Health 2.0 Announces Winners of the Washington D.C. Health Data & Innovation Week Code-a-Thon: Preventing Obesity

Would You Rather Own Apple or Gold?Breakout

It may sound like some sort of riddle out a fairy tale, but the premise of our question is fairly profound; whether …

View the original article here

Washington state health officials appeal contraception ruling

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Washington state health officials asked an appeals court on Wednesday to reinstate a rule requiring that pharmacists dispense emergency contraceptives even when doing so violates their religious beliefs.

District Judge Ronald Leighton blocked the regulation last month, finding it trampled on the pharmacists' right to "conscientious objection" in violation of the Constitution.

Leighton's ruling in a case brought by a drugstore owner and two of his pharmacists in the state capital, Olympia, comes amid a national political debate over a federal policy mandating free coverage for women's contraceptives through employer-sponsored health plans.

Several universities with religious affiliations have sued to block that regulation, using arguments similar to those that prevailed in the pharmacy case -- namely that the government has no right to compel individuals to violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

But the state's Department of Health and Board of Pharmacy asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the trial court's determination that the requirement targets religious opposition to certain medications.

"This isn't about religious objections," health department spokesman Tim Church said. "This rule is meant to ensure that people have access to time-sensitive medications."

The morning-after pill, available under the brands Plan B One-Step, ella and Next Choice, can be taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex, but is most effective when taken within the first 72 hours.

State officials said that particularly in rural areas of eastern Washington, where pharmacies may be more than 20 miles apart, a patient denied service by one pharmacist would not be able to go elsewhere for the medication in time.

GOVERNOR WEIGHS IN

The case stems from a rule adopted by the Washington State Pharmacy Board in 2007 requiring pharmacies to stock and dispense legal medications for which there is a demonstrated community need.

The drugstore owner and two pharmacists who brought the lawsuit said they believed that emergency contraceptives were tantamount to abortion because they could theoretically stop an already-fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

As conservative Christians, they refused to dispense the medication, then sued to block the regulation.

After a 12-day trial, the court found overwhelming evidence that the regulations allow pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for all sorts of business, economic, and convenience reasons, but not for reasons of conscience.

"The Constitution does not allow the state to single out religious conduct for unfavorable treatment," said Luke Goodrich, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which served as co-counsel for the pharmacists.

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire, a Democrat in her last year of office, issued a statement supporting the appeal.

"Any decision that puts patients at risk by delaying or denying them lawful and lawfully prescribed medications should be carefully reviewed by a higher court," she said.

Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest also plans to join in the state's appeal of Leighton's verdict.

"We really feel that this could set a dangerous precedent and allow other health care providers to refuse to dispense emergency contraception or any other drug they personally disagree with," said Kristen Glundberg-Prossor, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.

Last spring, a state judge in Illinois struck down a similar law requiring pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception.

A handful of other states, including California, New Jersey and Wisconsin, have laws requiring pharmacies to fill all valid prescriptions, but loopholes allow pharmacists with moral objections to refer the patient to another drugstore.

Six states explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, and several more have broad right-to-conscience laws that provide some protection to pharmacists as well as to other health care professionals.

(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Cynthia Johnston)

View the original article here

Health care proposal worries Washington educators

Charles Bickenheuser said he and his wife are treated well by their health care coverage.

The two Pasco School District teachers have individual insurance plans that don't require them to pay out-of-pocket premiums. Their coverage paid for Bickenheuser's heart valve replacement several years ago, as well as a surgery for his wife.

Now, though, he said they're considering retiring earlier and moving to Bickenheuser's home state of Montana because of a proposal in the Washington Senate to establish a single insurance policy for all public school employees.

By his understanding, Bickenheuser said it would cost him and his wife an additional $600 to $700 a month at least.

"(That's) a big piece of change," he said.

Senate Bill 6442 is in the Senate Rules Committee, waiting to move to the Senate floor for a vote. And everyone is saying something different about how the bill would affect school employees, taxpayers and district budgets.

Teachers say the bill is an unnecessary government intrusion into their health care that would cost taxpayers and districts more money.

"It isn't that we have this amazing Cadillac plan," said Jeri Morrow, president of the Richland Education Association.

Classified employees -- custodians, school secretaries, nurses and para-educators -- and their representatives said the bill is necessary to level the playing field for all school employees and prepare for health care costs that are only going up.

"Classified employees are the canary in the coal mine," said Heather Meier, communications coordinator for the Public School Employees of Washington.

Tri-City school district officials, however say they either don't yet know of the possible effects of the legislation or don't expect it to change their budgets.

"It doesn't look like this bill would be of any savings or cost to the district," said Lorraine Cooper, spokeswoman for the Kennewick School District.

Currently, teachers and classified employees and their unions negotiate with their school districts for health care coverage.

For teachers, monthly costs depend on the level of coverage they want and how many people are covered under that plan. The lowest cost plan costs from $466 for an individual to up to $1,056 for a whole family. More extensive coverage costs even more, with a monthly cost of more than $2,000 for a whole family.

The school district's share of that depends on how many years of service the employee has with the district and their salary level.

The cumulative cost to the state for the hundreds of different health care plans is estimated at $1 billion a year, according to a legislative report.

