Thursday, March 29, 2012

How to Lose Weight Fast - The truth about Fat Burning Foods and Weight Loss Programs

http://tinyurl.com/4ypwpkg - More Video by Isabel (TheDietSolutionProgram)
Another Video by Isabel that is Loaded with Weight Loss Tips and how to lose weight fast.

She also talks about Fat Burning Foods and foods that help you lose weight in the video. If you're looking to lose weight fast or how to lose belly fat then you might want to check out the video. It's a little bit longer but very worth while.

If you're looking for some Diet plans or looking for some weight loss programs the link also some some options for you.

Did I mention that she also teaches about fat burning foods, fat burner, high protein foods and some of the best way to lose weight!


View the original article here

Health care costs to exceed $20,000 per family in 2012

Three days of Supreme Court arguments have left the fate of the 2010 health care reform law uncertain. What is certain, however, is that health care costs are continuing to eat away at consumers' budgets.

The cost to cover the typical family of four under an employer plan is expected to top $20,000 on health care this year, up more than 7% from last year, according to early projections by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc. In 2002, the cost was just $9,235, the firm said.

The projected increase marks the fifth year in a row that health care costs will rise between 7% and 8% annually.

While employers still shoulder a majority of health care expenses, employees have been paying a larger portion of the total amount every year, according to Lorraine Mayne, principal and consulting actuary with Milliman.

Rising costs for employees is part of a long-term trend, said Deborah Chollet, senior fellow and health economist with Washington-based Mathematica Policy Research. "Employers have been unwilling to have their benefits costs rise at the rate that health care costs have risen," she said.

As a result, they have been passing along extra costs to employees in the form of higher deductibles and co-pays, as well as more expensive premiums.

Last year, workers' out-of-pocket costs rose 9.2% to $3,280 for a typical family of four, according to Milliman.

Those who buy insurance without an employer-provider plan are shelling out even more, Mayne said. The average premium for a family in a non-group plan was $7,102 in 2010, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

Small business owner Matthew Cheng's health care costs rose by $600 to $7,891 last year. This year, he's looking at a much steeper bill.

What health care reform is (and isn't) doing now

In January, Cheng's wife, Talya, gave birth to a baby 12 weeks prematurely and their costs have already jumped to $12,036. As a result, Cheng has had to cut business expenses, such as advertising, to afford their care.

"Because of our baby, the health care bill is always paid first," he said.

Over the past five years, health care costs have comprised a bigger portion of the country's household budgets as expenses continue to rise and incomes remain stagnant, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Health care, including insurance, medical services, drugs and medical supplies, accounted for 6.6% of the household budget in 2010 -- the fifth consecutive year of increases.

The Obama administration's Affordable Care Act aims to bring health care costs under control. Passed in 2010 and currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, the law is also meant to help more people get affordable health insurance coverage, including the 50 million uninsured today.

Part of the act, the individual mandate, would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a financial penalty. The individual mandate would help spread health care costs to a larger pool of individuals, thus potentially lowering costs.

Should the Supreme Court strike down the Affordable Care Act, consumers can expect that percentage to increase even more as costs rise "very fast," Chollet said. Without the law's measures to promote preventative care and spread costs across a larger population, overall costs will rise, she explained.

Those without employer-provided health care coverage, like Cheng, will likely pay more for their plans because there will be fewer restrictions on insurers. Individuals could be denied coverage altogether because of a pre-existing health condition or offered coverage only at a very high premium, both of which are prohibited under the Affordable Care Act, Chollet added.

Those with insurance through their employer will also pay more to cover the growing number of uninsured, she said.

Still, even if the Affordable Care Act goes through, it will do little to lessen the financial burden for those who are already insured, Mayne said. "It will take other changes to really bend the cost curve and make substantial changes in health care costs," she said.

View this article on CNNMoney

More From CNNMoney.com


View the original article here

Raw Audio: High Court Dissects Health Care Act

Several Supreme Court justices seemed receptive Wednesday to the idea that portions of President Barack Obama's health care law can survive even if the court declares the centerpiece unconstitutional. (March 28)


View the original article here

Health Alliance Medical Plans Selects McKesson Analytics Advisor

Health Alliance Medical Plans, a prominent provider-sponsored health insurer in the Midwest, has signed an agreement with McKesson renewing its license for several care management solutions while adding McKesson Analytics Advisor™. McKesson Analytics Advisor is a powerful analytics and reporting tool that helps turn utilization, network, member and claim level data into actionable clinical and financial intelligence to support the organization’s business decisions as well as the clinical decisions of its providers. Together, these solutions create a platform that fully informs care management processes while enabling payers and providers to more easily optimize decision making.

Established in 1980 and headquartered in Urbana, Illinois, Health Alliance administers health plans for more than 320,000 members primarily in Illinois and Iowa. In Illinois, it is the top-ranked health plan for its commercial and Medicare plans, based on National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) rankings.

“Health Alliance has worked closely with McKesson for twelve years. The company has been a consistent, collaborative partner,” explained Health Alliance chief medical officer Robert Parker. “As a provider-sponsored organization, we have always understood the importance of getting accurate and current information to our affiliated medical professionals in time to inform sound decisions. McKesson’s solutions have been a fundamental part of our success in that role.”

Health Alliance chose McKesson Analytics Advisor because of its existing partnership with McKesson, as well as the solution’s many provider-friendly attributes. For example, McKesson Analytics Advisor supplies automated communication tools that help providers reach out to their patients to proactively close gaps in care, as well as an easy-to-use interface that gives providers better visibility into quality, efficiency and pay-for-performance metrics. In addition, the clinical and financial intelligence solution has become well known for its ability to reduce pharmacy spend by identifying appropriate alternatives to patients’ current drug regimens.

“Because McKesson Analytics Advisor was designed by providers and proven in the provider setting, it establishes the strong, credible information foundation upon which payers and providers can build their performance improvement initiatives. Working together, payers and providers can more effectively balance healthcare quality and efficiency, which has been a guiding principle for Health Alliance since it was founded,” said James Evans, vice president, Payment Management, McKesson Health Solutions.

Also as part of the agreement, Health Alliance renewed its license for Coordinated Care Management System™ (CCMS™), workflow technology that integrates utilization, case and disease management into a seamless process that helps payers decide where to focus resources, better coordinate care through automation and effective communication, integrate data at key points in the workflow, and base interventions on evidence-based standards of care. The insurer also renewed its license for Clear Coverage™, utilization management software that brings intelligent, automated decision support to the point of care.

About Health Alliance Medical Plans

Health Alliance Medical Plans is a leading provider-sponsored health insurer in the Midwest, administering healthcare coverage for more than 320,000 lives. Health Alliance Commercial HMO/POS ranked #1 in Illinois and Iowa in NCQA’s Health Insurance Plan Rankings.* Nationally, Health Alliance ranked the 39th best HMO/POS for 2011-2012.** Additionally, in recognition of its exceptional commitment to quality, Health Alliance holds an Excellent accreditation from NCQA for its commercial HMO, PPO and POS plans as well as its Medicare HMO and PPO plans.

About McKesson

McKesson Corporation, currently ranked 15th on the FORTUNE 500, is a healthcare services and information technology company dedicated to making the business of healthcare run better. We partner with payers, hospitals, physician offices, pharmacies, pharmaceutical companies and others across the spectrum of care to build healthier organizations that deliver better care to patients in every setting. McKesson helps its customers improve their financial, operational, and clinical performance with solutions that include pharmaceutical and medical-surgical supply management, healthcare information technology, and business and clinical services. For more information, visit http://www.mckesson.com.

*Nationally ranked 39/390 in private health plans and 27/336 for Commercial HMO plans.

**NCQA’s Health Insurance Plan Rankings 2011-12—Private.


View the original article here

Celebrity Diets - Weekend Diet Secret - Fast Weight Loss!

http://www.expert-advice-online.com/loseweightfast.html

How to get slim quick using Hollywood diet secrets!

Tags: celebrity diet diets lose weight loss jessica biel alba simpson ashley judd scarlet johanson nicole ritchie tara reid Eva Longoria Angelina Jolie Teri Hatcher Kate Hudson Kyra Sedgwick Kate Beckinsale Hollywood mary kate olsen nicole richie paris hilton britney spears beyonce knowles hoodia weight loss water Cate Blanchett Amanda Bynes Ashley Tisdale Ellen Page vanessa hudgens miley cyrus Hollywood Ana Ortiz January Jones Marion Cotillard Ellen Pompeo christina applegate beyonce weight loss lose weight weightloss burn fat fast easy rapid weight loss quick diet diets dieting hollywood safe effective all natural weight watchers jenny craig tom venuto secret secrets new lazy best tip tips trick tricks food foods calories fiber learn how to guaranteed overnight the best.


