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

Health care debate shifts to Medicare panel

NEW: Republicans say doctors will drop Medicare patients if payments are cut The House will vote Thursday on eliminating an independent panel on Medicare cuts The panel is supposed to help develop cost-saving Medicare reformsCongress has been unable to bring down Medicare costs

Washington (CNN) -- In the bitter political debate over health care reform two years ago, one of the most contentious issues was a proposed advisory board that would recommend how to achieve needed but as-yet-unreachable Medicare savings.

Opponents dubbed the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) a "death panel" that would ration medical coverage for senior citizens based on cost and effectiveness, rather than decisions reached between patient and doctor.

Supporters called such rhetoric overheated and misleading, arguing the advisory board was necessary to motivate a reluctant health care industry to adopt cost-cutting reforms that Congress had proven unwilling or unable to impose.

Now the House will consider repealing the advisory board provision this week in an election-year move that rekindles the fiery emotions of the health care fight back in 2009 and 2010.

While the repeal effort is expected to eventually fall short, it gives opponents of health care reform a rallying point for their continued efforts to undermine the 2010 law. Some of the rhetoric from two years earlier has re-emerged, such as warnings of a government takeover of health care.

"What we oppose is the president deciding who gets what," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, told a news conference Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee told reporters that the IPAB panel was "designed to put a Washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor."

That's not the intent or the reality of the advisory board, insisted Dr. Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For example, the law targeted by the repeal effort specifically forbids the advisory board from rationing health care to reduce spending.

"We're in a very polarized era. It's hard to have rational conversations with people" on the issue, Berwick told CNN.

Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said this week that "charges that the board is going to be able to deny people care are just flat out wrong."

"The law makes every effort to restrict the board so that it can't do that," Van de Water said. "And in fact, if anything, the charge is the opposite of the truth."

The 15-member IPAB board would comprise independent experts to recommend Medicare cost reductions starting in 2015 if Congress and the health care industry and insurers fail to agree on $300 billion in savings called for in the health care reform law.

Designed as a nonpolitical solution in the event of legislative stalemate, the panel's recommendations do not require congressional approval but can be offset by Congress. Some critics, including Democrats who back health care reform, cite the independent board's relative autonomy as a reason for eliminating it.

In addition, Republican sponsors have added long-desired tort reform provisions against frivolous lawsuits to offset the cost of eliminating the panel intended to bring Medicare savings. However, the legal lobby and many Democrats oppose tort reforms, raising questions about the final makeup of the bill.

According to Berwick, opposition to the IPAB panel breaks down into three groups: a "significant minority" that hates the 2010 health care reform law and wants to scare people about it; political opponents of President Barack Obama trying to hurt his re-election chances, and health care providers and insurers "doing quite well in the status quo" who are unwilling to commit to Medicare reforms.

Despite such opposition, no one disputes the need to change Medicare in order to keep it solvent in coming decades, as baby boomers reach retirement age and flood its ranks.

Republicans who have long opposed Medicare want to lower the cost by eventually making it a subsidized program instead of a government-run system.

The House Republican budget for 2013 made public Tuesday would offer future seniors a choice of staying in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan or opting for a Medicare-approved private plan, all of which would be available via a new Medicare exchange.

No matter which plan they chose, including the traditional Medicare plan, seniors would receive a government subsidy to help pay for their choice.

The 2010 health care reform law sought cost reductions in Medicare through more efficient delivery of services. For example, it envisioned increased collaboration through electronic medical records to reduce repetitive and costly tests, as well as basing reimbursement on quality of care rather than quantity of services provided.

"It's conceivable you could ratchet down on payments for routine MRIs or CAT scans and use some of that money to shore up payments to providers and ... make the whole system a little more efficient," noted Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Under the law, the IPAB panel would step in if targeted cost reductions went unmet.

Those seeking repeal of the advisory board say it will lead to indiscriminate cost-cutting rather than the intended reforms to maintain Medicare's long-term solvency.

Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-New York, who practiced ophthalmology for 16 years prior to her election to Congress in 2010, said Medicare reimbursements already were being lowered to a point where some physicians cannot afford to treat Medicare patients.

"That is the last thing our seniors need," Hayworth said Wednesday. "In many practices across the country, that threat will only increase with IPAB."

Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Arkansas, said at a Monday news conference that the advisory board "will do nothing to change how Medicare works," adding "it will simply say we've run out of money, and now we're cutting."

The American Medical Association, a major physician's advocacy organization, also wants to repeal the advisory board even though it supported the broader health care reform law.

It already wrestles with what has been a 15-year problem involving Medicare reimbursements that exemplifies the difficulty of reforming the program.

The Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate provision enacted in 1997 limits increases in Medicare costs to the same rate of growth in the gross domestic product. Under the formula, the costs have repeatedly risen higher than planned.

Rather than cutting payments to Medicare doctors, Congress has regularly authorized extra money to make up the difference, with the latest so-called "doc fix" set to expire at the end of 2012.

That means doctors face a 30% cut in Medicare reimbursements from the government in January, and now the IPAB panel would be empowered to recommend steeper cuts, AMA board Chairman Dr. Robert Wah told CNN in a telephone interview.

The AMA wants Congress to stabilize funding for Medicare reimbursements for five years to allow doctors time to work out reforms outlined in the 2010 health care legislation.

According to Wah, the fear is that the IPAB panel will recommend across-the-board spending cuts that drive doctors away from Medicare patients while failing to inspire the necessary reforms.

"A board that doesn't have to answer to anybody and has the latitude to make dramatic cuts has consequences for our patients," said Wah, later adding: "It's very hard to do that kind of innovation when there is uncertainty and the threat of large cuts."

For Berwick, the question is, "how do you create the political and social will for uncomfortable changes?"

"The evidence so far is that motivation solely from inside health care, changing itself, is insufficient," he said.

CNN's Laurie Ure contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Health care debate shifts to Medicare panel

NEW: Republicans say doctors will drop Medicare patients if payments are cut The House will vote Thursday on eliminating an independent panel on Medicare cuts The panel is supposed to help develop cost-saving Medicare reformsCongress has been unable to bring down Medicare costs

Washington (CNN) -- In the bitter political debate over health care reform two years ago, one of the most contentious issues was a proposed advisory board that would recommend how to achieve needed but as-yet-unreachable Medicare savings.

Opponents dubbed the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) a "death panel" that would ration medical coverage for senior citizens based on cost and effectiveness, rather than decisions reached between patient and doctor.

Supporters called such rhetoric overheated and misleading, arguing the advisory board was necessary to motivate a reluctant health care industry to adopt cost-cutting reforms that Congress had proven unwilling or unable to impose.

Now the House will consider repealing the advisory board provision this week in an election-year move that rekindles the fiery emotions of the health care fight back in 2009 and 2010.

While the repeal effort is expected to eventually fall short, it gives opponents of health care reform a rallying point for their continued efforts to undermine the 2010 law. Some of the rhetoric from two years earlier has re-emerged, such as warnings of a government takeover of health care.

"What we oppose is the president deciding who gets what," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, told a news conference Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee told reporters that the IPAB panel was "designed to put a Washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor."

That's not the intent or the reality of the advisory board, insisted Dr. Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For example, the law targeted by the repeal effort specifically forbids the advisory board from rationing health care to reduce spending.

"We're in a very polarized era. It's hard to have rational conversations with people" on the issue, Berwick told CNN.

Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said this week that "charges that the board is going to be able to deny people care are just flat out wrong."

"The law makes every effort to restrict the board so that it can't do that," Van de Water said. "And in fact, if anything, the charge is the opposite of the truth."

The 15-member IPAB board would comprise independent experts to recommend Medicare cost reductions starting in 2015 if Congress and the health care industry and insurers fail to agree on $300 billion in savings called for in the health care reform law.

Designed as a nonpolitical solution in the event of legislative stalemate, the panel's recommendations do not require congressional approval but can be offset by Congress. Some critics, including Democrats who back health care reform, cite the independent board's relative autonomy as a reason for eliminating it.

In addition, Republican sponsors have added long-desired tort reform provisions against frivolous lawsuits to offset the cost of eliminating the panel intended to bring Medicare savings. However, the legal lobby and many Democrats oppose tort reforms, raising questions about the final makeup of the bill.