If approved, SB 6442 would pool all public school employees into one group and have them all fall under one health insurance plan. The plan would be administered by a new state agency, the School Employees Benefits Board.

Leslee Caul, spokeswoman for the Pasco School District, said the district does not have a position on the bill and administrators have not done a cost analysis.

Steve Aagaard, spokesman for the Richland School District, said he wasn't sure if the true costs of the proposal are known. Rich Puryear, the Richland district's finance director, said he had not analyzed the potential fiscal impact.

Lawmakers, including state Sens. Jerome Delvin, R-Richland, and Jana Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake, said the consolidation of plans would save taxpayers money. They've also said the new system would be more equitable for classified staff, who typically lose more of their paycheck to health care costs.

The Public School Employees, or PSE, supports the legislation. Meier said some classified employees pay $1,500 to $1,600 a month for health care coverage. The higher cost compared to what teachers pay is because classified employees work fewer hours and have lower salary levels.

Additionally, the pool of classified employees contributing to health care is smaller and fluctuates as people drop or take on coverage, meaning those employees don't necessarily pay the same amount each month, she said.

The Washington Association of School Administrators supports the bill, pointing out that it provides more equity between school employees, reduces district administrative responsibility when it comes to providing health care benefits and adds increased transparency on how tax dollars are spent.

Proponents also claim the bill would make coverage more affordable in the longterm for all school employees.

Teachers, their local unions and the Washington Education Association, however, have said they have a number of problems with the legislation.

Jim Gow, WEA regional director, said the financial report provided to the Senate indicates it will cost the state $44.8 million to establish the new system. And teachers also would have to pay a monthly fee as part of their coverage.

Morrow said costs also would go up for many teachers, as the cost of individual coverage would increase and married teachers working in the same district would no longer be able to maintain individual accounts.

She and others pointed out that teachers currently cost the state less in health care costs than other state employees.

A report on the proposal by the Washington Health Care Authority said it expects positive results of consolidating public school employee health care.

However, districts would no longer receive a set amount of money per employee from the state to cover health care costs. That amount would vary depending on the employee's selected coverage level, leaving districts on the hook, at least at first, for covering unforseen costs of employee care.

Another concern: It's not entirely known how the new plan would affect premiums. And Gow said it is not clear what benefits a single plan would cover.

Mid-Columbia teachers rally to oppose bill (w/ gallery, video)

" tooltipId="mi_tt1">

Mid-Columbia teachers rally to oppose bill (w/ gallery, video)

PASCO — Kristi Williams says a plan to overhaul health care for K-12 school employees is the latest attempt by state lawmakers to undermine education.

Surrounded by people wearing red "We Teach Washington" T-shirts and holding posters, she noted the loss of cost-of-living salary increases, professional days and salary cuts in recent years.

"They just keep hitting public education over and over again," said the music teacher from Robert Frost Elementary School in Pasco.

Teachers to protest health care plans today (w/ video, gallery)

" tooltipId="mi_tt2">

Teachers to protest health care plans today (w/ video, gallery)

PASCO — Teachers from the Tri-Cities and the Mid-Columbia met at 5 p.m. today in the Chiawana High School gym in Pasco to protest a state plan to reform their health care plans.

Senate Bill 6442 would eliminate the current health insurance plans offered to school district employees and place them under a new state department.

Teacher health care

" tooltipId="mi_tt3">

Teacher health care

Here's an irony: Some of the Republican state senators who counsel fear about Obamacare are now among those devising a government takeover of teachers' health care. Their proposed bill (SB 6442) will create a new state agency to take local decisions about health coverage away from the districts and teachers. This new central-planning office will cost $45 million just to set up. Teachers will be required to pay for it with new fees. The central office will then find "cost savings." How? Only two choices: Carve away coverage and take more from our paychecks for premiums.

As an eighth-year teacher, my monthly take-home pay is $1,900 after insurance is deducted. Paying more for eviscerated health coverage will be a crushing burden to many of us. It will accelerate the exodus of experienced teachers from our schools.

So why would our Republican legislators join Democrats in leading a government takeover of health care? Here's my thought. In Wisconsin and Indiana, Republican legislators have staged frontal

Teacher health benefits ripe for restructuring

" tooltipId="mi_tt4">

Teacher health benefits ripe for restructuring

Legislation that would restructure the state education system's fractured approach to health insurance pits teachers against virtually every other school employee.

Put us on the side of the janitors, bus drivers and secretaries, many of whom are desperate for better benefits.

Those essential workers -- along with state taxpayers -- stand to gain if Washington consolidates health insurance policies for school employees.

OLYMPIA: Washington could be first to require abortion coverage

" tooltipId="mi_tt5">

OLYMPIA: Washington could be first to require abortion coverage

OLYMPIA — At a time when many states are making it harder for women to get abortions, Washington appears headed in the opposite direction.

Fifteen states have passed laws restricting insurers from covering abortions and 12 others are considering similar measures.

By contrast, a bill that has passed Washington’s House and is working its way through the Senate would make the state the first to require all health insurance plans under its jurisdiction — except those claiming a conscience-based exemption — to include abortion coverage.

View the original article here

LifeWise Health Plan of Washington Brings Members First Time Access to Mobile Tool for Managing Their Health Plan

Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 1:00 PM EST - U.S. Markets close in 3 hrs.

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

View the original article here