Reduce Your Health Insurance Costs

Health care has been the subject of debate for the United States over the past decade. Although many citizens feel divided on the issue, there are a few things you may want to consider in order to keep health insurance costs at a minimum. People are able to choose between various health insurance plans to fit their specific needs, which can potentially help to lower costs. The down side to this kind of plan is that it may require larger out-of-pocket costs when individuals want to go to an out of network health care provider. Regardless of your situation, there are several ways to reduce health insurance costs.

Sometimes it is possible to negotiate with health care providers. You should make it a point to do this on an annual basis to make sure that you are receiving the best possible coverage at the lowest price point. You should even consider shopping around to other health care companies and getting a bid from them in order to make price comparisons. With today’s technology, it is now possible to compare health insurance quotes online. You want to be careful when you find a plan that is very inexpensive. Sometimes these plans will actually cost you more in the long run. Be sure to read any fine print and to call the insurance company if you have any questions. Easy To Insure ME has the answers

Another good way to reduce health insurance costs is to look at deductibles. Figuring out the right insurance coverage for you can be tricky, so try out a few different scenarios to see how a change in deductibles will affect the monthly price of insurance. Changing the deductibles could potentially bring down the premium. You may want to keep in mind that there are additional benefits you may want to inquire about. These can include dental, vision, or maternity benefits.
Once you have decided on a health insurance plan and you are need of a doctor, you should contact your health care providers to see which doctor’s are within your network. You always have the option of comparing prices for different medical services and can decide to go to the most affordable provider. Sometimes, if a hospital is aware that you are comparing prices, they are typically willing to negotiate a lower price for your medical visit.

The most important aspect of saving money on health insurance is to carefully check all of your medical bills. A lot of mistakes can be made in billing, which will ultimately affect the amount of money you will be paying. Health insurance companies and health care providers can make mistakes when billing so keep an eye out. If you notice a problem with your bill, contact your health insurance company and physician to notify them of the mistake

GOP’s Challenge to Health Care Reform

Imagine for a moment a sudden outbreak of smallpox (weaponized smallpox, if your taste runs to Jack Bauer-style scenarios). Airborne, highly contagious, deadly, it has the capability of spreading across the country and beyond in weeks, if not contained with a program of vaccination–vaccination not for a few, but for everybody, as soon as possible. Easy To Insure ME has the answers

If Congress passed emergency authorization for the program, would you want a judge to block it? What if some citizens preferred not to be vaccinated? What if they promised Scout’s honor not to get smallpox, or if they did, not to give it anyone else?

Would you want the judge to halt the program on the grounds that not getting vaccinated was “inactivity,” and thus beyond Congress’s power over “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes?” Those who refused vaccination might act as reservoirs of the disease, and thus affect commerce. What if the judge conceded that point, but said Congress still couldn’t reach them because they weren’t voluntarily in the stream of commerce?

What if the judge blocked the program because Congress relied on private medical personnel to administer the vaccine? Congress could have created a program by which thousands of full-time federal employees would give the inoculations–that would be constitutional–but using non-employees made the program unconstitutional. Would that make sense?

While the disease spread, and hundreds or even thousands died, would you thank the judge for his fidelity to the pre-1937 vision of the Commerce Clause? Or would you think that, no matter what was written in the judge’s order, the irretrievable spread of the epidemic really had affected commerce and should have been stopped?

These reflections were spurred by the decision Monday in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius, the lawsuit brought by Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s right-wing zealot attorney general, to spare the uninsured of his state the indignity of government-funded health care. Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed with Cuccinelli that the so-called “individual mandate” provision of the Act exceeds the Commerce Clause because it seeks to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

For those of you scoring at home, currently it’s Affordable Health Care Act 2, right-wing opponents 1. Two federal district courts have upheld the program; Judge Hudson is the first district judge to hold against it. That’s neither here nor there–the final score will almost certainly be a best-of-nine championship series played here in Washington at the Supreme Court. But it does underline that the issues in the case are close. The weight of academic opinion so far supports the Act, but some of the very brightest (and perhaps not coincidentally most conservative) of my colleagues disagree.

Readers would do well to discount the importance of Judge Hudson’s decision, which is about as significant as an early NBA playoff game. And partisans might nurture the Christmas spirit by refraining either from the right-wing spike dance or the progressive chant of “You’re blind, ump!” These are hard issues; federal judges, by and large, don’t ask for these cases to land in their courtrooms. Having read the opinion, I see nothing in it to suggest that Judge Hudson is not doing his duty to construe the statute as he reads it, compare it with the Constitution as he understands it, and announce whether the two go together. His opinion was respectful to both sides and–in stark contrast to the intemperate earlier interim decision of Senior Judge Robert Vinson of a Florida district court–devoid of inflammatory rhetoric, judicial triumphalism, or talk-radio style taunting. No one can seriously argue that the judge did not earn his salary.

I do think, however, that Judge Hudson’s opinion is wrong. Grievously wrong. Threat-to-the-nation-from-rampaging-smallpox wrong.

Here’s why I think so. The argument that “inactivity” is beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause sounds reasonable. That’s because, like most serious fallacies, it’s half true. Last summer, Sen. Tom Coburn asked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan whether Congress could require individuals to eat vegetables three times a day.

