember 19, 2011, 1:20 p.m.The Obama administration Monday announced new partnerships with 32 of the nation's leading medical providers that have agreed to work with the federal government to improve the quality and lower the cost of caring for Americans who rely on Medicare.The partnerships -- which are to reward doctors and hospitals that save money while improving care -- are a key initiative sparked by the healthcare law the president signed last year.And proponents believe that the strategy may offer the best hope for controlling federal healthcare spending, providing better incentives to medical providers that take greater responsibility for managing patients' care.Many conservatives, who view this skeptically, say Medicare should instead let private health plans selected by patients take charge of managing beneficiaries' care...........Many already have experience coordinating patients' care, so patients don't bounce between doctors and hospitals with little communication between providers, a major weakness of America's fragmented healthcare system.Under the terms of the partnerships, each provider will assume financial responsibility for the care of a group of Medicare beneficiaries.If the provider can provide that care more efficiently, it will share any savings with the federal government.To prevent providers from skimping on care -- a phenomenon that undermined public confidence in managed care a generation ago -- participants in the new program will have to hit a series of quality benchmarks designed to ensure that patients are getting good care. And Medicare beneficiaries unhappy with their care are free to leave anytime they want, according to the Department of Health and Human Services....Read complete article:[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-medicare-partnerships-20111219,0,4434762.story[/url][/size][/quote]Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:22:26 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499041-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]US won’t define required health care benefits[/b][i]States will set rules within wide categories[/i]By Robert PearNew York Times December 17, 2011In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said yesterday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits’’ that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans.Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories.The move could lead to significant state-by-state variations in what would be covered under the health care program, much like the current differences in state Medicaid programs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.By giving states the discretion to specify essential benefits, the Obama administration sought to deflect one of the most powerful arguments made by Republican critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul - that it was imposing a rigid, bureaucrat-controlled health system on Americans ..........Under this approach, each state would designate an existing health insurance plan as a benchmark. The benefits provided by that plan would be deemed essential, and all insurers would have to provide benefits of the same or greater value. .........Under the new law, each state is supposed to have an insurance exchange or marketplace where consumers can compare options and buy insurance.Health plans must offer the essential benefits, regardless of whether the coverage is sold inside or outside the exchange.The government will offer subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance through exchanges.The subsidies will help cover the cost of essential benefits. States can require insurers to provide additional benefits, but states will have to pay much of the extra cost.The law also says that the definition of essential benefits must not “discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability or expected length of life.’’Read complete article:[url]http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/12/17/won-define-required-health-care-benefits/m1SeNZf3fHD5MBDsmeMPXO/story.html[/url][/size][/quote]Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:48:39 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499022-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From Kaiser Health News[b]Early Exit For Early Retiree Insurance Program[/b]By Elizabeth Stawicki, Minnesota Public RadioDecember 16th, 2011, 8:04 AMThe clock is winding down on a little known – but very popular – program created by the Affordable Care Act to help employers offer health benefits to early retirees.The $5 billion early retiree reinsurance program has already paid out $4.5 billion, and the last day to submit claims for any of the remaining funds is Dec. 31.[b]The federal health law created the fund to give employers an incentive to keep providing health insurance coverage for retirees between the ages of 55 and 65.[u]If these younger retirees didn’t have employer-sponsored coverage, they might have a hard time finding affordable health insurance because of their age or chronic conditions[/u]. The fund was meant to be a bridge for early retirees until the health exchanges are up and running in 2014[/b] – but the money won’t last that long.“It was a popular program, which is why the money is running out as quick as it is,” says economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefits Research Institute.....The program has been popular with all kinds of employers. Thousands have participated. For example, Citigroup has received $8 million, Ernst & Young $3 million, the state of New York $88 million. About half of all recipients have been state and local governments...Read complete article here:[url]http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/12/early-exit-for-early-retiree-insurance-program/[/url][/size][/quote]Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:27:56 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4499020-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From Kaiser Health News[b]Health Costs A Key Worry For Those Nearing Retirement[/b]By Jessica MarcyDecember 15th, 2011, 5:07 PM.....[b]Those approaching retirement feel most concerned about whether they will be able to pay for their health care as they live increasingly longer, according to a poll[/b] released Thursday.....“Aging Nation: The Impact of America’s Senior Population” is part of an ongoing series of polls examining the impact of the current economic downturn. It found that the economy has been a “game changer” for near-retirees, many of whom have seen their houses decline in value and their stocks and other investments fluctuate sharply in volatile financial markets...According to the findings, [b]the top concern for people approaching retirement is the cost of health care, especially long-term care[/b]. People approaching retirement are also less confident than current retirees about their ability to afford long term care or assisted living.......[b]A sizable majority of respondents want to protect the current Medicare program[/b], even as Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., unveiled this week a new overhaul plan, which would give beneficiaries a fixed amount to use toward buying private coverage or to pay for a traditional fee-for-service plan. Sixty-two percent believe the government should maintain the current Medicare system, even if efforts to control costs mean the government ultimately has to limit providers’ payments and, in response, providers reduce the number of Medicare patients they accept. In comparison, 17 percent of respondents believe the program should be revamped to provide seniors with a lump sum to pay for private insurance, which could potentially lead to more out-of-pocket costs.....Read complete article here:[url]http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/12/health-costs-a-key-worry-for-those-nearing-retirement/[/url][/size][/quote]Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:06 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4498417-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]Patient Advocate Foundation Announces $9.3 Million Donation to their Co-Pay Relief (CPR) Program[/b]Dec. 9, 2011 -- Dec. 9, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) is pleased to announce that it has received a $9.3 million contribution, from an existing partner, providing further [b]support through its Co-Pay Relief Program (CPR) for patients suffering from[/b] nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, colon cancer, [b]rheumatoid arthritis[/b] and hepatitis C [b]who are unable to afford their medical co-payments.