View the original article here

Supreme Court Justices Own Words on Health Care

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer offer their views on President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul. The court concluded its hearings today on Obama's signature domestic achievement. The justices will probably rule in late June, months before the November election. Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC speaks in support of the 26 states challenging the law. (Excerpts. Source: Bloomberg)


View the original article here

Our Outlook for Health-Care Stocks

The Supreme Court's decision on the individual mandate is looming, but its effect on stock valuations shouldn't be devastating in any scenario.Health-care demand should come out of its slump, buoyed by easy comps and deferrals, but the recovery is likely to be rather gradual. With mature geographies in stagnation, health-care firms continue to turn their focus to emerging markets.

Supreme Court Ruling Expected in 2012: We See Four Potential Outcomes,
No Devastating Impact on the Sector

The Supreme Court's early-Spring decision on the individual mandate is the key event on the horizon for the health-care sector, as much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's fate hinges on the ruling.

The Court has several questions to answer in reviewing the PPACA. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance, or else pay a penalty? If it does not, what parts of the reform law, if any, can stand without the individual mandate? Can the Court even rule on this matter before the individual mandate is enforced starting in 2014? The Court will also consider whether the Medicaid expansion will infringe on state sovereignty, although an appeals court dismissed this argument as the federal government is expected to pick up a big chunk of the total cost. The Court will not consider issues such as employer mandate or the validity of a health benefit exchange requirement.

Although we aren't making any predictions on the outcome of the Court's ruling, we stipulate the Court, particularly its "swing" judges, may take a pragmatic approach considering the total potential costs of unwinding provisions already in place. Some of the costliest programs are not scheduled to commence until 2014, but several important changes to the health-care delivery process have already been implemented. A number of them are also targeted for 2012, such as the rollout of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and the implementation of Electronic Health Records.

We see four possible directions the Court could take. It could strike down the entire law; it could strike down just the individual mandate and related insurance market regulations while upholding the rest of the law; it could uphold the entire law; or it could postpone judgment until after 2014.

Even if the entire law is deemed unconstitutional, some aspects of reform will likely persist. For example, state-run online insurance exchanges have gained acceptance as a better way to organize the individual and small-group health insurance markets. Enhanced state scrutiny of premium increases is also probably here to stay. ACOs have established a foothold as the care delivery systems of the future. However, other major changes such as the expansion to Medicaid and individual insurance subsidies are unlikely to be resurrected in the current political environment, where health care has taken a back seat to concerns about budget deficits and the economy.

Alternatively, it is possible that only the individual mandate will be deemed unconstitutional. In this case, insurance market regulations such as guaranteed issue (forcing insurers to offer policies to all applicants) and modified community rating (only allowing premiums to vary within tight bands based on characteristics such as age and family size, while forbidding medical underwriting) would also almost certainly have to be eliminated from the law. Otherwise, people would wait until they became sick to purchase insurance, destroying the market for individual insurance nationwide. However, other major provisions of the law, including the Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies, could be allowed to stand.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, participants in the health-care system will have gained some much-desired clarity about the future regulatory environment. We believe most companies have been proceeding under the assumption that the law will stand. Preparation will likely accelerate as we approach the biggest changes in 2014.

Finally, there is some possibility that the Supreme Court will conclude that it cannot rule on the law because taxes used to enforce the individual mandate have yet to be collected. We view this as the least favorable outcome, as it would prolong the current state of uncertainty for years and create a tremendous potential mess if the law were later struck down after being fully implemented.

Enactment of the PPACA resulted in few changes to our fair value estimates, and it is unlikely that any of these outcomes would have a material effect on our valuations now, although a further delay and lack of clarity and certainty will likely steer investors away from the sector. With 2012 being an election year, any meaningful changes to the Senate composition and the White House could also complicate this issue. But barring wholesale political changes, we don’t anticipate the political environment to factor heavily into the health-care sector's performance in 2012.

Is Health-Care Demand Finally Returning? Yes, but the Recovery Has Hardly Been Gangbusters
We've been expecting health-care demand to recover in tandem with broad economic improvements, but the pace of the recovery has been surprisingly lackluster. Several factors are at work here, but the biggest issue remains a stubbornly high number of uninsured individuals as well as Medicaid recipients. Our stipulation for the demand bounce-back has long been tied to the decline in these two categories (and a corresponding rise in the volume of commercial insurance members).

With the latest nationwide unemployment rate at 8.3%, the prospects of a steep decline in the ranks of the uninsured are rather bleak; according to the latest Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, we are still looking at roughly 17% of the population without health insurance. Medicaid enrollment growth has tempered substantially since reaching its peak in 2009, but the current forecast by Kaiser still indicates a 4%-plus increase in 2012. On the plus side, commercial ranks are increasing, but at a rather pedestrian pace. With the private sector increasingly looking to shift a burden of health-care costs onto employees via higher deductibles and co-pays, demand improvement is rather tepid. (This is not a new trend but something that has been in the works for quite some time; however, its impact was less noticeable when the economy was booming.)

The good news? Demand for health-care services has been so bleak over the prior few years, it wouldn't require gargantuan efforts from health-care firms to post respectable (relative to prior years) volume growth in the current environment. In fact, thanks mainly to easy volume comparisons, most health-care firms expect the revenue to grow in the low- to mid-single-digits (ahead of the broad economy). And that's without an anticipation of a snap-back in many elective procedures that have now been deferred for three-plus years. This growth is partially due to the increasing efforts by health-care firms to penetrate emerging markets, where the emergence of a middle class is stimulating demand for better health care.

With Demand Still Slow in Developed Markets, Emerging Markets Offer Growth Opportunity
With U.S. demand still low and Europe reeling from austerity measures, emerging markets have become a crucial growth contributor for the sector in 2012 and beyond. China in particular has been in focus, given its tremendous overall potential as well as the government's growing emphasis on investment in health-care infrastructure. The Chinese health-care system is still characterized by gaps in access and quality between urban and rural markets, coastal and inland regions, and insured and uninsured patients. However, two years ago, the central government embarked on a reform effort, with an investment of $125 billion to accomplish five specific goals, including universal medical insurance by 2020 and improving infrastructure.

We see several dynamics that we think should contribute to continued robust growth of health-care spending in China. For example, new technology serves as the key profit center for providers, leading to quick uptake and extensive usage that correlates with improving patient wealth levels. The government also intends to improve health-care delivery through the renovation and construction of thousands of hospitals, health-care centers, and clinics, and we think medical device and equipment companies that can win a bid in the tender process at either the provincial or central level can benefit.

The latest five-year plan also identifies two sectors that will receive particular support: green energy and biotechnology. We anticipate a rapid build-out of research and drug development centers, which should be a boon to the lab-supply industry. With more clinical trials also migrating to China, demand for life science products should accelerate. Finally, China is set to become one of the most important growth drivers for Big Pharma over the next decade. Drug spending has grown at a compound rate of 22% per year over the past six years, and Big Pharma is poised to gain market share in this highly fragmented market. China is only the seventh-largest prescription drug market in the world, but it is expected to become the second-largest market in the world by 2015.

Our Top Health-Care Picks
Our top health-care recommendations cover most of the sector's industries, ranging from pharmaceuticals to managed care. These firms remain undervalued as the appetite for health-care stocks has yet to improve, despite favorable long-term dynamics.

Top Health-Care Sector Picks
Data as of 03-23-12.

Icon PLC(ICLR)
Star Rating: 4 Stars
Fair Value Estimate: $32.00
Economic Moat: Narrow
Fair Value Uncertainty: High
Price/Fair Value: 0.68
ICON's growing scale has helped it gain entrance into the upper echelon of the contract research industry, and we think the firm will continue to benefit from industry tailwinds provided by drug companies' increasing tendency to outsource clinical trial work. However, a slowdown in drug development spending has led to capacity underutilization and losses in the firm's central lab division, and hiring in anticipation of an uptick in demand has weighed on earnings. As demand comes back online, ICON should see high-single-digit top-line expansion and its operating margin return to the double digits by the second half of 2012 as it leverages its new staff and infrastructure across an expanded revenue base.

Abbott Laboratories(ABT)
Star Rating: 4 Stars
Fair Value Estimate: $70.00
Economic Moat: Wide
Fair Value Uncertainty: Low
Price/Fair Value: 0.86
In an effort to unlock value, management has decided to split Abbott into two--a branded drug company and a diversified health-care company. Although we don't expect the breakup to significantly change our fair value estimate, we still believe the company is undervalued, and the breakup could draw more attention to Abbott's attractive valuation. In the pharmaceutical industry, Abbott faces relatively minor patent losses during the next five years and is well-positioned to ride a strong tailwind of demand for its products. Most important, we expect continued strong demand for the company's top drug, Humira, based on low drug penetration in immunology diseases. Abbott's strong competitive position in nutritionals and diagnostics creates additional avenues of growth.

Covidien(COV)
Star Rating: 4 Stars
Fair Value Estimate: $76.00
Economic Moat: Narrow
Fair Value Uncertainty: Medium
Price/Fair Value: 0.71
As we've been advocating for several years, Covidien is spinning off its underperforming pharmaceutical business. We believe this transaction will allow investors to appropriately judge the company and its core device business. Covidien's device growth prospects are compelling as the latest product launches have been well-received by the marketplace, and the company successfully integrated a number of sizable acquisitions. Although a weak macro environment continues to hamper elective procedure volume, the company's revenue growth in the device segment remains strong, particularly in energy and vascular where Covidien continues to gain market share. With emerging markets also fueling growth, we expect strong revenue and earnings momentum despite ongoing investments in R&D and sales.