The cheeky Kagan responded, “Sounds like a dumb law.” And a law that requires eating vegetables (or joining a gym, or subscribing to a newspaper) really is a dumb law. There is no overarching national necessity behind it. It’s hard to imagine Congress claiming with a straight face that vegetable portions were an emergency, or that they needed to be regulated as part of a comprehensive scheme.

That’s the answer to those who will shortly post below that “‘Professor Epps, if that is really what he is, clearly believes Congress can regulate all human activity.” (Good to see you guys again, by the way.) Congress can’t regulate everything; what it can regulate is everything that needs to be reached as part of a comprehensive scheme required by a necessity that affects the nation.

Health care is such a necessity. Before Republicans hit upon the argument that health care isn’t part of commerce, they harped for years on the dangers of regulating “one-sixth of the economy.” After years of debate (more than half a century in fact) and extensive fact-finding, Congress decided that health care could only be provided effectively through a nationwide program.

Ironically, Republican opponents concede that if Congress had passed a mandatory program funded by payroll and income taxes–a kind of Medicare for all ages–their challenge would have no merit. (In case the supple Cuccinelli later decides to reverse field, I personally saw him say this on October 21, 2010, at the Washington Legal Foundation.) Those taxes would of course be no less compulsory than the “mandate.” But Congress’ partial reliance on the private market (which in other contexts Republicans rhapsodically defend) somehow guts the nation’s power to solve its health care problem.

Well, everybody’s got to have an argument, and the right has settled on this one. But conservatives should be careful what they wish for. Every constitutional decision is to be weighed not only (or even primarily) by the specific facts at issue, but by the potential mischief of the precedent that will be set. A decision voiding the health care act would strike at the heart of our nation’s ability to deal with situations like my smallpox hypothetical.

Wait a minute, you say, health care regulation isn’t like a smallpox epidemic. No? Certainly health care is a life-or-death issue for millions of Americans, including many who will be insured under the Act but will fall through the cracks in the current system. Who could seriously claim that the 50.7 million people who currently have no health care do not constitute an emergency?

A judge, to strike down the Act, must conclude that no reasonable Congress could have concluded that the situation needed nationwide, comprehensive regulation. And that no reasonable Congress could have concluded that the “mandate” is a key part of a comprehensive scheme to ensure near-universal coverage. Because if both those things are true, then the “inactivity” of refusing to take prudent care to prepare for an individual’s health care needs is as potentially damaging as the “inactivity” of refusing needed vaccination at a time of epidemic.

What if these “inactive” individuals promise will really never, never, contract a catastrophic sickness or suffer a devastating injury, that neither they nor their children will ever, ever appear in an emergency room as uninsured patients? That rings as hollow as my hypothetical objectors’ promise not to get or spread smallpox. These things aren’t voluntary; taxes, sickness, death–you can’t opt out, no matter how you try. And, I’m sorry to the hard-core libertarians out there, you cannot agree to waive life-saving care for your children. That argument was over long ago.

The “inactivity” argument depends on the idea that the Constitution prohibits the United States from running a modern economy, in which all of us are involved by virtue of our membership in the nation. As in any highly industrialized nation, we’re all in this together. And if we adopt an old-fashioned minimal view of national authority, we will have confirmed that 21st century America has chosen decline over economic leadership.

I make no predictions. Judge Hudson’s logic may very well prevail–especially if the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, a year or two hence, cannot resist the temptation to deliver a knockout blow to a president they despise. But such a decision would sow mischief in at least two ways. First, stripping this country of its first modern health care system would deform the Constitution, set back the cause of effecting legislative self-government, and spread suffering over decades or even generations.

That may not matter so much to those who make the decision. Federal judges, like state attorneys general, are covered by generous health-insurance programs, and may not feel the whole thing is such a big deal. And our current Justices make no secret of their seething contempt for America’s legislature.

But if history teaches us anything, it teaches that emergencies come like thieves in the night, and that when they do, we look to government to step in. A strong nation preserves the tools it may need to avert disaster. Throwing those tools away would be an even greater mischief.

If the United States finds Congress’s powers gutted because of this partisan dispute, we will one day have reason to regret it.

Whole Food Nutrition for Athletes

Nutrition and exercise are essential components of a healthy lifestyle yet few people consider how strongly they relate.

Proper nutrition can enhance physical performance and maximize benefits derived from exercise. Conversely, poor nutrition can undermine exercise programs and athletic endeavors leading to sub-optimal performance, injuries, premature aging and even serious disease.

Whether you are a world class athlete or a weekend warrior, whether you are already working out regularly or just thinking about starting a fitness program, you need to question whether your body is getting the nutrition it needs to support the demands you are placing on it.

The food we eat is vitally important to our wellbeing. Modern diets are woefully inadequate to maintain optimal health, especially for the athlete. Over time, a poor diet not only diminishes physical performance but may also increase the risk of developing degenerative conditions like heart disease and cancer.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Hippocrates once famously said, “Let food be your medicine, and medicine be your food.” Good advice then and still good advice today.

Exercise is obviously beneficial for many reasons but it does impose nutritional demands on the body as we burn more fuel and push our physical limits. Anyone engaged in physical activity of any kind and at any level should be aware of these additional nutritional demands.