[/b] These funds are currently available to qualified patients.[b]PAF's CPR Program provides direct financial support for pharmaceutical co-payments to insured patients, including Medicare Part D beneficiaries, who financially and medically qualify.[/b] Since the program's inception in April 2004, CPR has distributed more than $130 million in assistance to more than 50,000 patients nationwide who were unable to afford their pharmaceutical co-payments."The Co-Pay Relief Program was developed after PAF recognized extreme increases each year in the number of patients seeking pharmaceutical co-pay assistance, despite the fact they were insured," said Nancy Davenport-Ennis, Founder and CEO of PAF. "Battling any disease is difficult, particularly now with the high out-of-pocket expenses that are routinely incurred by patients. Thanks to this extremely generous donation, we will be able to offer an even greater level of support to patients seeking help with their pharmaceutical co-payments."....................[b][u]Patient Advocate Foundation and its companion organization, the National Patient Advocate Foundation (NPAF), were founded on the principle that health care is a basic human need and shared social responsibility.[/u][/b] Annually, PAF receives thousands of contacts requesting information and assistance via their toll-free hotline, as well as online, with complete direct, sustained case management services provided to patients from all fifty states free of charge. For more information about PAF, visit www.patientadvocate.org or call toll free (800) 532-5274. For more information about PAF's Co-Pay Relief Program visit www.copays.org or call toll free (866) 512-3861.Read complete article at:[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/09/4112424/patient-advocate-foundation-announces.html#ixzz1gJ8mvIDv[/url][/size][/quote]Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:41:06 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4498096-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=2]From Webmd.comAmerica’s Health Report Card: Needs ImprovementDec. 6, 2011by Kathleen Doheny.....Overall, the picture is not good. Obesity, diabetes, and children living in poverty are all on the rise in the U.S. That bad news more than offset improvements such as fewer smokers and fewer deaths from heart disease.The foundation evaluated 23 different measures to assess health. Overall, the country's health did not improve in the last year, despite the growing number of people who have quit smoking. [b]For every person who quit smoking last year, one person became obese.[/b]Read more:[url]http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20111206/america-health-report-card-not-so-good[/url][/size][/quote][size=3]United Health Foundation board member and executive vice president and chief of medical affairs, UnitedHealth Group, Reed Tuckson, M.D., said:[/size][quote][size=2]"While this year's Rankings shows some important improvements, we also see some very alarming trends - particularly diabetes and obesity - that, left unchecked, will put further strain on our country's already strained health care resources.At a time when the nation, states and individual families are grappling with tightening budgets and growing health care expenses, this year's Rankings sends a loud wakeup call that the burden of preventable chronic disease will continue to get worse unless we take urgent action.Broad collaboration is the only path to health and financial progress. Government, the private sector, philanthropy and community-based organizations all need to join in a data-driven process to determine and address priorities."[/size][/quote][url]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238887.php[/url][size=3][b]List of 2011 Health Rankings of States[/b][url]http://www.americashealthrankings.org/mediacenter/mediacenter2.aspx[/url][b]Click on each state for more details:[/b][url]http://www.americashealthrankings.org/Rankings[/url][/size]Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:47:00 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4497132-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From the NEW YORK TIMES[b]Patent for Amgen Drug May Undercut Health Care Plan[/b]By ANDREW POLLACKPublished: November 23, 2011Amgen said Tuesday that a new patent had been granted that could protect its big-selling drug Enbrel from generic competition for 17 more years, a development that could undermine some of the savings contemplated in the federal health care legislation. Enbrel, which is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, was one of several biotechnology drugs that were expected to face competition in the next few years from copycat versions, eventually saving the health care system billions of dollars a year.The 2010 health care law established a way for such biologic drugs, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year, to face competition from near generic versions, which are often called biosimilars. A new law was needed because biologic drugs, which are made in living cells, were not covered by the 1984 law governing most pharmaceutical competition.[b][u]The main patent on Enbrel was to expire in October of next year[/u].[/b][u] But the new patent could stave off such biosimilar competition until Nov. 22, 2028.[/u] [b][u]By that time, Enbrel will have been on the market 30 years, far longer than the 20 years of protection expected in patent law.[/u][/b]Enbrel had sales of $3.5 billion in the United States and Canada in 2010, accounting for nearly one-quarter of Amgen’s revenue. The drug costs more than $20,000 a year. Pfizer sells Enbrel abroad. .........Read more:[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/business/amgens-new-enbrel-patent-may-undercut-health-care-plan.html?_r=1[/url][/size][/quote]Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:15:21 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4496649-1928-1.aspx[size=3]From Kaiserhealthnews.orgHealth Programs Facing Cutbacks After Super Committee’s Failure By Marilyn Werber Serafini and Mary Agnes CareyKHN Staff WritersNov 21, 2011[i]This is an update of a KHN story from Oct. 16.[/i]The failure of the congressional super committee could mean automatic budget cuts totaling billions of dollars for everything from Medicare to biomedical research, starting in 2013. But some health care interests stand to fare better than others.Two major health entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid, have protections under the law that set up the super committee. Automatic cuts would not affect Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, and Medicare spending would be cut by 2 percent – all from payments to hospitals and other care providers.But unless Congress steps in to rework the legislation mandating the automatic cuts, a series of across-the-board reductions would kick in 2013. The House and Senate appropriations committees will have to decide how to spread the cuts among various programs............the hit to .... health programs – those that depend on “discretionary” annual appropriations -- would be more severe. At stake is federal money that, among other things, helps HIV patients pay for lifesaving medication, funds biomedical research and helps prevent and respond to food-borne illnesses and disease outbreaks......Health advocates fear deep cuts will harm the public by reducing services and investment in several areas, including: [b]Public health[/b]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is particularly vulnerable because it