There is no going back. Health care reform is here to stay. So what changes can you expect to see in your home, and how soon are you going to them made?

President Obama addressed a crowd of college students in Portland Maine a week after he signed the health care bill into law. There, he assured Americans that this bill “…represents enormous progress. It enshrines the principal that every American should have the security of decent care, and that nobody should go bankrupt because they’ve got a kid that is sick with a preexisting condition, that small business shouldn’t be burdened because they want to do the right thing by their employee.”

Among the major changes that are going to take place are large tax cuts for the middle class. According to whitehouse.gov, “This is the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families, helping to make insurance much more affordable for millions of families.”

For most of us, this means a significant decrease in monthly premiums on our current health insurance. It also means that if you are a small business owner, you will receive large tax credits for providing health care coverage for your employees, which could mean an increase in capital to spend on new labor, which means more jobs will be available across the country.

Here are some of the facts:

• It is the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families.
• Americans buying the same coverage they have today in the individual market will see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent compared to what they would pay without health insurance reform and by as much as 3% for those who get coverage through their employers.
• The Small Business Health Care Tax Credit can cover up to 35 percent of the premiums a small business pays to cover its workers. In 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent
• Reduces out-of-pocket expenses so insurance doesn’t still leave families holding the bag
• Bans lifetime limits on coverage

As President Obama spoke about the new health care reform he said “We are going to have to make some adjustments along the way.” This means that we have to get the facts straight, and educate ourselves on how we can take advantage of all the incentives in place as a result of the new bill.

To get more information about the health care bill and to read more about the tax cuts for the middle class, visit www.whitehouse.gov.

Source:

Pfeiffer, Dan. “Health Reform and the Recovery Act: Unprecedented Tax Cuts for the Middle Class.” The White House. 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 21 Apr. 2010. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/13/health-reform-and-recovery-act-unprecedented-tax-cuts-middle-class>.

Coca Cola and Pepsi Co joined former president Bill Clinton in announcing the results of an initiative they said had reduced the number of soft drink calories in American schools by 88%.

The announcement comes after Michelle Obama increased pressure on the companies by targeting them as one of the many causes of obesity in children.

One in five US children aged six to 19 are estimated to be obese, a condition that frequently leads to related health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.  Conditions that can follow obese children through adulthood.

Since soft drink companies are the biggest targets to preventing obesity in our children, their proactive approach by partnering with Bill Clinton may protect their future earnings as they are expecting a slide in profits as people continue to lead healthier lifestyles.

“It’s a brand new day in America’s schools when it comes to beverages,” said Susan Neely, the head of the American Beverage Association. “Our beverage companies have slashed calories in schools as full calorie soft drinks have been removed. The beverages available to students are now lower-calorie and are served in smaller portions.”

Under the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint initiative of the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, full calorie drinks were removed from shipments to school cafeterias and vending machines.  Low-fat milk, diet soft drinks, flavored waters and teas replaced the sugary drinks.

Coca Cola and Pepsi Co also spent millions of dollars in retrofitting vending machines and repackaging products.

“School is a unique environment where students make food and beverage choices with limited supervision,” said Clyde Yancy, president of the American Heart Association.

In addition to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, there is an increasing urgency to impose a “fat tax” on soft drinks.  New York is in the forefront of the campaign, which the American Beverage Association vigorously opposes.

New York State Health Commissioner Richard Daines considers the “fat tax” as an opportunity to help our children. “The dramatic under pricing of sugar sweetened beverages, their widespread availability, and the ceaseless marketing of these products constitute a stumbling block to good health and are a clear and present danger to the future of our children,” Daines said.

SOURCE: http://health.yahoo.com/news/afp/ushealthobesitychildrendrinkschooltax_20100308220858.html

President Obama recently announced another overhaul to the health care proposal that incorporates previously rejected Republican ideas.  Does this mean that we could be one step closer to an approved health care reform?  Here are the GOP ideas, recently added to the proposal.