Physical activity increases the body’s production of harmful free radicals and may lead to oxidative stress. Proper nutrition can help minimize oxidative stress by providing greater amounts and a greater variety of antioxidants capable of neutralizing those free radicals.
While exercise is an important part of getting in shape and keeping in shape, it also places new physical demands on your body. Proper nutrition can help to maximize lean muscle mass and reduce body fat for optimal health and performance at any age.
Exercise and physical activity place variable ‘stop and go’ stresses and demands on the body. Proper nutrition can help the body store energy in the form of carbohydrate and fat releasing it appropriately under widely differing conditions including rest, sustained activity, peak performance and recovery.
Muscles, tendons and ligaments are only be as healthy as the materials they are made of. These tissues, along with the fascial system of the body, act as shock absorbers that help dissipate stress away from the bones and joints. Every time we exercise some tissue damage occurs. If the body does not have the optimal nutrition to repair itself it will rebuild new tissue with weaker materials.

The bottom line is that optimum performance in sport is achieved by professional training and good nutrition.

I often see athletes who are “physically” fit, but not “nutritionally” fit. The more serious the athlete the more important proper nutrition becomes. Signs of inadequate nutrition may include: chronically stiff muscles and joints; insomnia; poor digestion; poor recovery from training; frequent injuries; poor flexibility; lack of energy. One of the most important measures one can take to meet these nutritional needs is to consume a wide variety of fresh, raw, fruits and vegetables every day. Fruits and vegetables are excellent, nutrient dense foods that provide a whole range of antioxidants that will minimize oxidative stress and protect us from free radical damage.

These antioxidants are much less effective and can even have adverse effects if taken in an isolated supplement form, separate from the other antioxidants, plant enzymes, and micronutrients that are naturally present in whole food. To be effective we need to eat a variety of different fruits and vegetables, not consume isolated nutrients. In fact, current research (including a recent Harvard Study) indicates that not only do antioxidant supplements not protect against cancer or heart disease, but may actually cause harm in some cases.

The obvious solution is the make sure that you are eating the recommended 7 to 10 servings of fresh raw fruits and vegetables every day. However, it is often difficult for many people to consume this many daily servings, not to mention getting them fresh and free of pesticides. Whole food concentrates can bridge the nutritional gap between what we must eat to stay healthy and what most of us eat in reality.

Juice Plus+ is a whole food based product providing concentrated nutrition from 17 different fruits, vegetables and grains. It is not a vitamin supplement. It is considered a whole food, containing virtually all the substance from the fruits and vegetables from which it is made. This is important because as I explained, man-made ‘vitamins’ are not in their natural form, and are therefore not very well absorbed into your system. The vitamins and nutrients in Juice Plus+ are virtually all absorbed.

It is also one of the most well researched whole food supplements on the market today, with studies being done by several established universities and science journals demonstrating its bio-availability and numerous health benefits. For more information on these studies, check out this website at: Clinical Research.

The fresh fruits and vegetables are juiced, reduced to powder form using a proprietary process, and then concentrated with additional enzymes. It’s carefully tested to ensure no pesticides or other contaminants are present in the product. It is never exposed to high temperatures that would destroy the nutritional value of the fruits and vegetables. Most of the vitamins, minerals, active plant enzymes, phytonutrients, antioxidants, and fiber are preserved in the final capsules. When re-hydrated with water, the nutrients are absorbed into our bodies as if we had eaten the fruits and vegetables whole.

There’s no complete substitute for eating the real thing. But because so few people actually eat such a wide variety of raw fruits, vegetables and grains every single day, a whole food concentrate is a convenient way to ensure you get these important nutritional benefits. These benefits include disease prevention, stronger immune system, improved performance, slower aging, healthier heart and lower cholesterol.

This just makes sense to me, which is why I take fruit and vegetable extracts. I suggest you consider doing the same. If you want more information go to the website:

www.StayFitwithJuicePlus.com

In health,

Josh Hewett

Health Reform Will Survive?

Despite brave and bullying promises from Republicans to repeal the health reform “monstrosity” this past week, they can’t do it. Not in the next two years, and maybe not even in 2012, no matter who wins the presidency. Why? For now, because even if the Senate agreed with the House and passed a repeal bill, President Obama would veto it. By 2012 the growing number of Americans (more than half) who already like provisions of the new law, will want to keep them. Easy To Insure ME has the answers

If not repeal then, what about death by a thousand cuts? Most policy analysts believe that there are several provisions of the law that could well be revised or starved, if not outright repealed. Most of those provisions will mean little to the American public (e.g. the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the Center for Innovation in Medicare, the Patient Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the 1099 reporting requirements), but at least the first three are key to cost control in the long run. The much debated individual mandate, requiring everyone to have insurance, is making its way through the courts and could well end up in the Supreme Court, where the outcome is unknown. Republicans have vowed to have hearings every week next year, many of which will focus on the health reform law. The goal of those hearings is to stab health reform in its heart over and over again, and advocates for health reform can only hope that Americans are too busy trying to survive to listen to C-SPAN.

There are at least four groups of Americans who will gain a lot from health reform and who should push back on repeal or revision – 1) Those who can’t buy any insurance because they are or have been sick 2) Those who can’t afford insurance even if they are well, 3) Those who are employed but would love to leave their job but are afraid of losing their insurance, and 4) Those whose livelihoods depend on getting paid for providing care (i.e. doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc.) The latter category is a huge constituency for most of the basic aspects of the health reform law, since the burden of the uninsured on hospitals and doctors is becoming unsustainable. Even the health insurer constituency supports aspects of health reform like the individual mandate, since if everyone is “in”, the healthy can subsidize the sick in a reasonable way.