was hit hard in the last round of budget cuts, according to Benjamin. In fiscal year 2011, federal funding for the CDC declined by $740 million. "They’ve already cut deeply into the bone at CDC," he said. The agency plays an important role in detecting and responding to emergencies such as tornadoes, hurricanes, food-borne illnesses and infectious disease outbreaks. It also helps fund state and local public health departments and labs, which Benjamin said is extremely important as states struggle with massive budget deficits. Since 2007, he said, 44,000 jobs in local and state health departments have disappeared. "What ultimately happens is you do less things. You inspect restaurants less. You inspect wells less," Benjamin said in an interview last month. The CDC also subsidizes the cost of vaccines for uninsured and underinsured children. The prices of standard childhood vaccines are rising, Benjamin said. [b]Medical research[/b]. U.S. investment in biomedical research is beginning to lag behind some other nations, namely China and India, at a time when robust funding could help with job creation, NIH Director Francis Collins said at a May hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. Collins said at the hearing that the BGI genome center in Shenzhen, China, "is capable of sequencing more than 10,000 human genomes a year. The capacity of that one Chinese institution now surpasses the combined capacity of all genome sequencing centers in the United States." Congress in recent years has given NIH small increases that haven’t kept pace with medical inflation, advocates claim. Funding actually declined in 2006. Lawmakers are still negotiating funding levels for fiscal year 2012, which began Oct. 1. Reductions in NIH funding "will lessen the chance of research breakthroughs in cancer. It will interrupt clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute," Dick Woodruff, vice president of federal relations and strategic alliances at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, said earlier. [b]Disease prevention. [/b]Prevention funding in the health law is already under fire, by both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans have pushed to repeal the funding and President Barack Obama said recently that he would support decreasing it by $3.5 billion over 10 years. The prevention fund has provided money for programs aimed at reducing obesity and tobacco use, among other public health priorities. But reductions are short-sighted, said Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for America's Health, since prevention canreduce future health costs.[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/October/16/Health-Programs-Face-Sharp-Automatic-Cuts-If-Super-Committee-Deadlocks.aspx[/url][/size]Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:27:24 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4496172-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From Bloomberg.com[b]Abbott Said to Agree to Pay $1.3 Billion for Depakote Suits[/b]By Jef Feeley and Margaret Cronin FiskOct 21, 2011Abbott Laboratories agreed to pay at least $1.3 billion to settle claims by the U.S. government and 24 states alleging the company illegally marketed its Depakote epilepsy drug......The settlement would be the third-largest illegal pharmaceutical marketing accord in U.S. history, behind the $2.3 billion Pfizer paid in 2009 over the marketing of its Bextra painkiller and other drugs and the $1.4 billion Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) paid the same year over sales of its Zyprexa anti-psychotic medicine. ...................[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-21/abbott-said-to-agree-to-pay-1-3-billion-to-end-depakote-suits.html[/url][/size][/quote][quote][size=3][b]Whistle-blower suits target Abbott's 'off-label' selling of epilepsy drug Depakote[/b]November 13, 2011By Ellen Gabler, Chicago Tribune reporter....Although doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs "off-label," as the practice is known, companies cannot market them in that way.....Even though settlements can be costly, some experts contend that drugmakers have little reason to stop off-label promotion because the penalties usually don't offset profits companies reap from off-label marketing............The lawsuits against Abbott allege that the company encouraged and trained sales reps to market Depakote off-label to nursing home directors, geriatric doctors and other long-term care facilities. The company also gave doctors illegal kickbacks to talk about off-label uses of the drug in an effort to boost sales, according to the lawsuits, which were filed in federal courts in Virginia, Illinois and the District of Columbia......One of Abbott's major pushes was to market Depakote as a replacement for anti-psychotic drugs such as Risperdal and Seroquel. Regulations for anti-psychotics are strict to prevent nursing homes and other facilities from overmedicating patients in order to manage them........Abbott sales representatives were trained to market Depakote for elderly patients with dementia so the medication could "fly under the radar screen" of federal regulations for nursing homes, meaning that Depakote would be easier to prescribe.During a nationwide conference call in 2007, an Abbott trainer allegedly coached sales reps on how to explain to doctors that they could miscode a patient's illness in order to bypass federal regulations. For example, a physician could code a patient as having "late onset of bipolar" or "underlying seizure disorder" instead of "agitation associated with dementia".....The complaints also allege that doctors were given kickbacks to talk about off-label uses of Depakote........Read complete article:[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-13/business/ct-biz-1113-abbott-20111113_1_whistle-blower-epilepsy-drug-illegal-marketing[/url][/size][/quote]Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:45:30 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4496232-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]FROM THE WASHINGTON POST[b]Supreme Court’s planned review of health-care law shocks Medicaid advocates[/b]By N.C. AizenmanNovember 16, 2011While there was no surprise over the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to review the 2010 health-care act’s insurance mandate, supporters of the law are reeling over the justices’ announcement that they will also consider a long-shot challenge to what many consider an even more central provision of the statute.That provision is the extension of Medicaid to cover a greater number of the poor. Twenty-six states say the expansion amounts to an unconstitutional coercion of state governments, which provide part of Medicaid’s funding.“The decision on this issue is probably the most important the Supreme Court will be making on the Affordable Care Act,” said Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer advocacy group that backs the law, referring to the statute by a common shorthand.