Fight fraud and abuse. Republicans have been pushing for background checks on billing agencies, insurance companies and individuals to help prevent fraud and abuse in the health care industry. Obama now proposes that random undercover investigations of health care providers take place on a regular basis.   It has been documented that fraud and abuse wastes billions of tax payer dollars each year.

Control malpractice lawsuits. Republicans wanted a push to end ‘junk lawsuits’.  Obama is now a supporter of this idea and will is appropriate $50 million to help states find alternate resolutions to costly medical malpractice disputes.  Part of the money would develop and manage a health court system.

Increase Medicaid.  Obama plans to increase Medicaid reimbursements to doctors, an idea originally supported by Republicans. Obama’s plan eliminates the controversial Nebraska proposal which exempts that state from paying increased Medicaid expenses. It also provides additional federal financing to all 50 states for the Medicaid expansion.

Close the donut hole.  Obama’s newest proposal closes the Medicare prescription drug ‘donut hole’.  Under current Medicare limits, seniors are covered until they reach the $2,830 limit.  At that time, they must pay all additional costs out of pocket until they reach $4,550, at which point Medicare coverage kicks back in.  Obama’s proposal provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who reach the $2,830 limit in 2010. The plan slowly closes the donut hole over the next 10 years.

Health care exchange plans.  Republicans were concerned about ensuring that Health Savings Accounts are included in the health care exchange program.  Obama is now considering including language that guarantees that high deductible health plans are offered in the health exchange. “The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for current and future health care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSA funds to pay premiums for high deductible health insurance,” according to official GOP website, gop.gov.

SOURCE:  http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/03/health.care.gop.ideas/index.html

SOURCE: http://www.gop.gov/

After 7 1/2 hours of debate and disagreement, President Obama concluded that an agreement between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible.

“We cannot have another year long debate about this,”  Obama said at the end of the full day marathon policy session.

Neither party gave any ground, sticking to arguing useless points and making egotistical comments.  The conversation veered between irrelevant details and bad tempers.  Disagreements were not expressed diplomatically, cheap shots and negative remarks continued throughout the day, and irritation was clearly visible on the faces of both parties.

Polls are showing that Americans want solutions to the biggest problems of high medical costs, decreasing access to coverage and inconsistent quality. However, many Americans are split over the Democrats’ sweeping legislation, with its 1 trillion dollar price tag pver 10 years and many complex provisions, including some changes that wouldn’t even take effect for eight years.

Obama and his Democratic party clashed with congressional Republicans over the right prescription for the nation’s broken health care system.  Republicans oppose this dramatically sweeping health care plan and favor small changes over a period of years.

The Democratic bills would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for others in the form of a tax credit. They would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Democrats also would make numerous other changes, which include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long term care insurance program. Their plan would be paid for through a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

“Not only are lawmakers polarized, the parties’ constituencies are far apart,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who follows public opinion trends on health care. “The president is going to use it as a launching pad for what will be the last effort to get a big bill passed. He will say that he tried to get a bipartisan compromise and it wasn’t possible.”

SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Earlier this week, President Obama released a modified health care plan – three days before a bipartisan summit on health care.

The modified plan, in general, contains the same fundamentals included in the House and Senate bills that have already passed, but with adjustments and provisions.  President Obama is hoping that by laying out a health care plan that largely resembles the House and Senate bills that everyone could reach a compromise. By releasing his new plan earlier this week, days before the health care summit, the White House is trying to frame the debate until then.

Some highlights from the new White House health care plan:

New federal insurance regulation The plan includes a new federal health insurance regulatory board that will review rate increases and block those it deems unjustified.  State insurance commissioners have the power to do this in most places, but a new federal authority could strengthen rate regulation.