The most important question to ask now is: What would the Republicans propose IF they could repeal health reform? Unfortunately, their answers are as old as the debate itself. There is absolutely nothing new in the pledges to America of Reps. Cantor and Boehner. They make the same old talking points they have been making for 20 years: 1) Selling insurance across state lines; 2) malpractice reform; and 3) more personal responsibility for health care. These solutions sound innocuous but they will not solve either the crisis of the uninsured or the need to bring costs down. John Goodman has made some good points about the value of selling insurance across state lines, but his argument relies primarily on a public that is willing to pay less to get less, and then not whine when they get sick and want more! Selling insurance across state lines means that insurance companies will base themselves in states that have little regulation and few mandates to cover things like maternity care or even emergency services. Malpractice reform has been shown over and over again to contribute less than 2% to the costs of health care, so while it is a good idea, it is not “the” answer to the most pressing health reform issues. And more personal responsibility usually translates into high deductible plans that requires the member to spend 00 or more out of their pocket before any serious coverage kicks in. These “consumer driven” plans, as they are called, are much the same as the high deductible plans that many Americans currently hold, although occasionally they cover doctor visits with a co-pay. They are based on the theory that buying medical care is like buying a car or a refrigerator, which of course it is not.

What should we watch for in the next year or so? Regular hearings by Congress which will require key Administration officials to spend time preparing for and defending health reform; symbolic gestures like bills that have no chance of passage but will appear like “progress” for those that oppose health reform; provisions that take away the money (or try to) from the implementation of full reform in 2014; and countless provisions of the law attached to other bills like defense that make them hard to vote down. Symbolic politics is just that. It is symbolic not action. It does not solve problems. It makes Washington politicians “look” like they are solving problems. But in the end, Americans and their families who are not lucky enough to be completely healthy with jobs and health insurance, will struggle to get coverage and keep it. Buyer beware, you say? Voters already rejected that idea. But if you voted differently, you need to pay attention to what is about to happen and help your friends and families understand the real purpose of these activities. It will be more important than ever to keep refuting the lies and misrepresentations of health reform.

health care reform failed to cure prices

The health-care law of 2010 is, as Vice President Biden put it, a “big [expletive] deal.” It sets us on the road to universal health insurance. It is a favorite target for Republicans gunning to take over Congress. Lawmakers who supported it could lose their jobs. And it will remain a central focus after the midterms, as Democrats defend it against legal and political challenges through 2014, when it takes full effect. Easy To Insure ME

But the Democrats’ effort to sell the law to the public may be undermined by what even some ardent supporters consider its biggest shortfall. The overhaul left virtually untouched one big element of our health-care dilemma: the price problem. Simply put, Americans pay much more for each bit of care — tests, procedures, hospital stays, drugs, devices — than people in other rich nations.

Health-care providers in the United States have tremendous power to set prices. There is no government “single payer” on the other side of the table, and consolidation by hospitals and doctors has left insurers and employers in weak negotiating positions.

“We spend fewer per capita days in the hospital compared with other advanced countries, we see the doctor less frequently, and we swallow fewer pills,” said Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the implementation of Massachusetts’s 2006 health-care law. “We just pay a lot more for each of those units than other countries.”

The 2010 law does little to address this. Its many cost-control provisions are geared toward reducing the amount of care we consume, not the price we pay. The law encourages doctors and hospitals to join “accountable care organizations” that have financial incentives to limit unnecessary care; it beefs up “comparative effectiveness research” to weed out inefficient treatments; and it will eventually tax the most expensive insurance plans to restrain consumers’ superfluous use of health care.

Such measures could reduce redundant tests, emergency room visits and hospital readmissions, which would help control the costs of Medicare, where the government sets rates. But they are less likely to lower prices outside Medicare and stem the growth of private insurance rates.

The main reason for this is politics. Remember how drawn-out the health-care battle was? It started in the spring of 2009 and was waged for a full year. The bill’s proponents in the White House and in Congress had some inkling of how tough the fight with the insurance companies would be. Taking on hospitals, doctors, and drug and device manufacturers as well — the people you’d face in a showdown over prices — might have been fatal.

So there was no price fight. The law will go on to face a likely post-midterm Republican onslaught — and dismantling it may be easier if Americans think it does little to restrain costs. It is one of those fine political ironies: The law derided as socialism may have had an easier time winning favor from a skeptical public if it was, well, a little more socialist.

It’s pretty far from socialist as it stands. The administration decided not to seek lower drug rates for Medicare, and it didn’t press for a “public option,” a government-run insurance plan that people under 65 could buy into. While supporters of the public option sold it as a way to compete with insurers, the real target was hospitals and doctors. A public option would have created a nationwide purchaser of health care that could have exerted leverage on providers to cut prices. This would have lowered the law’s costs by reducing the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable.

To avoid the wrath of hospitals and doctors, proponents of the bill rarely emphasized this cost-control argument. Nonetheless, when conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats weakened the public option in committee, they cited opposition from providers. And when the bill’s supporters floated a close alternative to the public option — letting people over 55 buy into Medicare — the reaction from Sen. Olympia Snowe, the moderate Maine Republican, said it all: “I am talking to a lot of my providers . . . and I know they are mighty unhappy.” Snowe exposed where the lobbying strength lay: No senator ever spoke of listening to “my insurers.”