“Probably the most important achievement of the law is that it is going to reduce the number of people who don’t have health insurance by tens of millions. . . . About half of these people will gain their coverage through the Medicaid expansion. So the review of this provision goes right to the heart of the major accomplishment of the Affordable Care Act,” Pollack said.Specifically, the law vastly broadens the minimum eligibility requirements for Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poor and disabled with a combination of federal and state dollars.Under the old rules, in exchange for federal grants that covered 50 to 80 percent of their Medicaid costs, states had to offer coverage to all children in families with annual incomes below the federal poverty level — $22,350 for a family of four — as well as to selected children with higher incomes and some adults with lower ones.Under the health-care law, beginning in 2014, states will be required to cover all residents with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, including childless adults, adding an estimated 17 million uninsured Americans to Medicaid’s rolls.Initially, the federal government will foot the entire bill for covering the newly eligible. Its share will gradually drop to 90 percent by 2020 and beyond.The 26 Republican state attorneys general and governors who filed the challenge to Medicaid expansion contend that these changes unconstitutionally force them to increase their spending on the program....Read complete article:[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/court-review-of-medicaid-expansion-could-have-massive-consequences/2011/11/15/gIQA1LwkSN_story.html[/url][/size][/quote]Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:38:11 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495942-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]A PRIMER ON THE ACA (Affordable Care Act)by John McDonoughNovember 13, 2011In this blog, I will write often about the national health reform law known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or ObamaCare. I will refer to well-known and less-recognized parts of the law. [b]In my talks around the nation, I find that while most people have strong opinions about the law, few believe they understand it. [/b]I also find that people appreciate seeing a framework to help them make sense of the ACA whether they like the law or not................So to help promote better understanding of the law, here is a brief primer to help you understand the ACA as a whole.........Just like a book has chapters and a baseball game has innings, a federal law has "titles" that divide the statute into logical sections. The ACA has 10, and outlining these 10 provides a good path to understanding the essential architecture and logic of the law. So, without further ado, here is a list of the ten, followed by short descriptions of each:1. Quality, Affordable Coverage for All Americans (private health insurance)2. The Role of Public Programs (Medicaid)3. Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care (Medicare and quality improvement)4. Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health5. Health Care Workforce6. Transparency and Program Integrity (fraud and abuse and a lot more)7. Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies (biopharmaceutical similars)8. CLASS Act (disability support)9. Revenue Provisions10. Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All (amendments to titles I-IX)A quick scan of titles reveals the law's breadth and depth. Few parts of the U.S. health care system are untouched by the ACA. [b]The U.S. has the most complex health care system among all developed nations, and comprehensive reform of that system will be complex as well.[/b] Here are some key details on each title:Read:[url]http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2011/11/a_primer_on_the_aca_aka_obamac.html[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:57:05 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495876-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMESSupreme Court to review Obama healthcare law ahead of election[/b]By David G. SavageNovember 14, 2011The Supreme Court agreed today to decide the fate of President Obama’s healthcare law and its requirement that all Americans have basic health insurance by 2014.......In agreeing to hear the cases, the court said it will decide four questions that have arisen: Is it constitutional for Congress to require all persons to have health insurance by 2014? If this provision is struck down, can it be “severed” from the law or must the entire statute fall? Is it unfair to the states to force them to pay the extra cost of expanding the Medicaid program? Finally, should a decision be put off until 2015 when the first taxpayers would pay a penalty for not having health insurance?.....The justices expect to hear arguments in the cases in March.......The Constitution says Congress may “regulate commerce,” and Democrats say national regulation of the health insurance market was needed to control costs, spread the risk and make sure all persons could buy insurance, even if they had a preexisting medical condition.The Republican governors and state attorneys who challenged the law argued that the power to regulate commerce does not extend to requiring unwilling buyers to purchase insurance. They also allege that the law’s expansion of Medicaid will force the states to take on extra burdens.Sponsors of the law estimate that it will extend health coverage to 16 million more children and low-income adults through expanding Medicaid, and the federal government will pay more 90% of the added cost. The Republican-led states object nonetheless and say they are being forced to accept an unfair deal.Former Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement, a George W. Bush administration veteran, will represent the Republican-led states, while the Obama administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr., will defend the law.In his appeal, Clement said the law is “unprecedented” in its scope and “raises constitutional issues that go to the heart of our system of limited government.”Verrilli said the mandate for all to have health insurance is needed to deal with freeloaders.Each year, individuals without insurance “shift billions of dollars of health care costs to others,” including the taxpayers, he said. In 2008, the uninsured cost hospitals, insurers and taxpayers $43 billion, he said...........Read complete article:[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scotus-healthcare-20111114,0,2500803.story[/url][/size][/quote]Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:32:58 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495324-1928-1.aspx[size=3]From the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY[b]Patient Assistance Programs for Rheumatology-Related Drugs[/b]A list of RA related drugs, manufacturers and program contact information.[url]http://www.rheumatology.org/practice/clinical/patients/acrast.asp[/url][/size]Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:04:35 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495268-1928-1.aspx[size=3]I saw a post on another board that seemed to be quite helpful so I copied it below. God bless.I wanted to share an idea for anyone that is on brand name prescriptions, AND has private insurance (NOT medicare).Many manufacturers, including those that make the biologics so many of us are on, have co-pay assistance that will pay for most of your out of pocket expenses. Chances are that if you have seen an advertisement for the med, there is co-pay assistance. Less likely to find assistance for those meds that are brand name but not advertised.For example, two of my meds have assistance (Frova, and Simponi), that means that I don't have to pay any of my co-pay for those meds--to the tune of about $220 a month savings. Not all brand name meds have this, but a large chunk do.Why do they "generously" do this? They are making their money from the insurance's payment--not from your co-pay. If you can't afford your co-pay, they don't get the (usually far larger sum) money from the insurance, but by footing the proportionally small bill for your side of it, they gain far more in the long run.Some places to look and suggestions:1. Do a quick internet search for your brand name and "financial assistance" or "co-pay assistance". This is your best bet and should be from the manufacturer.2. Ask your doctor if he/she is aware of any assistance.3. Be persistent--sometimes getting signed up for assistance takes time and energy and can be frustrating, especially when the assistance card (or whatever tracking system is being used) doesn't want to ring up at the pharmacy register. Eventually it WILL work, and will leave you with more money in your pocket!I believe that most of the RA biologics have co-pay assistance, as well as some assistance for those without any insurance. Outside of the RA meds, I am only familiar with a few others (Frova and Silenor), but a quick search could be very profitable! I am positive that the following biologics have assistance as I have been on them