Roche(RHHBY)
Star Rating: 4 Stars
Fair Value Estimate: $52.00
Economic Moat: Wide
Fair Value Uncertainty: Medium
Price/Fair Value: 0.83
The long patent life of Roche's portfolio puts it among the biotechs least exposed to generic competition. Patents don't begin to expire until 2013--when Rituxan loses protection in Europe--and to counteract future competitive pressures, management is implementing strategies that we think will enable the firm to achieve 5% five-year earnings growth. Subcutaneous versions of Roche's blockbuster antibodies are in the works, which could reduce hospital costs and add to convenience. Novel drugs are in development that could improve on the efficacy of Roche's current products or represent new, personalized treatments for cancer patients. Roche also has a solid pipeline beyond oncology, including drugs to treat schizophrenia and hepatitis C. With the Genentech integration starting to yield synergies, we think Roche's drug portfolio and industry-leading diagnostics conspire to create sustainable competitive advantages.

WellPoint(WLP)
Star Rating: 5 Stars
Fair Value Estimate: $105.00
Economic Moat: Narrow
Fair Value Uncertainty: Medium
Price/Fair Value: 0.64
WellPoint's 14 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans provide the company with a unique combination of regional and national scale. The former is the key to negotiating favorable provider rates, while the latter is essential for leveraging administrative costs. Investors remain fearful about the regulatory and economic headwinds facing WellPoint, causing the stock to trade at barely 8 times earnings and with a greater than 35% discount to our fair value estimate. However, we think these concerns are overblown, as the recent health reform law should have only a modest impact on WellPoint's future profits. Although we expect ongoing medical cost pressure, this should be partly offset by revenue growth opportunities and potential SG&A leverage. In the meantime, WellPoint generates copious free cash flow, which it is using to repurchase shares at a breakneck pace.

Alex Morozov, CFA, has a position in the following securities mentioned above: ABT


View the original article here

23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health?

My new website is up and running, I'm curating resources and information for a range of common conditions, http://www.myfavouritemedicine.com

A Doctor-Professor answers the old question "What is the single best thing we can do for our health" in a completely new way. Dr. Mike Evans is founder of the Health Design Lab at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, an Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of Toronto, and a staff physician at St. Michael's Hospital.

http://twitter.com/docmikeevans
http://www.facebook.com/docmikeevans

Conceived, written, and presented by Dr. Mike Evans
Illustrated by Liisa Sorsa
Produced, directed, and filmed by Nick De Pencier
Picture and sound edit by David Schmidt
Gaffer, Martin Wojtunik
Whiteboard construction by James Vanderkleyn
Production assistant, Chris Niesing
©2011 Michael Evans and Mercury Films Inc.


View the original article here

The 'Heart' of Health Care Reform: Can the Law Stand Without a Mandate?

During the summer of 2009, when the health care reform debate was dividing the country and the "public option" seemed like the most important policy issue in a generation, the proposal to require all Americans to have health insurance was hardly ever mentioned. The individual mandate, now the focus of a historic Supreme Court review, was just one part of a complex and broad overhaul of the nation's health care system. Medicare cuts, end-of-life counseling and a tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans were a few of the provisions that attracted far more attention -- and criticism.

Despite flying under the radar for so long, the individual mandate is now being described by critics as the foundation on which the entire new health care law rests. Thanks to a constitutional challenge, the mandate's future is in peril. Although the High Court won't rule until June and predicting its decision is impossible for even the most seasoned experts, a Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday over the requirement's constitutionality left many health reform supporters worried it might not survive. If it falls and the rest of the law remains, however, chaos could follow, along with a host of unintended consequences like skyrocketing health insurance costs and even less access to coverage than exists today.

(PHOTOS: Supreme Court Health Care Protests in Pictures)

Paul Clement, a lawyer representing 26 states and a small business trade association, argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the entire law, which reorganizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy, must fall if the individual mandate can't pass constitutional muster. Taking the opposite stance, a court-appointment attorney, H. Bartow Farr, argued the Affordable Care Act should be left to stand as is, even without the mandate. Meanwhile, the federal government's lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, argued that two major insurance reforms -- to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and premium pricing based on health -- are too closely linked to the mandate to exist without it. Those must go if the mandate falls, Kneedler said, but the rest of the law should live on.

So what's likely to happen? One possible outcome is that the individual mandate is upheld as constitutional, which would make Wednesday's debate moot. If the Court comes down against the mandate, however, it must then grapple with the interdependency of the law's parts and Congress's intentions when it crafted the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, of the court's liberal wing, began the questioning during Wednesday's session by suggesting that even if nixing the individual mandate would cause collateral damage, it is a problem for Congress to solve, not one for the High Court to head off. "Why don't we let Congress fix it?" she asked.

Clement, arguing for the states, said federal lawmakers surely would not have wanted the Affordable Care Act to continue in dysfunction without an individual mandate, operating in a way at odds with the goals of the original law. Therefore, he said, it should be wholly struck down, leaving a "blank slate" for Congress to start over again to better address the crisis of rising health care costs. But the health care law is filled with a myriad of measures, some of which have nothing to do with the individual mandate or even health insurance. In what he called a "total off-the-cuff impression," Justice Stephen Breyer, of the court's liberal bloc, pointed out that provisions encouraging breastfeeding, aiding coal miners with black lung, placing doctors in under-served areas and requiring restaurants to publish calorie counts on menus are all elements of the Affordable Care Act unrelated to the individual mandate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also left-leaning, pointed to a reauthorization of funding for the Indian Health Services as one such element of the law. Should these just be discarded, Breyer asked.

(MORE: Why Obamacare Supporters Are Getting So Nervous)

Clement responded that if the mandate and provisions "tied at the hip" to the mandate are struck from the bill, all that remains is "a hollow shell" or items "on the periphery" of substantive health care reform. Justice Antonin Scalia, of the court's conservative wing, appeared to agree. "My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone," he said.

The justices also engaged in a line of questioning about how the court could decipher which pieces of the health care law Congress would have wanted to pass, with or without the individual mandate. This is a fraught exercise, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted:

This was a piece of legislation, which, there was -- had to be a concerted effort to gather enough votes so that it could be passed. And I suspect with a lot of these miscellaneous provisions that Justice Breyer was talking about, that was the price of the vote. Put in the Indian health care provision and I will vote for the other 2,700 pages. Put in the Black Lung provision, and I'll go along with it. That's why all -- many of these provisions, I think, were put in, not because they were unobjectionable. So presumably what Congress would have done is they wouldn't have been able to put together, cobble together the votes to get it through.
Justice Elena Kagan said there was no use trying "to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the street," referring to Capitol Hill. "Instead, we look at the text that's actually given to us."

This is easier said than done. Drawing hearty laughter from those in the court room, Scalia cited the Eighth Amendment, which bans "cruel and unusual punishment," and said it was ridiculous to expect the justices to go through the Affordable Care Act line by line, determining which provisions might be related to the individual mandate.

You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?...Do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?... Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
Justice Samuel Alito, also a conservative justice, said it may be impossible to figure out which Affordable Care Act provisions could remain if the mandate is struck. "Once you've cut the guts out of it, who knows, who knows which of them were really desired by Congress on their own and which ones weren't?"

(VIEWPOINT: Why The Supreme Court Should Uphold the Health Care Law 9-0)

The government's lawyer, Kneedler, argued that the text of the Affordable Care Act draws a bright line between the individual mandate, insurance reforms and the rest of the law despite its complexity. That led Roberts to ask, "How do you know that? Where is this line?" Kneedler contended that the authors of the health care law explicitly said the mandate was "essential" to the health insurance reforms, but did not make this distinction for any other provisions.

Determining what -- if anything -- Congress might have done differently on health reform if the individual mandate had not been under consideration is very close to impossible. This predicament could ultimately limit the justices' options. If the mandate falls, the court may decide it has no choice but to leave the rest of the law intact or strike it altogether.

The possibility of the Affordable Care Act's total demise seems real after this week's arguments, a scenario that has left supporters of health reform befuddled and nervous. A fatal blow removing the legitimacy of President Obama's signature legislative achievement just months before Election Day could damage his political fortunes. On the other hand, if the court upholds the law, either mostly or entirely, accusations that Obama has undertaken an unprecedented expansion of federal government could be deflated.

The justices will soon likely take a preliminary secret vote on where they stand on these issues. Debate among them will continue over the next several months and a final decision is expected in June.

MORE: High Noon for Health Care

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:


View the original article here

Family health care costs to exceed $20,000 this year

healthcare costs

After his baby was born prematurely, Matthew Cheng's health care costs soared.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Three days of Supreme Court arguments have left the fate of the 2010 health care reform law uncertain. What is certain, however, is that health care costs are continuing to eat away at consumers' budgets.