“The public hates the insurance industry and trusts doctors and hospitals,” said Richard Kirsch, head of the liberal coalition Health Care for America Now. “But what killed the public option was the hospitals, not the insurance industry.”

Politicians wanted to avoid a confrontation over providers’ prices. So a different policy argument took hold: The real reason everything cost so much was the overuse of health care, not the actual prices of treatment.
This argument came primarily from Dartmouth College researchers who had amassed data showing wide disparities in Medicare spending among different regions. Hospitals in the lower-spending areas, mostly in the Upper Midwest and the Northwest, seized on the study to argue that the key to controlling costs was to reward providers like them. The case was popularized by Atul Gawande’s widely read New Yorker article in June 2009 focusing on McAllen, Tex., one of the highest spenders in the Dartmouth rankings. If health-care delivery in places such as McAllen could be brought in line with lower-spending places such as the Mayo Clinic’s home town, Rochester, Minn. — through the formation of integrated networks of salaried doctors — costs could be reined in.

The theory caught fire at the White House. It gave President Obama and his then-budget guru Peter Orszag a way to talk about costs without taking on doctors and hospitals; instead, the White House could simply differentiate between providers that offer “value” and those that don’t.

But the Dartmouth rankings, and the concept they supported, did a “disservice” to the debate, said Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute. For one thing, he and others say, the figures overstate regional differences in Medicare spending, which shrink when socioeconomic factors are taken into account. Second, rates of Medicare spending are not necessarily representative of health-care spending for people under 65. Some of the places that do well in the Dartmouth rankings charge high prices for non-Medicare patients — and were, not surprisingly, among those pushing hardest against a public option.

More broadly, the skeptics argue that merely providing care in smaller quantities will not sufficiently lower costs. They note that Americans already have shorter hospital stays and fewer doctors’ visits than people in other advanced countries. What sets us apart is our high prices for these health-care “units” — a finding trumpeted in a landmark 2003 paper by Princeton’s Uwe Reinhardt and others titled “It’s the Prices, Stupid.” The price problem is only getting worse, researchers and antitrust investigators have found, because of consolidation among providers, and it could be exacerbated by goading them to form even bigger networks.

But the notion that we pay more, despite using health care less, never caught on during the long march to reform. The main culprits driving our health-care costs were deemed to be inefficient doctors in a few corners of the country and demanding consumers — say, people seeking unnecessary surgery or patients with unhealthy habits and chronic conditions.

The camp that believes volume is the main problem disputes the idea that bigger networks of hospitals and doctors would make the price problem worse. “The more we’re able to encourage integrated systems of care, the better,” the new Medicare director, Donald Berwick, a Dartmouth data champion, told me before his nomination by Obama.

Berwick and his allies say they never meant for overuse of care to become the sole focus. Elliott Fisher, the lead Dartmouth researcher, said he did not intend for his data to be “interpreted as letting off the hook” those providers that kept overuse in check but charged high prices. “We clearly need to do both” prices and volume, he said.

But we didn’t do both in the health-care law, which raises the question of what will happen once the overhaul proves inadequate to the price problem. Perhaps the public option will be reconsidered, as many liberals hope. Perhaps there will be a new push for lower drug prices. Or maybe there will be a return to the rate-setting that prevailed decades ago, when hospitals, insurers and state officials worked together to agree on prices. Maryland is the only state that still does this, and data suggests that it has kept its cost growth lower than average. Massachusetts is considering a similar approach.

Would such measures have a chance? Perhaps. For one thing, as skeptical as insurers are of government intervention, they are glad to discuss reform that aggressively goes after providers. “We have a major cost problem, and we have to get on with the job of attacking it — with every stakeholder who is responsible for that,” said Karen Ignagni, the insurance industry’s chief lobbyist.

And the public? The Brookings Institution’s Henry Aaron predicts that there may be support for tougher action on high prices once the principle of universal health coverage is established, since taxpayers will be on the hook for more of the cost of insurance. “If we attacked costs right at the front end, [the legislation] would have died,” he said. “Now, we’ll have a mechanism that will force us to address it. There are only so many fronts you can fight a war on at the same time.”

That’s assuming, of course, that the law survives long enough to enjoy any embellishment.

Premium tax would hike health-insurance costs

Why? Because Congress wants to levy a .7 billion premium tax on all private health plans each year for the next decade to pay for reform.

That’s a billion tax.

Health plans will have no choice but to pass these costs on to the consumer. This tax will make it tougher for families to afford coverage, increase the difficulty for small-business owners trying hard to insure workers, and stifle job creation.

In Florida, small businesses are the bedrock of our economy. This tax will hit our economy especially hard. It’s just not what families and small businesses need as they dig their way out of a severe recession.

The Congressional Budget Office evaluated this tax and found it will lead to “higher premiums for private coverage.” The nonpartisan CBO estimated that premiums for individual coverage could rise by as much as 13 percent.

This tax also might be disruptive to policyholders, because it could damage the ability of health plans to deliver all the benefits that members expect.

That’s because Congress is ready to impose this health-insurance tax in 2010. That’s after families have already signed up for coverage for next year, and after small businesses have already negotiated coverage contracts.

The result? Health plans may not receive enough premium to cover the costs of the massive tax, and benefits might suffer.