before with the financial help:-Cimzia-Rituxan (only covers cost of the med, not for the facility fee or additional pre-meds)-Humira-Enbrel-Simponi-(maybe Remicade and Orencia, but I believe that it is like Rituxan and only covers the medicine cost)I wish there was more help for people without insurance or with Medicare/Medicaid, but the same rules apply for searching for help--search for the med name and see what the site says. The more a medicine is advertised, the more likely it is that they have assistance available in my experience.Good luck, and I hope that someone gets some use out of a midnight ramble![/size]Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:42:55 GMTGrandpavanhttp://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495290-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]From Kaiser Health NewsRomney's Plan Would Fundamentally Change Medicare [/b]By Mary Agnes Carey and Marilyn Werber SerafiniKHN Staff WritersNov 08, 2011Mitt Romney's plan to overhaul Medicare follows a familiar Republican prescription: Use the power of the marketplace to bring down costs and improve care.......The GOP presidential candidate's "premium support" plan would provide a set amount of money to beneficiaries, allowing them to shop around for health coverage. Romney has promised that beneficiaries who like the current fee-for-service Medicare plan can opt for that instead of purchasing private insurance..........Romney has given few specifics about his plan......The lack of details in Romney's plan leaves an array of possible scenarios for what it might mean to seniors in the future. It does not specify how much money the federal government would contribute to cover their premium costs, whether that support would rise enough each year to keep up with health care costs, and what benefits all Medicare plans – traditional and private – would be required to provide. ........To make traditional Medicare and private plans compete on equal footing, Medicare fee-for-service plans would have to change from the current standard premiums for Part B coverage for doctor bills and other outpatient services to premiums that vary from one region of the country to another, as private insurance premiums do..................Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumer group Families USA, predicted that Medicare's oldest and sickest beneficiaries would be worse off under Romney's plan. With limits on the government's contributions for premiums, seniors could end up with fewer benefits for the same or higher costs, he said. While younger, healthier seniors would move to private plans, some of which would have lower premiums than traditional Medicare plans, older and sicker people would remain with fee-for-service because it is what they are used to and they want the guarantee of comprehensive benefits, even if they have to pay more for it, Pollack predicted......Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, a N.Y.-based consumer advocacy group, discounts Romney's claims that having more seniors in private plans will save Medicare money. The Medicare Advantage program, he said, "has not brought down costs, so to think that there's a new version that willy nilly by itself will bring down costs is a fantasy....It's really cover for the real goal, and that is to end Medicare as we know it and by doing that, have more money come out of the pockets of consumers and save the federal government money."...................In addition to transforming Medicare into a premium support program, Romney would raise the program's eligibility age to reflect the fact that Americans are living longer. But he has premised all of his changes on first repealing the 2010 health law. That could leave some retirees without health coverage, because older people are more likely than younger ones to have chronic, pre-existing medical conditions. Without the health law's requirement that insurers cover most people, many could not obtain affordable coverage.Read complete article:[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/November/09/Romney-Plan-Would-Fundamentally-Change-Medicare.aspx[/url][/size][/quote]Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:40:05 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495288-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From the LOS ANGELES TIMESDr. Wal-Mart: May offer more primary healthcare, seeks partnersNovember 9, 2011 | 10:20 amIt’s not enough to be a clothing store, grocer, pharmacy, auto servicer and more. It looks as if Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now plans to play doctor too.The largest retailer in the country recently sent out a request for information to potential partners to help it offer a range of medical services without the traditionally steep prices.In the 14-page document, Wal-Mart said that it “intends to build a national, integrated, low-cost primary care healthcare platform that will provide preventative and chronic care services … in an affordable and accessible way.”Among the areas Wal-Mart is exploring: HIV management, obesity and arthritis monitoring, depression care, pregnancy and STD testing, drug screening, physical exams and even stress and sleep help.Wal-Mart said it would select partner vendors for clinical care, diagnostic and preventative services, health and wellness products and more by mid-January.Company spokeswoman Tara Raddohl confirmed that Wal-Mart had sent out the request but added that the announcement is “certainly not indicating we are offering medical services beyond our current Clinic operations.”All this not long after Wal-Mart said that it would no longer give new part-time employees health insurance benefits.[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/walmart-may-offer-more-primary-care-health-services.html[/url] [/size][/quote]Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:20:26 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4495113-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From the LOS ANGELES TIMES[b]GOP sees disconnect between universal phone, healthcare coverage[/b][i]Most conservatives are perfectly at ease with the idea of requiring all phone users to pay a fee to provide universal coverage for telecom services. But they balk at the idea when it comes to health insurance.[/i]By David LazarusNovember 8, 2011Conservatives tend to become apoplectic at the thought of the government requiring people to pay for health insurance or any form of public program designed to provide universal coverage.Yet most of those same conservatives — including Republican lawmakers — are perfectly at ease with the idea of requiring that all phone users pay a fee intended to provide universal coverage for telecom services........$4.5 billion worth — will now be dedicated primarily to ensuring that rural communities have access to high-speed Internet services.This is an important change, and the FCC was wise to make it. Federal subsidies for traditional phone service date to the 1930s. The so-called Universal Services Fund was established in 1997 and raises billions of dollars annually to defray phone companies' costs in extending phone lines to far-flung areas.But universal phone service is no longer an issue. These days, a more pressing concern is extending broadband Internet access to all homes.Almost one-third of the country currently lacks such access, the FCC says............it was heartening to see many Republicans acknowledge — some publicly, some tacitly — that a levy on phone service is a practical and pragmatic means of achieving universal broadband coverage.So why doesn't that same thinking apply to healthcare?"The philosophical basis is the same," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for the digital rights group Public Knowledge. "Everyone should be covered and everyone should have to pay for it."..."Many of these guys who scream about socialized medicine represent largely rural states, and without these subsidies, there wouldn't be universal phone and broadband service," he said. "Basically, the phone subsidies are a form of corporate socialism."