The cost to cover the typical family of four under an employer plan is expected to top $20,000 on health care this year, up more than 7% from last year, according to early projections by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc. In 2002, the cost was just $9,235, the firm said.

The projected increase marks the fifth year in a row that health care costs will rise between 7% and 8% annually.

While employers still shoulder a majority of health care expenses, employees have been paying a larger portion of the total amount every year, according to Lorraine Mayne, principal and consulting actuary with Milliman.

Rising costs for employees is part of a long-term trend, said Deborah Chollet, senior fellow and health economist with Washington-based Mathematica Policy Research. "Employers have been unwilling to have their benefits costs rise at the rate that health care costs have risen," she said.

As a result, they have been passing along extra costs to employees in the form of higher deductibles and co-pays, as well as more expensive premiums.

Last year, workers' out-of-pocket costs rose 9.2% to $3,280 for a typical family of four, according to Milliman.

Those who buy insurance without an employer-provider plan are shelling out even more, Mayne said. The average premium for a family in a non-group plan was $7,102 in 2010, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

Small business owner Matthew Cheng's health care costs rose by $600 to $7,891 last year. This year, he's looking at a much steeper bill.

In January, Cheng's wife, Talya, gave birth to a baby 12 weeks prematurely and their costs have already jumped to $12,036. As a result, Cheng has had to cut business expenses, such as advertising, to afford their care.

"Because of our baby, the health care bill is always paid first," he said.

Over the past five years, health care costs have comprised a bigger portion of the country's household budgets as expenses continue to rise and incomes remain stagnant, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Health care, including insurance, medical services, drugs and medical supplies, accounted for 6.6% of the household budget in 2010 -- the fifth consecutive year of increases.

The Obama administration's Affordable Care Act aims to bring health care costs under control. Passed in 2010 and currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, the law is also meant to help more people get affordable health insurance coverage, including the 50 million uninsured today.

Part of the act, the individual mandate, would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a financial penalty. The individual mandate would help spread health care costs to a larger pool of individuals, thus potentially lowering costs.

Should the Supreme Court strike down the Affordable Care Act, consumers can expect that percentage to increase even more as costs rise "very fast," Chollet said. Without the law's measures to promote preventative care and spread costs across a larger population, overall costs will rise, she explained.

Those without employer-provided health care coverage, like Cheng, will likely pay more for their plans because there will be fewer restrictions on insurers. Individuals could be denied coverage altogether because of a pre-existing health condition or offered coverage only at a very high premium, both of which are prohibited under the Affordable Care Act, Chollet added.

Those with insurance through their employer will also pay more to cover the growing number of uninsured, she said.

Still, even if the Affordable Care Act goes through, it will do little to lessen the financial burden for those who are already insured, Mayne said. "It will take other changes to really bend the cost curve and make substantial changes in health care costs," she said. To top of page

First Published: March 29, 2012: 5:45 AM ET

View the original article here

Family health costs to top $20,000 this year


View the original article here

Tufts Health Plan Expands Workplace Health Facilities Managed by Walgreens Take Care Health Systems

Take Care Health Systems, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walgreens (NYSE: WAG)(NASDAQ: WAG), and Tufts Health Plan today announced the opening of a workplace health center called the BeWell Center, offering wellness and preventive care, symptom care, and laboratory services to Tufts Health Plan employees and contractors.

The BeWell Center is staffed by a nurse practitioner, medical assistant and wellness coach, and supported by a local, collaborating physician. The center is located at the company’s headquarters in Watertown, Mass. and is available for more than 1,700 Tufts Health Plan employees. The new facility complements an existing fitness center also managed by Take Care Health Systems.

“We are pleased to offer our employees another terrific way to access wellness at the worksite. The BeWell Center complements our WorkingWell Center, which is full and robust with fitness equipment, exercise classes from zumba to yoga, nutrition classes, acupuncture and massage,” said Lois Dehls Cornell, senior vice president of Human Resources and general counsel for Tufts Health Plan. “Relatively few companies nationwide currently have workplace wellness centers; we strive to serve as a model for employers with a similar mission and focus.”

“Tufts Health Plan is ranked among the top health plans in the nation and is known as a leader in health and wellness. We are pleased to build on this relationship by enhancing their workplace offerings,” said Peter Hotz, Walgreens and Take Care Health Systems group vice president. “This facility will help improve the health of Tufts Health Plan employees while helping keep costs low for both employees and the plan.”

Employers increasingly are looking to offer workplace health and wellness services according to a 2011 report from Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health. Results published in the report were generated from a survey of 588 employers conducted between November 2010 and January 2011 and showed that 23 percent of companies currently offer workplace health services and that an additional 12 percent of companies plan to begin offering services in 2012.

About Walgreens

Walgreens (www.walgreens.com) is the nation's largest drugstore chain with fiscal 2011 sales of $72 billion. The company operates 7,840 drugstores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Each day, Walgreens provides nearly 6 million customers the most convenient, multichannel access to consumer goods and services and trusted, cost-effective pharmacy, health and wellness services and advice in communities across America. Walgreens scope of pharmacy service includes retail, specialty, infusion, medical facility and mail service, along with respiratory services. These services improve health outcomes and lower costs for payers including employers, managed care organizations, health systems, pharmacy benefit managers and the public sector. Take Care Health Systems is a Walgreens subsidiary that is the largest and most comprehensive manager of worksite health and wellness centers and in-store convenient care clinics, with more than 700 locations throughout the country.

About Tufts Health Plan

Tufts Health Plan is a nonprofit organization nationally recognized for its commitment to providing innovative, high-quality health care coverage. The plan offers both members and employers an array of physician-led, health management programs, which support evidence-based approaches to health and wellness. Tufts Health Plan’s HMO and POS are ranked second in the nation, and its Medicare Advantage HMO program ranks among the nation’s top 10 Medicare Advantage plans in the nation by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). Visit us on the web at www.tuftshealthplan.com.


View the original article here

Windsor Health GroupSM Names New General Counsel

Windsor Health GroupSM and its affiliated companies today announced that James Touse, Esquire, has joined the company as General Counsel. He is responsible for providing the legal advice and services necessary for the company to comply with applicable laws, avoid foreseeable risks and capitalize on opportunities created by a rapidly changing legal, regulatory and market environment.

Mr. Touse is an accomplished attorney who has served as the General Counsel or Chief Legal Officer of various organizations throughout his more than 30 year legal career. He has excelled in those positions as a result of his professional expertise, leadership skills, commitment to providing high quality professional services to clients, and understanding of the business challenges confronting those clients.

Mr. Touse most recently served as the General Counsel, Compliance Officer and Corporate Secretary of Life and Specialty Ventures, L.L.C. and its affiliates, which are owned by six independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. He has previously served as the Chief Legal Officer of BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, General Counsel of Group Health Plan, and in legal leadership roles with other managed care organizations since beginning his career as the Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Insurance.

Mr. Touse’s peers have recognized his contributions to the legal profession by electing him as a member of the inaugural class of the American Health Lawyers Association’s (AHLA) Fellows program. He has also served in legal leadership positions with AHLA; the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Legal Department Cooperative; American Association of Health Plans (now America’s Health Insurance Plans); and the Tennessee Bar Association Health Law Section. He has made numerous presentations and authored publications addressing significant legal and regulatory issues affecting the employee benefits industry.

Mr. Touse received his undergraduate degree from Grove City College and his Juris Doctorate degree from Capital University Law School.

About Windsor Health GroupSM

Windsor Health GroupSM is a health specialty management company comprised of Windsor Health Plan, Sterling Insurance, and Olympian Health Partners. WHG collectively serves almost 300,000 customers and offers a full range of products and solutions to improve health, peace of mind and financial security for members, policy holders, and business partners. The company is based in Atlanta with operational centers in Nashville, Tenn. and Bellingham, Wash. and regional offices spanning the nation. WHG is a subsidiary of Munich Health North America, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Munich Re, one of the world’s leading reinsurers.


View the original article here

FAIR Health Launches Online “Medicare Compare” Tool to Help Consumers Understand Impact of Medicare-Based out-of ...

FAIR Health, the independent not-for-profit corporation dedicated to bringing transparency to healthcare costs and out-of-network reimbursement, today launched FH Medicare Compare, a free, web-based tool that will help consumers better understand their out-of-pocket medical costs if their insurers base out-of-network reimbursement on the Medicare fee schedule. The tool is available on the FH Medical Cost Lookup on the FAIR Health consumer website (www.fairhealthconsumer.org/medicalcostlookup).

A number of private health plans base out-of-network reimbursement rates on a percentage of Medicare fees. The Medicare-based reimbursement formulas, generally 110% to 140% of the fee set by Medicare, often result in reimbursement amounts that are much lower than those calculated under the traditional usual, customary, and reasonable (UCR) standards that reflect actual provider charges. The switch to Medicare-based rates confuses many consumers who are unaware of the financial implications of this method. Using a Medicare-based reimbursement method often means that consumers will have to pay a larger portion of their medical bills out of pocket when they seek out-of-network services.