Unfortunately, health plans have been demonized in the pursuit of reform. But in reality, it’s not true to claim that health plans make a lot of money; their profit margins are actually pretty small.

In 2008, private health plans made .61 billion in total profits nationally, according to Forbes magazine. The industry’s profit margin was just 2.2 percent, ranking health plans 35th out of 53 industries in terms of profitability.

As the president and CEO of SantaFe HealthCare — the parent company of AvMed Health Plans — I am truly concerned by this proposed tax. As one of Florida’s oldest and largest nonprofit health plans, AvMed reinvests its earnings each year to continually improve on the benefits and services it offers to members in Orlando and elsewhere.

Obviously, a health-insurance tax that wipes out most of our annual earnings is counterproductive to our mission. Surely, congressional leaders must grasp that this tax doesn’t make sense.

There are better ways to pay for the systemic health-care reform that AvMed and other health plans support.

Instead of taxing health insurance, Congress should focus on the underlying costs of medical care. We can achieve huge cost savings by ending unnecessary treatments and services, rooting out rampant fraud and ending frivolous medical lawsuits filed by trial lawyers.

Health reform shouldn’t hurt Florida’s families and small businesses. It shouldn’t hamper the ability of health plans to provide benefits.

Time’s running out.

Please contact your congressional representative and Florida’s two senators today. Ask them to vote against this harmful health-insurance tax. We can achieve true, lasting reform in better ways.

Vision Shopsters: The Future Of Enteral Nutrition: Key players, disease specific opportunities and market forecasts

Fuelled by an aging population and rising rates of illness, the clinical nutrition markets in the US, Canada and the EU continue to expand. Each of the five major product manufacturers are attempting to differentiate their offerings through the development of new products tailored specifically for certain patient groups. These products offer significantly greater nutritive benefits than more general products, offering manufacturers a means to establish leadership in these segments and capture share. Certain other companies, including start up enterprises, are also entering this market with unique new products.
This report analyzes the clinical nutrition market, identifying new product opportunities, and discusses how they will impact the market in the near and long term. The product development strategies of the leading manufacturers are analyzed and key opportunities are identified.

Key features of this report

• Examines the current products and uses for clinical nutrition
• Identifies and analyzes the most recent trends and issues in enteral nutrition
• Forecasts the market through 2014 for the US, Canada and EU as well as by major European country, including market share information and size/growth forecasts
• Discusses how different market segments will evolve over the next five years and why
• Explores the complexities of market trends and opportunities
• Profiles the major enteral nutrition companies and their growth strategies

Scope of this report

• Develop deeper insight into the size and growth of the enteral nutrition industry by utilizing the report’s unique market forecasts.
• Understand the key new product opportunities for this market in both the near and long term.
• Assess your organization’s position in the market and develop strategies to optimize this position.
• Anticipate future enteral nutrition market trends and make your decisions as effective and economical as possible by understanding the industry dynamics.
• Evaluate important trends in enteral nutrition.

Key Market Issues

• Demand for enteral nutrition products is rising as the populations of the US, Canada and the EU continue to age.
• The continued trend towards personalized medicine is manifesting in the clinical nutrition market via disease-specific products and increased research into nutrigenic products.
• As hospital stays continue to decrease and more patients make use of home healthcare, particularly in Europe, the home market will become an increasingly important segment for enteral nutrition.
• With high and rising rates of obesity, and diabetes many enteral nutrition companies are developing products for these individuals who require medical feeding.
• Malnutrition among newly admitted hospital patients remains high, creating a strong need for enteral nutrition products.

Key findings from this report

• Total sales of enteral nutrition products in the US, Canada and the EU reached .6bn in 2009. Of this, 41.2% was derived from US sales, while 3.2% was derived from Canada and the remaining 55.5% was obtained from the EU. Through 2014, total enteral nutrition product sales will rise by 7% per year to reach .1bn, reflecting continued downward pricing pressure. The greatest growth will occur in the EU, at 7.1% per year, followed by the US at 7% per year and Canada at 6.2% per year.
• Neuromuscular condition patients accounted for the greatest proportion of enteral nutrition sales in 2009, followed by cancer patients, nutritional depletion/malnutrition patients, surgery/burn patients, gastrointestinal disease patients, dialysis patients, immunotherapy patients and other patients.
• Although many enteral nutrition products may be considered multifunctional, in that they can be safely and effectively used in a wide variety of clinical situations, some newer products are being optimized for certain important disease states.
• In terms of new product opportunities in the near term, patient populations that are currently underserved include those suffering from obesity, diabetics, respiratory patients, seniors and persons with dysphagia. These groups also tend to have a life-long need for medical nutrition products, creating a significant market opportunity.

Key questions answered

• What will the enteral nutrition market size and growth be through to 2014 for the US, Canada and EU?
• Within the EU, how do enteral nutrition product sales vary by country and why?
• Which companies are current and future key players?
• What are the major new product opportunities in the near and long term?
• How do new product opportunities vary by disease and region?
• What factors will affect new product opportunities in the future?