....The public cost of universal health coverage would run significantly more than a few bucks a month. But when it comes to mandates, the principle is the same: spreading the risks and expenses evenly among all members of society....The FCC, in refocusing the Universal Services Fund, is attempting to compensate for the shortcomings of the marketplace. Telecom companies find it too expensive to extend service to rural areas, so the rest of us, under the auspices of a government program, step in to guarantee that no one is left out.A health insurance mandate achieves the same goal, compensating for insurers' fears that people would otherwise wait until they get sick before obtaining coverage.....Read complete article:[url]http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-lazarus-20111108,0,1378330.column[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:41:15 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4491704-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]Plan to bring Canadian health care to Montana by Sarah Kliff at 01:30 PM ET, 10/03/2011[i]Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is no stranger to aggressive, and controversial, attempts at health reform. In 1999, he began chartering much-publicized buses to Canada, where seniors could fill prescriptions at lower costs. He’s asked for permission to create a Medicaid drug prescription program for all his citizens (Health and Human Services said no.) and to import medications from Canada. [/i][i]In advance of health reform, Schweitzer has a new idea: build a statewide, universal health-care system, modeled after that of Saskatchewan, the Canadian province just north of Montana. ............[/i][b]Gov. Brian Schweitzer: [/b]I’ve spent a great deal of time studying a lot of different countries’ health-care systems. This time around, I’m looking at a system straight north of us. In Saskatchewan, they have had universal health care since 1946, 20 years before the rest of Canada. We’re pretty similar: Montana has 990,000 residents and Saskatchewan has just over 1 million. They’re 10 percent Indian, we’re 7 percent. Their average age is just two months different than ours. But [b][u]they have a health-care system where they have two years longer and have lower infant mortality rates[/u].[/b]....... I looked at what they spent and what we do. They have a slightly larger population and[b] for every man, child and woman in their health-care system, the cost is about $4 billion. [/b]Remember, they live two years longer and have a lower infant mortality rate. [b]In Montana, it’s about $8 billion....[/b]...Read more:[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/interview-schweitzers-plan-to-bring-canadian-health-care-to-montana/2011/10/03/gIQA025JIL_blog.html[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:05:07 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4493014-1928-1.aspx[quote][font=Times New Roman][size=3]From healthbeatblog.org.[b]A CLASS Act Failure[/b]October 17, 2011...........The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act ...... included in the larger health reform bill passed in 2010 and quietly abandoned for good last week, would have created a voluntary, public insurance program to which Americans could contribute each month so that they could receive help paying for long-term care in the future.[b]This abandonment of what Obama saw as an ultimately unworkable program leaves open the question of just how the nation will pay for the long-term care needs of some 20 million Americans.[/b] As Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) testified at a March hearing, [b]only about 8 to 10 percent of Americans have private long-term care insurance coverage.[/b] [b]Most people assume it’s not something they will need until they are elderly—even though some 40% of the 10 million Americans who now need long-term care are under 65. [/b]Also, commercial policies are often expensive, end up providing inadequate coverage and with few consumer protections in place, have a long history of fraud and abuse.By default, [b]Medicaid now foots the bill for more than 40% of all long-term care[/b]. As Harkin testified; the over-stressed joint state-federal program “now pays [b]more than $110 billion—$110 billion—annually for long-term care for both the elderly and the disabled.[/b]” ....[b]Everyone agrees that the enormous burden that long-term care places on Medicaid is unsustainable.[/b] Already many states have cut reimbursement rates to providers........[b]Without a CLASS-type program, we are left with a serious gap in coverage for seniors and the disabled, who are now living longer but not necessarily into a healthy old age. In total, some 70% of people over 65 will require some long-term care during their lifetimes. Medicare[/b] will pay for multiple hospitalizations; life-saving but often unwanted interventions like feeding tubes and respirators; cancer surgery and testing ad nauseum—all during the last year or so of life. But except in rare cases, it [b]does not pay for long-term care in the home or community............[/b]Where do we go from here? [b]Long-term care remains a pressing problem without an imminent solution. [/b]As our population ages, more adults with chronic, multiple medical conditions will require care—many for years. We know it costs an average of $75,000 a year (with great variability across the nation) to house a frail elderly or disabled person in a nursing home...........The CLASS benefit was a modest one; ranging from a minimum of $50 up to $75 a day—about $27,000 a year. The idea was that this benefit would cover several hours of unskilled care—help with bathing, dressing, food shopping and other tasks that might allow an elderly or disabled person to stay living at home longer. It’s an idea that still makes a lot of sense economically—especially as states struggle to meet pressing Medicaid costs. But without a mandate or an incentive giving younger people a reason to buy in to a long-term care insurance plan, the government wasn’t able to guarantee solvency........The problem of paying for long-term care has not gone away. Anyone cheering the demise of CLASS and claiming a victory for the anti-reform (and anti-Obama) side is deluded; this issue has no “side” and we’ve merely punted it further down the road. We are all going to get old.[b] The vast majority of us will require long-term care services in the future and most will require government or other outside help to pay for it.[/b]To read complete article:[url]http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2011/10/a-class-act-failure.html#more[/url][/size][/font][/quote]Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:44:03 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4494111-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]“[b]Affordable Health Care for All Americans” by Stuart Butler[/b] (1989)Heritage FoundationFrom page 6, “[b][u]Mandate All Households to Obtain Adequate Insurance”[/u][/b]Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. [b]Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.[/b][b]This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals,[/b] not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services – even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.[b]A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.[/b][url]http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf[/url][/size][/quote]Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:32:30 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4493961-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES[b]Insurers, employers offer incentives to promote healthful habits[/b][i]Growing numbers of companies are offering money and merchandise to get workers to exercise, lose weight or meet other health goals to cut costs.