Medicaid help for states The plan would eliminate the notorious and despised Cornhusker Kickback, a special Medicaid deal awarded to Nebraska under the original Senate bill. Instead, the Obama Administration’s health care plan would increase Medicaid funding for all states. The plan would also give extra funding to states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs, even without federal prompting. This could do a lot to appease governors who have been loudly protesting the Medicaid expansion called for under Democratic reform, saying the state-federal program will eventually break their budgets.

Weakens the cadillac tax The plan delays the implementation of the excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans until 2018 and raises the threshold for which plans would get taxed. Beginning in 2018, individual plans with premiums above $10,200 and families plans above $27,500 would be subject to the tax. There are adjustments made for companies where costs are higher because of age and gender of workers and there is an adjustment made for workers in high-risk occupations.

Closes the doughnut hole The plan would close the Medicare drug benefit “doughnut hole” completely by 2020. This would be paid for by an additional $10 billion in fees from drug companies.

Increases affordability The plan increases subsidies for middle income Americans buying their own health insurance on the open market beyond what the Senate bill called for.

Imposes higher fees on individuals and employers who go without insurance The plan would strengthen the individual mandate by adopting the House’s higher penalties for those who opt not to buy insurance. There are still hardship exemptions and exemptions for those with income below the tax filing threshold. The fee on employers who don’t offer coverage would be $2,000 per worker, with firms with 50 or fewer employees exempted from this requirement. There is also a $40 billion infusion of tax credits available to small businesses to help them offer coverage beginning in 2010.

National exchange, no public option and Senate abortion language The Obama plan does not mention any of these sticking points, meaning it favors the Senate exchange design (state based exchanges rather than the House’s national exchange), the Senate’s abortion language (not the House’s Stupak language) and the Senate’s lack of a public option.

The Obama plan would cost $950 billion over ten years and provide new insurance coverage for 31 million Americans.

SOURCE: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/details-of-obamas-health-care-plan/#respond

If you are considering a tummy tuck or facelift you may want to get it done before the New Year.

With the health care debate, the Senate is considering an 848 billion dollar health care reform bill that includes a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery.  This tax is estimated to raise $5.8 billion over the next ten years.

The cosmetic surgery industry is trying to convince lawmakers and the public that the tax wouldn’t just limit the wealthy, as per their stated intent, but it would unfairly target middle class women.  They also note that women face increasing pressure to maintain a youthful appearance, unlike the aging male senators who are responsible for creating this tax.

Research collected by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has shown that 86% of cosmetic surgery patients are  women, and 60% of those women have an annual income of 30,000 – 90,000 annually.  This tax would completely and unfairly target women within this data range. On average, women are paying $3300 for breast augmentation, and $4100 for nose reshaping.  The tax will also be applied to Botox and other fillers and injections.  A 5% tax may exclude many women from being able to afford their treatments and surgeries.

Cosmetic surgeons in the United States are afraid that if this tax was put into place, consumers would go abroad for their cosmetic surgeries.  After New Jersey adopted a 6% tax on cosmetic surgery in 2004, many patients went to New York or Pennsylvania for their procedures.  If the healthcare bill is passed with the proposed cosmetic surgery tax, it would put American women at risk because many surgeons overseas do not comply with American standards of medicine.

Over the next few weeks the public should learn more about the tax on cosmetic surgeries and whether it will be included or excluded from the proposed health care bill.

SOURCE:  USA Today 12.07.09

A new study revealed hope for families with children that are autistic. For the first time, researchers have discovered that if a child is diagnosed with autism as early as 18 months of age, they can raise IQ levels and improve language skills through age-appropriate therapy.  “Early intervention can be very effective for toddlers with autism,” says Geraldine Dawson, chief science officer of the advocacy group Autism Speaks, and one of the two lead authors of the study.

Children with autism can have one of several complex neurological disorders, which lead to social impairments, communication difficulties and restrictive and repetitive behaviors. While the cause of autism in not known , the benefits of early intervention have been shown to reduce disruptive behaviors and teach the child skills that will lead to greater independence as he or she gets older.