According to Berwick, opposition to the IPAB panel breaks down into three groups: a "significant minority" that hates the 2010 health care reform law and wants to scare people about it; political opponents of President Barack Obama trying to hurt his re-election chances, and health care providers and insurers "doing quite well in the status quo" who are unwilling to commit to Medicare reforms.

Despite such opposition, no one disputes the need to change Medicare in order to keep it solvent in coming decades, as baby boomers reach retirement age and flood its ranks.

Republicans who have long opposed Medicare want to lower the cost by eventually making it a subsidized program instead of a government-run system.

The House Republican budget for 2013 made public Tuesday would offer future seniors a choice of staying in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan or opting for a Medicare-approved private plan, all of which would be available via a new Medicare exchange.

No matter which plan they chose, including the traditional Medicare plan, seniors would receive a government subsidy to help pay for their choice.

The 2010 health care reform law sought cost reductions in Medicare through more efficient delivery of services. For example, it envisioned increased collaboration through electronic medical records to reduce repetitive and costly tests, as well as basing reimbursement on quality of care rather than quantity of services provided.

"It's conceivable you could ratchet down on payments for routine MRIs or CAT scans and use some of that money to shore up payments to providers and ... make the whole system a little more efficient," noted Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Under the law, the IPAB panel would step in if targeted cost reductions went unmet.

Those seeking repeal of the advisory board say it will lead to indiscriminate cost-cutting rather than the intended reforms to maintain Medicare's long-term solvency.

Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-New York, who practiced ophthalmology for 16 years prior to her election to Congress in 2010, said Medicare reimbursements already were being lowered to a point where some physicians cannot afford to treat Medicare patients.

"That is the last thing our seniors need," Hayworth said Wednesday. "In many practices across the country, that threat will only increase with IPAB."

Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Arkansas, said at a Monday news conference that the advisory board "will do nothing to change how Medicare works," adding "it will simply say we've run out of money, and now we're cutting."

The American Medical Association, a major physician's advocacy organization, also wants to repeal the advisory board even though it supported the broader health care reform law.

It already wrestles with what has been a 15-year problem involving Medicare reimbursements that exemplifies the difficulty of reforming the program.

The Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate provision enacted in 1997 limits increases in Medicare costs to the same rate of growth in the gross domestic product. Under the formula, the costs have repeatedly risen higher than planned.

Rather than cutting payments to Medicare doctors, Congress has regularly authorized extra money to make up the difference, with the latest so-called "doc fix" set to expire at the end of 2012.

That means doctors face a 30% cut in Medicare reimbursements from the government in January, and now the IPAB panel would be empowered to recommend steeper cuts, AMA board Chairman Dr. Robert Wah told CNN in a telephone interview.

The AMA wants Congress to stabilize funding for Medicare reimbursements for five years to allow doctors time to work out reforms outlined in the 2010 health care legislation.

According to Wah, the fear is that the IPAB panel will recommend across-the-board spending cuts that drive doctors away from Medicare patients while failing to inspire the necessary reforms.

"A board that doesn't have to answer to anybody and has the latitude to make dramatic cuts has consequences for our patients," said Wah, later adding: "It's very hard to do that kind of innovation when there is uncertainty and the threat of large cuts."

For Berwick, the question is, "how do you create the political and social will for uncomfortable changes?"

"The evidence so far is that motivation solely from inside health care, changing itself, is insufficient," he said.

CNN's Laurie Ure contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Health care debate shifts to Medicare panel

The House will vote Thursday on eliminating an independent panel on Medicare cutsFoes of health care reform oppose the Medicare panelThe panel is supposed to help develop cost-saving Medicare reformsCongress has been unable to bring down Medicare costs

Washington (CNN) -- In the bitter political debate over health care reform two years ago, one of the most contentious issues was a proposed advisory board that would recommend how to achieve needed but as-yet-unreachable Medicare savings.

Opponents dubbed the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) a "death panel" that would ration medical coverage for senior citizens based on cost and effectiveness, rather than decisions reached between patient and doctor.

Supporters called such rhetoric overheated and misleading, arguing the advisory board was necessary to motivate a reluctant health care industry to adopt cost-cutting reforms that Congress had proven unwilling or unable to impose.

Now the U.S. House will consider repealing the advisory board provision this week in an election-year move that rekindles the fiery emotions of the health care fight back in 2009 and 2010.