“Medicare is a government-based fee schedule that was developed for specific populations such as the elderly and the disabled. It was not designed to serve as a benchmark for the general population in the private out-of-network context FAIR Health President Robin Gelburd said. ”Many consumers are not aware of the differences between Medicare and UCR payment schedules and the cost impact on patients when their plans switch to a Medicare-based formula. Consumers can now use the Medicare Compare feature on the popular Medical Cost Lookup to understand their cost exposure if their plans use a Medicare-based reimbursement method.”

Previously, the free FH Medical Cost Lookup estimated costs for the UCR-based reimbursement method for a queried procedure. The UCR-based method remains the default, but with FH Medicare Compare, consumers can select the “Medicare-based” button to view Medicare-based reimbursement for a specific procedure and “Compare” to see Medicare- and UCR-based amounts side-by-side.

Medicare-based reimbursement:

Insurance plans using Medicare as the basis for out-of-network reimbursement multiply the fee set by Medicare for a specific medical procedure by a specified percentage to determine the maximum amount that they will reimburse for the procedure.

For example, assume that a patient visits an out-of-network doctor in Chicago, Illinois, who charges $1,700.03 for a colonoscopy with a biopsy. The patient’s insurance plan reimburses the visit based on 140% of what Medicare would normally pay for someone covered by Medicare. If the Medicare fee is $297.48 for that office visit, the plan would agree to pay up to $416.47, and the patient would be responsible for the remaining $1,283.56.

UCR-based reimbursement:

Using the same fact pattern, assume instead that the patient’s insurance plan reimburses at the 80th percentile of what the insurance company determines as UCR and the charge at such percentile is $1,700.03. If the insurer reimburses based on 70% of UCR, or $1,190.02 in this case, then the patient would be responsible for only the remaining $510.01 for that visit.

In these two examples, although the percentage of reimbursement for UCR (70%) was lower than that of Medicare (140%), the patient was responsible for a smaller portion of the $1,700.03 bill when the plan based reimbursement on a percentage of UCR, than on the Medicare fee. The new feature will allow consumers to estimate their out-of-pocket costs based on options that better reflect their specific plan provisions.

For a fuller description of the use of the Medicare fee schedule in out-of-network reimbursement, please visit www.fairhealthconsumer.org/reimbursementseries/medicare.aspx.

To use FH Medicare Compare to calculate the difference between Medicare-based and UCR-based reimbursement, visit www.fairhealthconsumer.org/medicalcostlookup.

About FAIR Health:

FAIR Health is a national independent, not-for-profit corporation whose mission is to bring transparency to healthcare costs and health insurance information through comprehensive data products and consumer resources. FAIR Health uses its database of billions of billed medical and dental services to power a free website (fairhealthconsumer.org) that enables consumers to estimate and plan their medical and dental expenditures. The website also offers clear, unbiased educational articles and videos about the healthcare insurance reimbursement system. In addition to its consumer offerings, FAIR Health licenses data products to businesses, governmental agencies, healthcare providers and researchers. With its professional staff of experts in healthcare, statistics, technology and communications, FAIR Health strives to offer accurate, consistent and timely information to all stakeholders in the healthcare system.


View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Fast - The truth about Fat Burning Foods and Weight Loss Programs

http://tinyurl.com/4ypwpkg - More Video by Isabel (TheDietSolutionProgram)
Another Video by Isabel that is Loaded with Weight Loss Tips and how to lose weight fast.

She also talks about Fat Burning Foods and foods that help you lose weight in the video. If you're looking to lose weight fast or how to lose belly fat then you might want to check out the video. It's a little bit longer but very worth while.

If you're looking for some Diet plans or looking for some weight loss programs the link also some some options for you.

Did I mention that she also teaches about fat burning foods, fat burner, high protein foods and some of the best way to lose weight!


View the original article here

Monday, March 26, 2012

Health care case to boost GOP, or Dems?

health care, supreme court, tea party Demonstrators for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act march and chant in outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality of the act.

(Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In an election year in which Republican voters seem less than enthused about their leaders, the GOP establishment would like nothing more than to reignite the Tea Party base that came out in force in 2010. This week's Supreme Court case reviewing President Obama's health care law could do the trick.

Alternatively, the GOP's renewed emphasis on health care could backfire, leaving Democrats motivated.

The court's rulings and the consequences are hard to know at this point. The one certainty is that the court's consideration of the case is putting Mr. Obama's controversial health care law back in the spotlight squarely in the middle of the 2012 presidential race -- a move sure to rekindle the partisan passion that in part drove Democratic voters in 2008 and Republican voters in 2010.

On Monday, the court begins three days of hearings on the law, starting with the question of whether now is even the appropriate time for the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The 1867 Anti-Injunction Act bars most lawsuits challenging a tax that hasn't been paid. The individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase insurance, doesn't kick in until 2014, meaning no one has paid the fine (or "tax," as some may call it) for failing to purchase insurance -- thus, as the argument goes, the current case may be invalid.

However, most parties watching the case, and even Mr. Obama's Justice Department, believe that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply here. "It's pretty much a slam dunk they're going to hear the case," Robert Alt, senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Hotsheet.

Starting Tuesday, the Court gets to the real meat of the issue -- whether the so-called individual mandate is constitution

supreme court, health care Doctors and medical students supporting the health care reform law signed by President Obama gather in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, March 26, 2012, as the court begins three days of arguments on health care.

(Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) al. As many as 28 states have filed lawsuits calling the mandate unconstitutional, and one federal appellate court agreed with that assessment. Two other federal appellate courts have upheld the law.

The hearings strike at the heart of opposition to Mr. Obama's reforms: A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released earlier this month found that while every other major element of the health care law is supported by more than half of Americans, only one in three support the individual mandate, including only 45 percent of Democrats. The percentage of Americans who said they have a "very" unfavorable view of the mandate has reached 54 percent.

Joseph Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that many Americans may not fully understand the practical impacts of the provision (about 80 percent of Americans already have insurance and thus shouldn't be affected by the mandate). Politically, however, it gets to the heart of conservative fears about growing government interference.

"It's a debate between how much the government should be involved in personal decisions and what is a personal decision," Antos said.

Historic review of healthcare law at High Court
Poll: 47% disapprove of Obama health care law
CBSNews.com Health Care Special Report

In 2010, when the Tea Party helped sweep Republicans back into power in the House, 48 percent of voters said Congress should repeal the health care overhaul that the president had signed into law just months before. To this day, according to the Kaiser poll, the individual mandate has remained the most recognizable element of the law, even though Democrats have tried to promote the more popular parts, like the provision allowing children up to 26 years old to remain on their parents' health insurance plan.

Since 2010, the issue of health care has fallen by the wayside as voters turned their attention back to the economy. But if the court ruled in June to uphold the health care law, "maybe that excites the right and gives them even more energy to try to repeal it through the legislative process," said Doug Thornell, a Democratic strategist at SKDKnickerbocker who has worked for the campaign arms of Congress.

On the other hand, Thornell said, "If the Supreme Court were to strike it down, that could energize progressives."

Opinions over the health care reforms fall fairly strictly down partisan lines, meaning the court case could motivate one side's base or the other -- but polls suggests Republicans are more energized over health care. A new CBS News/ New York Times poll released on Monday morning shows that while just 28 percent of Democrats "strongly" approve of the health care law, a full 62 percent of Republicans "strongly" disapprove.

That could be key for Republicans, given how unenthused their base seems so far: A recent Gallup poll showed voters are less excited about the current GOP candidates than they were about their 2008 choices. On top of that, turnout in several of this year's primary elections has been down compared to Republican turnout in 2008 contests.

Last week, on the two-year anniversary of the health care overhaul's passage into law, Republicans launched a full-scale assault on the reforms, seeking to remind voters of what they don't like about the law. Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney was as vigorous in his attacks as any Republican, calling the reforms "an unfolding disaster."

Santorum: Romney "worst Republican" to face Obama
Plouffe: GOP will "regret" branding health care "Obamacare"

Still, even if the Supreme Court's decision this summer sparked new conservative outrage over health reform, it's questionable how far the GOP could take it. For one thing, a January CBS News/ New York Times poll showed that Americans still trust Mr. Obama over congressional Republicans on the issue of health care by a 9-point margin. Furthermore, arguments against the individual mandate will be blunted if Romney leads the GOP ticket, given his Massachusetts health care reforms inspired the federal law.

"If Republicans want to make this the centerpiece of their fall campaign, they're nominating absolutely the wrong person," Thornell, the Democratic strategist, said. "Romney is the godfather of the individual mandate. Him attacking it, is like McDonald's criticizing hamburgers. I don't care how he tries to explain away what he did in Massachusetts, he passed a bill with a mandate in it."