To know more about this report & to buy a copy please visit :
http://www.visionshopsters.com/product/7385/The-Future-Of-Enteral-Nutrition-Key-players-disease-specific-opportunities-and-market-forecasts.html

Contact us:

Visionshopsters
Ph : 91-22-40583020
Email: marketing@visionshopsters.com
Website : www.visionshopsters.com

the new health care law

In an interview today with Nebraska radio station KOGA, Nebraska`s Senator Ben Nelson said he worked to make sure the new health care law wasn`t a government takeover of health care, addressed some of its benefits for Nebraskans and concerns that have been raised about the law. Below are excerpts from the interview. Easy To Insure ME has the answers

Asked about those who are calling for a repeal and replacement, Senator Nelson pointed out that many of the provisions already in effect are making the health insurance market fairer for Nebraskans:

“For those who want to repeal it, it`s going to be interesting to see if they want to repeal this: banning insurers from preventing coverage due to pre-existing conditions. That`s in place. Allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines. . .¦Allowing¨ kids ¦to be on parent`s insurance¨ up until the age of 26. There are a lot of parents struggling right now. They paid for and borrowed a lot of money for a college education. They get out, they can`t find a job. They`d be kicked off the parent`s health insurance plan. And if they had a pre-existing condition, they wouldn`t qualify for individual insurance and if they didn`t have a job they wouldn`t qualify for group insurance. So they could be uninsured. That was taken care of. There were just a number of things that are already in place. . .Right now insurers cannot impose annual and lifetime caps on benefits. They can`t drop a person`s coverage just because they get sick. Those things are already in the -

The senator highlighted the fact that 220,000 Nebraskans – roughly the population of Lincoln – don`t have health insurance. By reducing that number, the new law aims to control costs that are currently passed on from those who don`t have health insurance to those who do:

“There are 220,000 Nebraskans who don`t currently have health insurance. . .The number of people who live in Lincoln don`t have health insurance in Nebraska. And we can`t take the approach of `hey, I have mine, now you get yours.` Many of them can`t qualify easily because of pre-existing conditions.

“When people don`t have health care coverage, they still get health care because they go to the emergency rooms and when they go to the emergency rooms they can`t pay. Guess who that cost is passed on to? Those of us that do have insurance and are able then to pay and our rates are higher.

“This ¦law¨ is aimed at changing that to level the playing field. If we didn`t do something, premium costs due to health care costs are going to continue going up at double digit levels. They`re going to go up in the meantime until all the insurance reforms kick in. But that won`t be because of health insurance reform. It will be because health costs continue to skyrocket. This is all aimed at reducing the impact of that and the increasing cost of health care, which is the driving force for our costs of health insurance.“

Asked about concerns people have with the new law, Nelson said that he worked to ensure that it is not a government takeover of health care and noted that it relies on the existing private system. He drew attention to the fact that some fears people raised haven`t come to pass such as “death panels,“ that he read the entire bill before it was passed, his role in shaping the bill and said that he will be watching the implementation of the bill carefully to make sure it follows Congress` intent:

“But I think people were warned about some things that never occurred. For example, where are the death panels? There aren`t any death panels. We also heard that the law would require people who want public health insurance to be implanted with a microchip. That hasn`t happened and it`s not going to happen. And where`s the rationing we were warned about? But perhaps the scariest thing we heard was a government takeover of health care. Have we seen that? No we haven`t. But it`s controversial; I understand. I worked hard against the public option, which was going to replace the private system. I worked hard to make sure we didn`t get that public option, that we have retained the private system. There`s no public option, no national health insurance plan, no single payer system in the law. So those are the kinds of things that could have happened but didn`t happen because I and some others fought very hard against those things happening.“

Nutritional Supplements Are Important For Optimal Health

It’s estimated we are receiving only 40 percent of the nutritional value of food nowadays.  Some reports suggest this is untrue while many reports go even farther by saying this figure is actually lower.  In any case, unless you are fortunate enough to have a garden close by with organic fresh food you can harvest and eat on a daily basis, I believe the food available in the supermarket does indeed lack in nutrition.

 Many fresh foods travel great distances and many foods are processed to increase shelf life.  To obtain the highest possible yield, producers are forced to rely on chemical fertilizers and pesticides for their crops, while other producers use growth hormones, antibiotics, and inhumane confinement for animal production.  (By the way, from what I understand about antibiotics given to animals destined for the dinner table…they are not necessary if the animals are kept in clean, un-crowded environments where they are able to stretch their legs and get fresh air and sunshine daily.  Another reason to shop organic.)

 The availability of high-calorie, high-fat, high-sugar, and low-fibre foods has rapidly become commonplace, and growing concern with processed foods is they are becoming much less expensive than nutrient-dense foods such as fruits and vegetables.  The availability and lower price of processed and energy-dense foods rich in sugar and fat makes them appealing to the pocket book as well as the taste buds, but not without consequences.  Obesity, heart disease, arthritis, diabetes and other chronic conditions are gaining a stronghold in North America and researchers are now beginning to admit that diet plays a huge role in the prevention and treatment of disease.   

 Balance, variety, and moderation are the keys to a healthful diet.  A balanced proportion of foods from the different food groups, a variety of foods from within the different food groups, and moderation in the consumption of any food should provide us with the nutrients we need to sustain life.

 Although developments in the food industry over time have improved food quality and safety, there are still concerns over the nutritional content the food actually contains.  Nutrients should come primarily from the foods we eat, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find foods that have not been grown in nutritionally challenged soils.  Decades of poor agricultural practices are depleting foods of the nutrients we need for optimal health and wellness.

This is why nutritional supplements are important. 