While the repeal effort is expected to eventually fall short, it gives opponents of health care reform a rallying point for their continued efforts to undermine the 2010 law. Some of the rhetoric from two years earlier has re-emerged.

var currExpandable="expand16";if(typeof CNN.expandableMap==='object'){CNN.expandableMap.push(currExpandable);}var mObj={};mObj.type='video';mObj.contentId='';mObj.source='bestoftv/2012/03/19/exp-point-jeffrey-toobin.cnn';mObj.lgImage="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120319120945-exp-point-jeffrey-toobin-00002001-story-body.jpg";mObj.lgImageX=300;mObj.lgImageY=169;mObj.origImageX="214";mObj.origImageY="120";mObj.contentType='video';CNN.expElements.expand16Store=mObj;var currExpandable="expand26";if(typeof CNN.expandableMap==='object'){CNN.expandableMap.push(currExpandable);}var mObj={};mObj.type='video';mObj.contentId='';mObj.source='bestoftv/2012/03/19/exp-early-toobin-health-care.cnn';mObj.lgImage="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120319100742-exp-early-toobin-health-care-00002001-story-body.jpg";mObj.lgImageX=300;mObj.lgImageY=169;mObj.origImageX="214";mObj.origImageY="120";mObj.contentType='video';CNN.expElements.expand26Store=mObj;"Everyone who has parents or grandparents on Medicare, you ought to be afraid of this," Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tennessee, told reporters Monday, adding that the panel was "designed to put a Washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor."

That's not the intent or the reality of the advisory board, insisted Dr. Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For example, the law targeted by the repeal effort specifically forbids the advisory board from rationing health care to reduce spending.

"We're in a very polarized era. It's hard to have rationale conversations with people" on the issue, Berwick told CNN.

The 15-member IPAB board would comprise independent experts to recommend Medicare cost reductions starting in 2015 if Congress and the health care industry and insurers fail to agree on $300 billion in savings called for in the health care reform law.

Designed as a nonpolitical solution in the event of legislative stalemate, the panel's recommendations do not require congressional approval but can be offset by Congress. Some critics, including Democrats who back health care reform, cite the independent board's relative autonomy as a reason for eliminating it.

In addition, Republican sponsors have added long-desired tort reform provisions against frivolous lawsuits to offset the cost of eliminating the panel intended to bring Medicare savings. However, the legal lobby and many Democrats oppose tort reforms, raising questions about the final makeup of the bill.

According to Berwick, opposition to the IPAB panel breaks down into three groups: a "significant minority" that hates the 2010 health care reform law and wants to scare people about it; political opponents of President Barack Obama trying to hurt his re-election chances, and health care providers and insurers "doing quite well in the status quo" who are unwilling to commit to Medicare reforms.

Despite such opposition, no one disputes the need to change Medicare in order to keep it solvent in coming decades, as baby boomers reach retirement age and flood its ranks.

Republicans who have long opposed Medicare want to lower the cost by eventually making it a subsidized program instead of a government-run system.

The House Republican budget for 2013 made public Tuesday would offer future seniors a choice of staying in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan or opting for a Medicare-approved private plan, all of which would be available via a new Medicare exchange.

No matter which plan they chose, including the traditional Medicare plan, seniors would receive a government subsidy to help pay for their choice.

The 2010 health care reform law sought cost reductions in Medicare through more efficient delivery of services. For example, it envisioned increased collaboration through electronic medical records to reduce repetitive and costly tests, as well as basing reimbursement on quality of care rather than quantity of services provided.

Under the law, the IPAB panel would step in if targeted cost reductions went unmet.

Those seeking repeal of the advisory board say it will lead to indiscriminate cost-cutting rather than the intended reforms to maintain Medicare's long-term solvency.

"This particular law -- IPAB -- will do nothing to change how Medicare works," Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Arkansas, told the Monday news conference. "It will simply say we've run out of money, and now we're cutting."

The American Medical Association, a major physician's advocacy organization, also wants to repeal the advisory board even though it supported the broader health care reform law.

It already wrestles with what has been a 15-year problem involving Medicare reimbursements that exemplifies the difficulty of reforming the program.

The Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate provision enacted in 1997 limits increases in Medicare costs to the same rate of growth in the gross domestic product. Under the formula, the costs have repeatedly risen higher than planned.

Rather than cutting payments to Medicare doctors, Congress has regularly authorized extra money to make up the difference, with the latest so-called "doc fix" set to expire at the end of 2012.

That means doctors face a 30% cut in Medicare reimbursements from the government in January, and now the IPAB panel would be empowered to recommend steeper cuts, AMA board Chairman Dr. Robert Wah told CNN in a telephone interview.

The AMA wants Congress to stabilize funding for Medicare reimbursements for five years to allow doctors time to work out reforms outlined in the 2010 health care legislation.

According to Wah, the fear is that the IPAB panel will recommend across-the-board spending cuts that drive doctors away from Medicare patients while failing to inspire the necessary reforms.

"A board that doesn't have to answer to anybody and has the latitude to make dramatic cuts has consequences for our patients," said Wah, later adding: "It's very hard to do that kind of innovation when there is uncertainty and the threat of large cuts."

For Berwick, the question is, "how do you create the political and social will for uncomfortable changes."

"The evidence so far is that motivation solely from inside health care, changing itself, is insufficient," he said.

View the original article here

Medicare Is Missing The Obesity Target

e-HealthSource.com is a service of e-Healthcare Solutions.
e-HealthSource.com offers a suite of marketing tools for health publishers. Currently, these tools are free. In the future, some of the tools may be fee-based.

HealthDay News: HealthDay Health News feed, automatically updated 6 times a day. You can choose your specific health topic out of 36 disease categories. (The feed on the left is showing the topic "General Health.") Get the HealthDay News feed now. Roo Media Health Video Feeds: Roo Media health video feeds, are automatically updated each time a new video is added by Roo media. You can choose your feed out of eight health categories. (The feed on the left is showing the topic "Your Health.") Learn more about how to get the Roo Video feed.. Health Articles Database: Health Articles Database feed, automatically updated whenever new articles are uploaded into the category that you choose. You can choose your specific health topic out of 36 disease categories. (The feed on the left is showing the topic "Cancer.") Get the Health Articles Database feed now. You can also add your own articles by submitting your health related articles to the Health Articles Database. Health Links: Health Links Database RSS feed, automatically updated whenever new links are posted into the category that you have chosen to display. You can choose your specific health topic out of 36 disease categories. Get the e-HealthLinks feed now. You can also add your own link by submitting your health related site to e-HealthLinks.com. Health Press Release News Service: Health Press Release News RSS feed, automatically updated whenever new press releases are posted into the category that you have chosen to display. You can choose your specific health topic out of 36 disease categories. You can also add your own press releases by submitting to e-HealthWire.com. CME Directory: CME Courses RSS feed, automatically updated whenever new courses are posted into the category that you have chosen to display. You can choose your specific health topic out of 36 disease categories. You can also add your own courses by submitting to CME Directory. Discussions: Choose from over 100 health topics and have the ability to make your site look large by sharing a discussion board with other health sites. (The feed on the left is showing Cancer related topics.) Join these discussions and help promote the community. We allow you to include a link back to your site on each of your posts to this board. Drug Search: Top 100 drugs. Drug information from PDRHealth.com. Hot Health Resources: Here we list the sites that contribute to these resources. You can particpate freely in any of these sites and help build out content, as well as get multiple links from different websites to your site. Refer-A-Friend: This tool will allow visitors to refer your site to other people via email. Medical Guides: General information about specific medical conditions provided by Medifocus.com. Choose from 30 guides. (The guides chosen on the left are all cancer-related.) Sponsored Links: Sponsors that help to pay for the further development of this community. Blogs: Health Blogs RSS feeds, automatically updated.

Custom Templates: If you have over 100,000 page views per month, inquire about our custom templates that match the look and feel of your site.

Generic Template: If you have less than 100,000 page views a month, you can still display the HealthDay News Feed and the Articles Database Feed, but your visitors will be sent to a generic template.

If your site gets over 100,000 page views per month, you may qualify for a free custom designed landing page for the feeds. Contact us for more information.

If you have less than 100,000 page views per month, there are still plenty of opportunities to build out your site.

View the original article here