View the original article here

Health Act Arguments Open With 1867 Obstacle

Indeed, the lawyer, Paul D. Clement, who represents the 26 states challenging the law, said this month in remarks at the Georgetown University Law Center that the first day’s arguments were “a kind of practical joke that the court is playing on the public.”

The main event — arguments over the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty — will not come until Tuesday. But early Monday morning, crowds continued to grow outside the court, as supporters and opponents gathered to demonstrate.

A sprawling picket of supporters wound its way around morning commuters, police officers, TV camera crews and photographers, chanting, “Protect our law, protect our care.”

Some activists came with their own stories. Henrik Erslev, 58, a carpenter from Maryland, said he had come out to support the bill because his daughter, who just turned 26, was allowed to stay on his insurance policy through a cyst removal last year that Mr. Erslev said would have forced her into bankruptcy.

Among the handful of opponents was Keli Carender, a 32-year-old activist from Seattle who was an early Tea Party organizer.

“If we know how inefficient and inept the government is, why would you want it to make this decision for you?” she said, holding a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and wearing pink-rimmed sunglasses.

Ms. Carender said she received health insurance through her job, but that if the bill was allowed to stand, she said she would drop the policy in protest.

“I am not going to trade my health for my freedom,” she said.

Shortly after 8 a.m., the line of bedraggled hopefuls who had been waiting for tickets all weekend began to be let into the courtroom. A woman applying makeup who would only give her first name, Donna, said that she had arrived at midnight and that her thick red wool blanket had not been enough against the cold. She added that she was working for a company that was paying her to wait in line, and that she was waiting for a ticket to Tuesday’s hearing.

Those with tickets to Monday’s hearing will hear the justices consider whether they are barred from hearing the case until the first penalties come due in 2015.

The answer to that question is not obvious. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that it was powerless to decide the law’s constitutionality for now, and a prominent judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed.

Their opinions relied on an 1867 federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” In other words, people who object to taxes must pay first and litigate later.

But the first penalties do not kick in until 2014, and they must be paid on federal tax returns by April 2015. That means, the appeals court judges said, that federal courts are forbidden for now to hear challenges to the health care law.

The Obama administration pressed this argument in trial courts but abandoned it on appeal. The challengers to the law have always said the 1867 law poses no obstacle to immediate review.

In the Supreme Court, the administration suggested that the justices appoint an outside lawyer to argue that the 1867 law bars the challenges. The justices asked Robert A. Long to do so, and he goes first on Monday.

Mr. Long is to be followed by two lawyers: Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Gregory G. Katsas, who represents the private parties challenging the law.

Mr. Long says the 1867 law is “jurisdictional,” meaning it forbids courts to hear suits even if, as here, neither side objects.

In the health care law, Congress called the required payment a penalty rather than a tax. But the penalty is contained in the Internal Revenue Code, and the health care law says it is to be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as a tax.

Mr. Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, walks a fine line. He has told the court that the administration wants a prompt ruling on the health care law and that the 1867 law should not stand in the way. Yet the administration does not want to damage its ability to rely on the 1867 law in other cases.

There are other complications. Mr. Verrilli’s argument that the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the 1867 law is in potential tension with one he will make on Tuesday, that the mandate was authorized not only by Congress’s power under the commerce clause but also by its power to levy taxes.

Mr. Verrilli argues that the name that Congress gave the payment required for violating the mandate in the health care law —a penalty, not a tax — matters for purposes of the 1867 law but is irrelevant in connection with the constitutional taxing power, where “it is the practical operation of the provision, not its label, that controls.”

The challengers to the law, represented by Mr. Katsas, agree with Mr. Verrilli that the court may decide the case on the merits. He says the penalty for failing to obtain insurance is not the sort of tax the 1867 law concerns. Mr. Long responds that the term “tax” in the 1867 law has been interpreted very broadly.

Mr. Katsas also says the challenge is in any event to the mandate, which applies to virtually every American, rather than to the penalty, which applies to a smaller group. Mr. Long responds that the challenge is to both provisions and that striking down the mandate would have the same effect as a premature ruling to forbid the assessment of the penalty.

In a brief filed with the court, the states challenging the health care law press a further argument. They say the 1867 law does not, in any event, apply to them even if it applies to the private challengers.

An oddity of the case is that a ruling from the Supreme Court that it lacks jurisdiction could be easily reversed by Congress, which is free at any time to amend the 1867 law. The prospect of having to rehear the case in short order may not be attractive to the justices.

Sabrina Tavernise contributed reporting.


View the original article here

Rush System for Health, UnitedHealthcare Announce New Network Relationship

Mon, Mar 26, 2012, 1:14 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 2 hrs 46 mins

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Health Care Arguments Open With Tax Questions

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy needs to grow more quickly to bring down the unemployment rate further, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Monday, defending the central bank's policy of very low interest rates. While he offered no indication that the Fed is keen to embark on a third round of bond purchases, …


View the original article here

Healthy, long hair - Current hair care routine for dry damaged locks

Hi everyone!!! Happy Sunday night :) Sorry I was gone for so long!!! We were moving and finally got our internet hooked up ! woot woot!

I wanted to share the hair products I have been using to get my hair in great shape!! When it was red my hair was so dry and damaged and now it's so much better!! Shiny soft and just healthier looking all around. My favorite products by far have ben the Macadamia Nut Oil. OMG you guys neeed this in your life lol I got mine from Folica.com and it is only $30 for the travel kit right now!!
http://www.folica.com/hair-care/shampoos/macadamia-oil-travel-kit

Follow me on faceboo so we can talk!! http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/AeBeidler-YouTube-/113115432049488

If yuo live in colorado then you need to get your hair done by jenelle!! She is amazing!!!!! Here is her info too!! http://aloha-salon.com/Jenelle_Schaefer.html


View the original article here

Yoga for Weight Loss - Diet.com Video

Learn more at SpaFinder.com: http://www.spafinder.com/

Leave a comment below to enter our SpaFinder.com Giveaway telling us if you have ever been to a spa! We will select a winner on March 6th, 2012. *GIVEAWAY CLOSED*

Try this yoga sequence for weight loss featuring Erica and Sarah.

Visit Diet.com Today for healthy recipes! http://www.diet.com/recipes
Be a Fan on Facebook - http://facebook.com/dietcom
Follow us on Twitter - http://Twitter.com/diethealth

Check out Diet.com's Sample Meal Plans and Exercise Plans: http://www.diet.com/diet-plan

Sarah's YouTube channel - http://YouTube.com/SarahFit

Visit Diet.com For More Videos!


View the original article here

Weight Bias in Health Care

Overweight and obese patients frequently feel stigmatized in health care settings, and face stereotypes and prejudice from health care providers.
These stigmatizing experiences (also called 'weight bias') jeopardize patients' emotional and physical health. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University (www.yaleruddcenter.org) has released this new video in response to a growing concern about weight bias in health care. The video, hosted by celebrity and activist Emme and featuring Rudd Center experts including Dr. Rebecca Puhl and Dr. Kelly Brownell, uses expert commentary and dramatic representation to increase awareness of bias and stigma that overweight and obese patients encounter in health care. Equally importantly, the video presents a range of practical strategies to help providers reduce bias in their clinical practice, and to optimize the health care experience for their overweight and obese patients.


View the original article here

Health Law Hearings Open in Supreme Court

Lawyers for both the Obama administration and challengers to the law took the same side on this question, arguing that the Court could hear the case now. The justices appeared receptive, suggesting that they will reject the argument made by an outside lawyer that it is too soon to rule.

That means they may be expected to issue a decision on the merits by the end of the court’s term in June, just as the presidential election heats up.

The threshold question stems from a 1867 law that holds that Americans cannot challenge a tax until it has been collected. The first penalties for violating the health care law’s individual mandate do not kick in until 2014, and they must be paid on federal tax returns in April 2015.

“This case presents issues of great moment,” said Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., adding that the law, the Anti-Injunction Act, “does not bar this court’s consideration of the case.”

The case’s main event — arguments over the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty — will not come until Tuesday. On Monday, the justices considered the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” In other words, people who object to taxes must pay first and litigate later.

That is so, said Justice Stephen G. Breyer, because “taxes are, for better or worse, the life’s blood of the government.”

The first penalties for violating the health care law’s individual mandate do not kick in until 2014, and they must be paid on federal tax returns in April 2015. That means, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last year, that courts are for now powerless to decide the law’s constitutionality.

The Obama administration pressed this argument in trial courts but abandoned it on appeal. The challengers to the law have always said the 1867 law poses no obstacle to immediate review.

In the Supreme Court, the administration suggested that the justices appoint an outside lawyer to argue that the 1867 law bars the challenges. The justices asked Robert A. Long to do so, and he went first on Monday.

“I would not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity,” Mr. Long said.

He was followed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the Obama administration, and Gregory G. Katsas, who represents the private parties challenging the law.

Mr. Long said the 1867 law was “jurisdictional,” meaning it forbids courts from hearing suits even if, as here, neither side objects.

In the health care law, Congress called the required payment a penalty rather than a tax. But the penalty is contained in the Internal Revenue Code, and the health care law says it is to be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as a tax.