 Nutritional supplements are designed to provide nutrients, both essential and non-essential, that you may not be getting from your diet.  Also known as dietary supplements, nutritional supplements are an important part of a balanced health regime and can offer significant health benefits.  They can help to correct nutritional deficiencies and help boost the immune system, and there is growing scientific evidence supporting the benefits of nutritional supplements and their role in maintaining optimal health.  

 Nutritional and dietary supplements are big business.  It’s estimated that over twenty-five billions dollars a year is spent in the United States alone on natural health products.  So which supplements should you look for and which are safe to take?

 In the United States, the FDA regulates dietary supplements.  According to their website, “dietary supplements (are regulated) under a different set of regulations than those covering “conventional” foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements. * Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.  *Domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture/process, pack, or hold food for human or animal consumption in the United States are required to register their facility with the FDA.”

 Although “the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its dietary supplement products are safe before they are marketed” and “there are no provisions in the law for FDA to “approve” dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness before they reach the consumer”, it’s important to purchase nutritional supplements from a reputable company who has been in busy for many years.  You can also read more on FDA regulations with regards to dietary supplements on the FDA website.

 In Canada, the laws are much more stringent.  On January 1, 2004 The Natural Health Products Regulations came into effect and apply to all natural health products.  Products defined in the Regulations as natural health products include vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, probiotics, homeopathic medicines, traditional medicines (such as Traditional Chinese Medicines), amino acids and essential fatty acids.

 Natural health products that fall under these regulations require an NPN (Natural Product Number).  Once Health Canada has assessed the product, an eight digit product license number, preceded by the letters “NPN” will appear on the label informing consumers that Health Canada has reviewed the product for safety, quality, and health claims, and the product has been approved to be marketed under the Natural Health Products Regulationsand has authorized the product for sale in Canada.  The Natural Health Product Directorate (NHPD) is the regulating authority for health products for sale in Canada.

 Nutritional supplements that are considered food products or whole-food concentrates come under the regulations of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and do not require NPNs.  When purchasing nutritional supplements look for a Natural Product Number (NPN) on the label to ensure the product has met the requirements of Health Canada, and also make sure the company selling the product is a reputable company with a good track record.

 Including nutritional supplements in your diet and daily health regime doesn’t need to be hard or cost a lot of money.  Many companies offer high quality supplements at reasonable prices and it only takes a few minutes to mix up a healthy “green drink” from a barley grass juice concentrate such as AIM BarleyLife® or include a supplement caplet such as Kyolic® Aged Garlic Extract™ with your meal.   

 There are many health benefits nutritional supplements have to offer.  In these modern times, with the convenience, cost and available of fast and processed foods, poor dietary habits and the questionable nutrition content of nutrient-dense foods, nutritional supplements are becoming increasingly popular as an addition to complement the diet.  Simply put, nutritional supplements are important for optimal health. 

 AIM provides a variety of superior whole food concentrates and nutritional supplements to support a healthy lifestyle, strengthen the immune system, and nourish your cells, and AIM Members enjoy the benefits of wholesale pricing.

 As Members of AIM Canada, we have a dedicated team of knowledgeable people keeping on top of all the legislation and regulations, ensuring AIM Canada is compliant, so we will continue to have the right to use and share natural health products to protect our health and the health of others who wish to use Natural Health Products.

 To date AIM Canada has acquired eleven NPNs with nine other AIM products in the licensing process.  Food products such as AIM BarleyLife®, LeafGreens®, Just Carrots®, ProPeas™ and RediBeets® come under the regulations of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and do not require NPNs. 

Nutrition Studies: Common Curriculums

Find Nutrition Studies in the United States and Canada. Undergraduate nutrition studies frequently share common curriculums that are relatively comprehensive in nature. In most cases, nutrition studies involve broad and diverse subject matter including coursework in biology, essential nutrients, human growth and development, as well as other fundamental education.

Additional nutrition studies branch out into several disciplines entailing mineral nutrition, exercise, and nutrition with regards to disease; lipids, metabolic and environmental health, and more. Ordinarily, nutrition studies cover coursework in dietetics, nutritional counseling, food and nutrition services management, sport nutrition, fitness and wellness,

Laying the foundation with undergraduate nutrition studies helps students to further academic paths as they apply to graduate programs where they can earn a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in nutritional science, clinical nutrition, fitness and personal training, and wellness counseling, among others. That goes without saying that a number of nutrition studies can result in an Associates or Bachelor’s degree, as well as certification.

Serving as part of the medical healthcare community, nutritionists may also opt to participate in holistic nutrition studies where they will gain an edge in integrative health and wellness. For example, holistic nutrition studies expand the professional dimensions of nutritionists who learn about TCM (traditional Chinese medicine), herbology, aromatherapy, and other complementary health services.

Overall, it is never too late to achieve your healthcare training goals; and predicted to be one of the fastest growing occupations*, dieticians and nutritionists can anticipate rewarding outlooks – both personally and professionally.

If you (or someone you know) are interested in finding nutrition studies, let professional training within fast-growing industries like massage therapy, cosmetology, acupuncture, oriental medicine, Reiki, and others get you started! Explore career school programs near you.

Employment source: Bls.gov (US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Nutrition Studies: Common Curriculums

All Rights Reserved

NOTICE: Article(s) may be republished free of charge to relevant websites, as long as Copyright and Author Resource Box are included; and ALL Hyperlinks REMAIN intact and active.