[/i]By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times October 25, 2011, 3:46 a.m.......Growing numbers of employers and insurance companies, stung by continued hikes in healthcare costs, are offering employees money and merchandise to lead healthier lives. Advocates of the approach are betting that preventive action will keep workers productive and hold down healthcare bills for expensive diseases like cancer and diabetes.Economists say it's too soon to tell whether rewards will be successful in the long run, but corporate leaders say the strategy is already paying off by helping to slow the growth of their medical costs.And experts expect President Obama's healthcare overhaul to expand the use of incentives by upping the amount of money employers can use to entice workers to see the doctor.........The incentive programs are likely to get a boost from the federal healthcare overhaul, which will allow employers in 2014 to reimburse workers as much as 30% of the cost of health insurance for losing weight, controlling cholesterol levels or meeting other health targets. Currently, the federal reimbursement limit is 20%.......But not everyone is sold on the idea.Some healthcare experts say that rewards are unfair to low-income workers who struggle to stay healthy because they may work longer hours, have limited access to high-quality food and endure more stress from economic insecurity.The result, critics say, is that disadvantaged employees may wind up paying more for health benefits than colleagues with access to gyms and other amenities...........Read complete article:[url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-healthcare-rewards-20111025,0,7767840.story?page=1[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:23:39 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4493947-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]FROM KAISER HEALTH NEWSGroups Thank ‘Obamacare,’ And Not Sarcastically[/b]By Andrew VillegasOctober 25th, 2011, 11:28 AM“Thanks Obamacare.”Usually Americans hear that phrase only in the most sarcastic contexts. Opponents of the health reform law have hung the “Obamacare” moniker on it to belittle the measure as nothing more than an attempt to fix America’s health care problems – varied as they are – with a one-size-fits-all approach they say expands the reach of government to never-before-seen levels.We hear it used almost daily by Republican candidates for president, who have picked up the theme and taken it one step farther — to ”Romneycare,” which has become the negative label for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts. Former GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty even coined the phrase “Obamneycare” to link the state law Romney signed while governor to the federal law advanced by President Barak Obama.This is not the first time “-care” has been used to describe a health reform effort. Back in the 1990s, “Hillarycare,” named for the former first lady and now secretary of state, was used to describe the Clinton administration’s attempt at overhauling the health care system. In the 2008 presidential primary elections, the GOP candidates in turn linked “Hillarycare” to Romney to try to unseat him as the odds-on favorite candidate.But now, two nonprofit advocacy groups, ProgressNow Colorado Education and the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, are trying to take back “Obamacare,” painting it as a positive brand in a new campaign (complete with its own Twitter feed and hash tag, #thanksobamacare) launched Monday. The campaign highlights 10 reasons people should be thankful for the health law. Among them: allowing people younger than 26 to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans and stopping insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions (the law does the same for adults beginning in 2014).The effort also comes with a video, below, which places a special emphasis on the “-care” part of “Obamacare.”[url]http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/10/groups-thank-obamacare-and-not-sarcastically/[/url][/size][/quote]Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:09:30 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4493764-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]FROM THE WASHINGTON POST[b]Health-care coverage still eludes some part-time workers[/b]October 22, 2011....Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, (will) not offer health benefits to new part-time employees, the company said Friday.But perhaps it shouldn’t have been so surprising, since the retailer was among a minority of U.S. businesses. [b]Only 16 percent of employers offer health insurance to part-timers,[/b] according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. [b]The number increases to 42 percent among large employers[/b]. Wal-Mart has provided health insurance for part-time workers since 1996.....During the health-care debate, Wal-Mart came out as an early supporter of an employer mandate to require that companies provide insurance for their workers.The retailer partnered with the Service Employees International Union to write a June 2009 letter to the White House on the issue. [b]“We are for shared responsibility,” they wrote. “Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution. We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage.”[/b]The Affordable Care Act that Congress passed in 2010 does include such a provision. It requires large employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance. If an employer does not, it is subject to a fine........The law, however, is largely silent on the subject of part-time workers........For those who do not receive employer-sponsored insurance, the health law creates new options. Beginning in 2014, new marketplaces called health exchanges will serve as a more organized and easier way to buy health insurance.........“The new Affordable Insurance Exchanges and tax credits will give part-time workers quality, affordable insurance choices and the security they need and deserve,” said Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department [/size]Read complete article:[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/October/23/WalMart-insurance-plan-and-open-season.aspx[/url][/quote][quote][size=3]Wal-Mart cuts some health care coverageOctober 21, 2011......Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said that the decision was not in response to the new health care law but rather to the harsh realities of escalating health care costs....."Health care costs are continuing to go up faster than anyone would like," said Rossiter. "It is a difficult decision to raise rates. But we are striking a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage."........Rossiter also noted that while eligibility rules for new part-time associates have changed, it will not change for current associates. For those who average 24 hours to 33 hours a week, their children will still be able to be covered. Their spouses had never been eligible.[/size][url]http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QGQQO02.htm[/url][/quote]Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:30:27 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4493570-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]Republicans lay groundwork for healthcare repeal[/b][i]Seeing a chance to regain power next year, GOP activists are making sure they're ready to act on a full rollback of President Obama's overhaul.[/i]By Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau October 17, 2011Republican activists, increasingly optimistic they can win the White House and Senate next year, are beginning to lay the groundwork for a multi-pronged campaign in 2013 to roll back President Obama's sweeping healthcare overhaul.The push includes an effort to pressure Republican candidates to commit to using every available tool to fully repeal the law..........Other conservative healthcare experts are developing an alternative to the law, an effort that could protect Republicans from past critiques that their healthcare plans left tens of millions of Americans without medical coverage.......A Republican replacement plan could build off a 2009 House GOP plan.........which ........relied largely on freeing insurers from government requirements.That would slow rising premiums for many consumers, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But deregulation would leave Americans with less comprehensive insurance and could mean higher bills for sick consumers, the budget office estimated.At the same time, the GOP plan offered little help to Americans who couldn't afford coverage and would have left 52 million Americans without health insurance in 2019, virtually the same number as today.....................many conservatives, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), have long favored replacing the current healthcare system, in which most Americans rely on their employers to get health insurance, a system perpetuated by tax breaks for employers and workers.They believe that consumers should instead get tax credits that they could use to shop for health insurance on their own.Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, championed a similar proposal during his campaign. .........The bigger challenge confronting Republicans in 2013 may be political.GOP proposals to scrap the employer-based healthcare system have never won wide public acceptance.Even repeal could stoke a popular backlash. Although close to half of Americans say they oppose the new law, large majorities support key parts, including the guaranteed coverage, new aid to seniors on Medicare and assistance for low- and moderate-income Americans.........To read complete article see:[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-healthcare-20111018,0,7765555.story[/url][/size][/quote]Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:37:05 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4493762-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution[b]Insurance exchange could ease health care cost for small businesses[/b]October 22, 2011......relief could be on the way.... with the creation of a small business insurance exchange in Georgia that experts say could reduce costs for employers and increase plan options for workers.A committee of local health care experts, lawmakers and community leaders is exploring ways to develop an exchange -- required starting in 2014 under the federal health care law -- and will deliver final legislative recommendations to the governor by Dec. 15. The group is also looking at an exchange for individuals........[b]Statewide, 96 percent of all firms have between two and 100 employees, with[u] less than half offering employment-based insurance[/u][/b], according to a recent report by the committee. Some [b]39 percent of Georgians whose family head works at a firm with less than 10 employees have employer-based coverage[/b]. That [b]compared with nearly 70 percent with coverage at companies with 100-plus workers[/b], the report shows. The majority of small businesses in Georgia that do have benefits offer high-deductible plans, which means greater out-of-pocket costs for workers........[b][u]Small employers face higher insurance premiums because they can’t spread risk over a large group and have higher per-member administrative costs.[/u][/b][b]Nationally, [u]small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than large firms for the same health insurance policy[/u][/b], according to government estimates. From 2000 to 2009, the rate of firms with less than 10 people offering insurance fell from 57 percent to 46 percent. And[b] 11 million of America’s uninsured work for businesses with less than 25 workers.[/b][b]The idea behind state health insurance exchanges is to pool small businesses and their employees with millions of other Americans to increase purchasing power and competition in the market.[/b]Open to businesses with up to 100 workers, exchanges would be designed to allow employers to choose their contribution levels to employee coverage, save money by spreading administrative costs across more companies and offer more plan choices from multiple insurers to fit people’s individual needs. All plans would meet federal and state quality standards.......Read complete article:[url]http://www.ajc.com/business/insurance-exchange-could-ease-1208016.html[/url][/size][/quote]Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:12:45 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4492896-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3][b]Many Health Programs Face Sharp Automatic Cuts If Super Committee Deadlocks [/b]By Marilyn Werber Serafini and Mary Agnes CareyKHN Staff WritersOct 16, 2011Federal funding for medical research, disease prevention and a host of public health initiatives could be sharply reduced if the congressional super committee fails to agree on a deficit-reduction package, triggering automatic cuts. Health advocates fear deep cuts will harm the public by reducing services and investment in several areas, including:[b][u]Public health[/u].[/b] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is particularly vulnerable because it was hit hard in the last round of budget cuts.....The agency plays an important role in detecting and responding to emergencies such as tornadoes, hurricanes, food-borne illnesses, and infectious disease outbreaks. It also helps fund state and local public health departments and labs, which Benjamin said is extremely important as states struggle with massive budget deficits. Since 2007, he said, 44,000 jobs in local and state health departments have disappeared. "What ultimately happens is you do less things. You inspect restaurants less. You inspect wells less."[b][u]Medical research[/u][/b]. U.S. investment in biomedical research is beginning to lag behind some other nations, namely China and India, at a time when robust funding could help with job creation.......Congress in recent years has given NIH small increases that haven’t kept pace with medical inflation, advocates claim. Funding actually declined in 2006. Lawmakers are still negotiating funding levels for fiscal year 2012, which began Oct. 1. House appropriators are considering a small increase in NIH funding, while their Senate counterparts are contemplating a small reduction. Reductions in NIH funding "will lessen the chance of research breakthroughs......[b][u]Disease prevention[/u][/b]. Prevention funding in the health law is already under fire, by both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans have pushed to repeal the funding and President Barack Obama said recently that he would support decreasing it by $3.5 billion over 10 years. The prevention fund has provided money for programs aimed at reducing obesity and tobacco use, among other public health priorities.[b]Reductions are short-sighted, said Jeffrey Levi[/b], executive director of Trust for America's Health. "[b]The irony here is that there is so much focus on health care costs, yet there is significant evidence that the kind of prevention programs that the [health law] is supporting can have a positive impact on health care utilization and costs[/b]," he said. Read complete article:[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/October/16/Health-Programs-Face-Sharp-Automatic-Cuts-If-Super-Committee-Deadlocks.aspx[/url][/size][/quote]Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:33:38 GMTJoy125http://arthritisfoundation.portspaces.com/forums/Topic4492797-1928-1.aspx[quote][size=3]Why the Jump in Health Insurance Premiums?By Daniel J. DeNoonWebMD Health NewsReviewed by Laura J. Martin, MDOct. 14, 2011 -- What's behind the 2011 surge in the cost of job-based health insurance?[b]Over the past decade, workers' share of family health insurance premiums[u] has gone from under $1,800 to over $4,100 a year, up 131% since 2001.[/u] [/b]Employers now contribute an average $15,000, up 113%.That increase has been sneaking steadily upward each year. But last year saw an 8% increase in individual plan premiums and a 9% increase for family plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.Who's to blame? Read more:[url]http://www.webmd.com/medicare/news/20111014/why-the-jump-in-health-care-premiums[/url][/size][/quote]I recopied that link, hope it works now.Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:49:07 GMTJoy125