Mr. Verrilli walked a fine line. He has told the court that the administration wants a prompt ruling on the health care law and that the 1867 law should not stand in the way. Yet the administration does not want to damage its ability to rely on the 1867 law in other cases.

There were other complications. Mr. Verrilli’s argument that the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the 1867 law was in potential tension with one he will make on Tuesday, that the mandate was authorized not only by Congress’s power under the commerce clause but also by its power to levy taxes.

“Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. “Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

Mr. Verrilli argued that the name Congress gave to the payment required for violating the mandate in the health care law — calling it a penalty, not a tax — mattered for purposes of the 1867 law but was irrelevant in connection with the constitutional taxing power.

The challengers to the law, represented by Mr. Katsas, agreed with Mr. Verrilli that the court might decide the case on the merits now. Mr. Katsas said the penalty for failing to obtain insurance was not the sort of tax the 1867 law concerns.

Mr. Katsas also said the challenge was in any event to the mandate, which applies to virtually every American, rather than to the penalty, which applies to a smaller group.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that was a distinction without a difference. “It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime,” he said.

In a brief filed with the court, the states challenging the health care law press a further argument. They say that the 1867 law does not apply to them even if it applies to the private challengers.

An oddity of the case, United States Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398, is that a ruling from the Supreme Court that it lacks jurisdiction could be easily reversed by Congress, which is free at any time to amend the 1867 law. The prospect of having to rehear the case in short order may not be attractive to the justices.


View the original article here

Obama health reform law goes on trial amid deeply split public opinion

Whatever you call it – the Affordable Care Act, health-care reform, Obamacare – one aspect of President Obama’s signature health-care law is taken almost as if etched in stone: Americans “don’t like it, they think it’s unconstitutional, and they want it repealed,” as Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell put it in the GOP’s weekly television address last week.

As the US Supreme Court begins three days of argument over the 2010 health-care reform law, a close reading of several recent opinion polls shows that public sentiment may be more complex than that – and may complicate Republicans’ push to make health care a central part of their political agenda through November.

The crux of the matter? Americans see the individual mandate, the law’s requirement that almost every American buy health insurance or pay a penalty, as unconstitutional.

RECOMMENDED: Obama health care law at Supreme Court: mega case for the history books

At the same time, the overall law – with popular measures like the ability to keep children on a parent’s health-insurance policy through age 26 – either divides public opinion or tilts slightly toward Democrats' positions.  

Americans have consistently shown a constitutional concern with the health-care law. Earlier in Senator McConnell’s weekly remarks, for example, he cited a February poll conducted by Gallup/USA Today in which 72 percent of respondents said they believed that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. A poll released Monday by The Hill newspaper found half of voters believe Mr. Obama’s health-care law should be overturned, versus 42 percent who say it should be upheld. A March 14 poll by Pew Research shows similar results – 41 percent “approve” of the individual mandate, while 56 percent “disapprove.”

Those same polls, however, show that overall public opinion about the law is more evenly divided.

In the Gallup/USA Today survey, a slight 47 percent to 44 percent edge goes to those who would favor repealing the entire health-care law under a Republican president come 2013. The Pew poll, moreover, shows a majority of voters say the law should be either expanded (33 percent) or left as is (20 percent), compared with 38 percent who say it should be repealed.

Similarly, The Hill’s poll shows a majority of voters (52 percent) say health-care quality will be about the same or better if the health-care law survives. Forty-two percent predict it will be worse.

Democratic voters are much more likely to support the health-care law than are Republicans. Independent voters, who are key to deciding the 2012 election, tend to be more sanguine than Republicans about the health-care reform law.

Independents are more likely to oppose repeal (47 percent) than favor it (43 percent), according to the Gallup survey. In the Pew report, a plurality of independents favor repeal (40 percent), but a combined 51 percent said Congress should expand the law (33 percent) or leave it as is (18 percent).

Finally, whom does the public trust to handle health care? Far and away, the answer is Democrats.

Pew’s poll shows the public says Democrats are better able to handle health care than are Republicans, by a 14 percentage point margin. They are also deemed better able to handle Medicare (13 percentage points) and abortion (16 percentage points).

What does that add up to for this election season? While both parties have vowed to make health care a top issue going into November, Democrats are expected to hammer Republicans over proposed changes to Medicare contained in the House Republican budget plan, because the Democrats have a significant polling edge on that issue.

“The Affordable Care Act shows that Democrats remain firmly committed to Medicare,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland, the House Democratic whip, in a statement. “This law strengthened Medicare by improving benefits, extending its solvency, and laying the foundation for reforms that will constrain costs and improve quality.”

On the other hand, Republicans may have to fight the perception that the fight over the health reform law is much ado about little. Seventy percent of Americans told Gallup that the law has not affected them at all.  

The margin of error in the Gallup/USA Today poll is plus or minus 4 percentage points. It is 3 points for the Hill  and the Pew polls (but greater when the Pew poll results are broken down by party affiliation). 

RECOMMENDED: Obama health care law at Supreme Court: mega case for the history books

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today. 


View the original article here

The Health Care Case's Legal Maze

When the Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in the big health care cases, it will be considering much more than a simple yes-or-no question about whether the 2010 health care reform law is constitutional. That might be hard to determine from the public discussion, which has focused on the case’s core question—whether the individual mandate to buy insurance exceeds Congress’s power. Polls show that a small majority of Americans simply believe that the Court will overturn the law.

Infographic

But the health care case is complicated, and the Court is considering a series of legal questions with interrelated answers. It could uphold or strike down the law, but it could also throw the suit out or perform surgery on health care reform. Here are a few of the possible outcomes:

     The Court says come back in three years. Monday’s argument will be about a technical statutory question that could have a huge impact on the direction of the case—whether a 19th-century tax law means the Court has no jurisdiction to consider challenges to the mandate this year. Court watchers say the odds of such a decision are slim but not impossible. The question is legally close, and the justices may be tempted to avoid the bad optics of a big political opinion in the midst of the presidential election. "The Court might think, you know, it might be better not to decide it in the middle of a presidential election," former Solicitor General and O'Melveny & Myers partner Walter Dellinger said at a briefing this week.     The Court upholds everything. Despite all the debate, protest, and the public’s ambivalence about the health care law, a majority of Court experts think that this outcome is likely. A recent American Bar Association poll of “a select group of academics, journalists, and lawyers who regularly follow and/or comment on the Supreme Court,” predicted wins for the government on both key constitutional questions. There are four reliable votes for the government (the Democratic appointees), one predictable vote against (Clarence Thomas), and four justices who, to varying degrees, are in play.      The Court abolishes the mandate, but just the mandate. If the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, it then has to decide what happens to the rest of the law. That argument happens on Wednesday. The health care law lacks a severability clause, a common legislative tack-on that says what parts of the law can be divided from the rest if the courts identify a problem. None of the parties wants the Court to sever just the mandate—the challengers want the whole law abolished, and the government says such a result could wreak havoc on the insurance markets.       Bye-bye, health care reform. The Supreme Court is usually not enthusiastic about making decisions that amount to rewriting legislation. That is one reason the justices could decide that the mandate was such a key piece of the law that, without it, health care reform would never have passed. "I don't think they'll split the baby," said Todd Gaziano, the director of the legal center at the Heritage Foundation, and an opponent of the law. Of course, the health care reform law contains much more than just the mandate and subsidies for the uninsured. It created Medicare payment reforms; it includes funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program; it requires insurers to cover adult children up to age 26 on family policies; it requires restaurants to put calorie counts on their menus; and large employers to provide places for women to express breast milk. A decision striking down the whole law would be a big victory for the law’s opponents. But it would leave Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services with several messes to fix, and fast. "I think it would be a tremendous disruption in the operation of our health care system," said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who supports the law.    Out go the insurance reforms. The government is arguing that the mandate is needed to make other insurance reforms in the law work—the requirement that insurers take all comers and the limitations on how much they can vary prices according to age. The Court could excise those provisions with the mandate. The Court could also slice and dice the law in any number of other ways. Every interest group imaginable has filed a friend-of-the-court brief suggesting what provisions should be cut or saved. It would not be fun to be a law clerk assigned to this question.     No more Medicaid expansion. The mandate has been getting all the attention, but the Court is also considering another hot constitutional question: Does the law’s expansion of state Medicaid programs inappropriately use Congress’s spending power to coerce the states? No federal court has ever struck down a law on this basis, and experts across the political spectrum think a win for the challengers on this question is very unlikely. But the Court’s answer could have very big repercussions outside of the health care sphere. Congress has grown very fond of using the carrot of federal funding to compel all sorts of state action, in areas as broad as educational policy, civil-rights enforcement, and the drinking age. And even a decision upholding the law could include some guidelines that would signal the Court will limit Congress's powers in the future. "I think this is one where the challengers can win by losing," said Kevin Walsh, an associate law professor at the University of Richmond former Antonin Scalia clerk.

View the original article here

SCOTUS to begin 3-day review of Obama's health care law

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to begin three days of historic arguments over President Obama's health care law. Jan Crawford previews the battle in a case that has divided the American public and lower courts.


View the original article here

7 little-known health care reform gems

The Affordable Care Act: Is It Unconstitutional?Daily Ticker

President Obama's health care reform represents the most sweeping overhaul of the current system and its fate is …


View the original article here

Quick Weight Loss Tips and L-Carnitine

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Health Act Arguments Open With 1867 Obstacle

Indeed, the lawyer, Paul D. Clement, who represents the 26 states challenging the law, said this month in remarks at the Georgetown University Law Center that the first day’s arguments are “a kind of practical joke that the court is playing on the public.”

The main event — arguments over the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty — will not come until Tuesday. But early Monday morning, crowds continued to grow outside the court, as people gathered to demonstrate their support, or their opposition, to the health care law.

A sprawling picket of supporters of the law wound its way around morning commuters, police officers, TV camera crews and photographers, chanting, “Protect our law, protect our care.” Robert Yochem, a 45-year-old political activist from Baltimore, who described himself as a “general do-gooder,” said he had come early Monday to show his support for the law. Opponents of the law were in short supply, an absence that puzzled Mr. Yochem.

“They might show up later, I don’t know,” he said, standing facing a line of traffic on First Street in the bright morning sunshine with a sign that read, “Protect my health care.”

In the first case, the justices will consider whether they are barred from hearing the case until the first penalties come due in 2015.

The answer to that question is not obvious. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that it was powerless to decide the law’s constitutionality for now, and a prominent judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed.

Their opinions relied on an 1867 federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” In other words, people who object to taxes must pay first and litigate later.

But the first penalties do not kick in until 2014, and they must be paid on federal tax returns by April 2015. That means, the appeals court judges said, that federal courts are forbidden for now to hear challenges to the health care law.

The Obama administration pressed this argument in trial courts but abandoned it on appeal. The challengers to the law have always said the 1867 law poses no obstacle to immediate review.

In the Supreme Court, the administration suggested that the justices appoint an outside lawyer to argue that the 1867 law bars the challenges. The justices asked Robert A. Long to do so, and he goes first on Monday.

Mr. Long is to be followed by two lawyers: Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Gregory G. Katsas, who represents the private parties challenging the law.

Mr. Long says the 1867 law is “jurisdictional,” meaning it forbids courts to hear suits even if, as here, neither side objects.

In the health care law, Congress called the required payment a penalty rather than a tax. But the penalty is contained in the Internal Revenue Code, and the health care law says it is to be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as a tax.

Mr. Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, walks a fine line. He has told the court that the administration wants a prompt ruling on the health care law and that the 1867 law should not stand in the way. Yet the administration does not want to damage its ability to rely on the 1867 law in other cases.

There are other complications. Mr. Verrilli’s argument that the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the 1867 law is in potential tension with one he will make on Tuesday, that the mandate was authorized not only by Congress’s power under the commerce clause but also by its power to levy taxes.

Mr. Verrilli argues that the name that Congress gave the payment required for violating the mandate in the health care law — a penalty, not a tax — matters for purposes of the 1867 law but is irrelevant in connection with the constitutional taxing power, where “it is the practical operation of the provision, not its label, that controls.”

The challengers to the law, represented by Mr. Katsas, agree with Mr. Verrilli that the court may decide the case on the merits. He says the penalty for failing to obtain insurance is not the sort of tax the 1867 law concerns. Mr. Long responds that the term “tax” in the 1867 law has been interpreted very broadly.

Mr. Katsas also says the challenge is in any event to the mandate, which applies to virtually every American, rather than to the penalty, which applies to a smaller group. Mr. Long responds that the challenge is to both provisions and that striking down the mandate would have the same effect as a premature ruling to forbid the assessment of the penalty.

In a brief filed with the court, the states challenging the health care law press a further argument. They say the 1867 law does not, in any event, apply to them even if it applies to the private challengers.

An oddity of the case is that a ruling from the Supreme Court that it lacks jurisdiction could be easily reversed by Congress, which is free at any time to amend the 1867 law. The prospect of having to rehear the case in short order may not be attractive to the justices.


View the original article here

AP: Mass. health care 5-year lobbying topped $51M

BOSTON (AP) -- Hospitals, insurers, doctors and unions are spending tens of millions of dollars trying to make sure their voices are heard on Beacon Hill as Massachusetts lawmakers weigh sweeping changes to the way the state pays for health coverage.

In 2011 alone, the health care industry, one of the largest economic sectors in the state, doled out more than $11.6 million on lobbying.

And during the five years since the state passed its landmark health care overhaul, from 2007 to 2011, the total amount spent on lobbying by the industry topped $51.6 million, according to a review of state records by The Associated Press.

By contrast, the casino gambling industry spent $11.4 million on lobbying during that same stretch.

The flood of health care lobbying comes as lawmakers debate whether to create systems designed to reward health care providers for keeping patients healthy rather than paying them piecemeal for treating illnesses.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray have both said they hope to deliver a payment overhaul bill to Gov. Deval Patrick this year.

This month, DeLeo said the goal of the House bill — which has not been introduced — would be to bring the annual growth in health care expenses more in line with Massachusetts' overall economic growth rate of 3.7 percent.

Health care costs have been rising at an annual rate of 6.7 to 8 percent in recent years, said DeLeo.

"Costs are coming down, but we need a long-term sustainable plan," said DeLeo, D-Winthrop, during a recent speech. "Health care is a $70 billion industry in Massachusetts, and we need to be more thoughtful in how these dollars are spent."

The size of the industry and the high stakes involved in the proposed overhaul could account for the massive and sustained lobbying push.

Nine of the top 10 health care groups broke the $1 million lobbying mark during the past five years, the AP review found.

The top spender was Partners HealthCare, which spent more than $2.9 million on lobbying in that five years.

Much of that went to pay the salaries of more than a dozen lobbyists and companies working to make sure Partners' message reached lawmakers. A smaller portion went to operating expenses.

Partners was followed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, both of which spent more than $2.1 million, followed by the Massachusetts Nurses Association, which spent about $2 million and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, which spent more than $1.6 million.

They were followed by the Massachusetts Medical Society ($1.51 million), Tufts Associated Health Plans ($1.46 million), Vanguard Health Systems ($1.42 million), Children's Hospital Boston ($1.38 million) and Baystate Health ($992,000).

Rich Copp, a spokesman for Partners HealthCare, defended the amount spent on lobbying, as did representatives for some of the other groups.

It's critical that the health care provider keeps the lines of communication with lawmakers open as they consider new options to control the soaring costs of health care, he said.

"There's been an intense effort in recent years to rein in health care spending," Copp said. "We have a responsibility on behalf of our patients and employees to engage in that dialogue with government leaders on health care cost control."

Copp said the lobbying is even more important given the reach of Partners.

The health care provider is one of the largest employers in the state, with more than 60,000 employees and nine hospitals.

Sharon Torgerson, director of public relations for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, said the sweeping changes to the state's health care system required the insurer to stay involved on Beacon Hill.

"As Massachusetts' largest health plan, we have a long and proud history of community and civic engagement," she said. "It is important that during public policy debates we advocate to reform the way health care is delivered and paid for in order to keep it more affordable."

Eric Linzer, a senior vice president at the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, said the nonprofit group also wants to maintain a voice on Beacon Hill during the health care cost debate.

The group represents 13 health plans that provide coverage to more than 2.3 million Massachusetts residents.

Specifically, Linzer said in a statement that the group wants to make sure that any new laws and regulations curb what he said was the lopsided influence of better-known hospitals and other health care providers on the cost of care.

A 2010 report by Attorney General Martha Coakley found that higher-priced hospitals help drive up health costs in Massachusetts.

The report found that prices hospitals charge for the same services vary widely within the same geographic area and those changes that can't be explained by quality of care. The report also found that higher-priced hospitals have gained more market share, forcing lower-priced hospitals to close or consolidate.

David Schildmeier, spokesman for the Massachusetts Nurses Association, said the union's lobbying is different from the lobbying by insurers and hospitals.

Schildmeier said the union's main concern is making sure that the welfare of nurses, staff and patients don't get lost in the push to curb health care spending.

One bill the union has been pushing on Beacon Hill would create nurse-to-patient ratios that the union said are needed to ensure patient safety and comfort.

"Every time they try to change the payments system, they end up hurting patients," Schildmeier said. "Our money was spent on protecting the public and protecting nurses."

DeLeo's speech came more than one year after Patrick unveiled a cost containment plan that sought an end to the traditional fee-for-service approach that charges patients on the basis of the tests and procedures.

Patrick's plan called for the creation of so-called accountable care organizations and a system of payments that are tied more closely to patient outcomes.

Patrick has said that while the landmark 2006 health care bill signed by his predecessor, Republican Mitt Romney, has made health care almost universally accessible in Massachusetts, it has not made it any more affordable.

DeLeo declined to say whether the House plan would include elements of the governor's proposal.


View the original article here