There is no known cure for autism. The researchers in this study are quick to point out that they were not able to cure children with autism, the subjects of the study still have autism, but in a milder form.

In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that all children be screened for autism at the ages of 18 months and 24 months.  What was always unclear was once a child was diagnosed as autistic, no one knew the next steps for therapy.

Geraldine Dawson and Sally Rogers from the University of California-Davis M.I.N.D. Institute devised the trial involving 48 children with autism.  All the children in the trial were between 18 months and 2 1/2 years old at the beginning of the study. Half of the children were given community-based interventions or therapies and the other half were enrolled in a 20-hour per week intervention program called “Early Start Denver Model” (ESDM), developed by Rogers. The goal of this research was to determine how they can reduce the debilitating effects of autism.

The Early Start Denver Model was designed to address the needs of toddlers with autism as young as 12 months old.  ESDM is delivered by trained therapists and their parents in a very natural setting, usually the child’s own home. Children are sitting on the floor and playing, rather than having adult-directed therapy. “It’s a very pleasing kind of therapy, kids are happy. It is play, and it can happen everywhere,” Rogers explains. Dawson adds that this type of intervention builds on a fun, positive relationship with the therapist. This is a contrast to traditional Applied Behavioral Analysis, which is delivered at a desk, with the child sitting next to the teacher or therapist, who breaks down complex tasks into small components and then gives tangible reinforcements.

At the end of the two year study, all children showed improvement.  However, the children in the ESDM group had increased their IQ by nearly 18 points.  This was 10 points higher than the children getting the standard autism therapy offered in the community. Scores for listening and understanding were higher in the ESDM group as well as self-care skills. 

The study’s authors also noted that the children in the ESDM group required only 15 hours of weekly intervention with a therapist, compared with the usual 40 recommended hours. This can have a significant economic impact on families. In 2006, a Harvard study estimated the lifelong cost of care for person with autism is more than $3 million. Rogers says parents can pick up the ESDM therapy methods quite easily. “They can learn this within six hours of working with therapists,” she says. Then parents can use the skills in everyday settings, not just during specific therapy sessions.

“This is a good-news story” says Dr. Fred Volkmar, an autism expert and director of Yale University’s Child Study Center.  He says it shows that by effectively intervening at this young age, it is possible to prevent some of the early problems autism causes.

For more information on how to recognize autism, EDMS and other possible therapies, go to http://www.autismspeaks.org/ and http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/.

SOURCE:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/conditions/11/30/autism.study/index.html

Abortion has been a topic of controversy between religion and politics for decades.  With the recent passing of the new health care bill, we find that once again, the topic is making headlines. 

The issue that is bringing new drama to the White House is the language concerning abortion in the health care bill.  Under the House bill, people would be permitted to buy supplemental coverage for abortions with their own money.

Abortion rights supporters are furious.  Abortion groups have called the idea discriminatory and preposterous, arguing that women would never plan ahead for an abortion.  They are demanding that the legislation that was recently passed by the House of Representatives be changed.  They go further to point out that healthcare would be restricted regarding women’s reproductive health.  To show their support, 90 House Democrats opposed to the amended abortion language wrote a letter to President Obama last week.

Religious leaders have been split over the issue of medical abortion coverage. Members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an organization comprised of representatives of progressive Catholic, Protestant and Jewish groups, will hold a news conference calling on the Senate to alter language in the House bill that places explicit restrictions on federal funding for abortion. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pushed successfully to amend the House bill to prohibit abortion coverage in a government-run health insurance plan, as well as in private plans that accept anyone using government subsidies to buy insurance coverage.

Over the next few weeks, the issues of abortion and healthcare will be debated in the Senate, regarding the House bill and taxpayer funding of abortion.  One will expect a fiery debate, bringing many ethical issues into the equation.  We can only wait and see if the language of the House bill is amended.

SOURCE:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/16/health.care.abortion/index.html

It’s a tough time right now in the United States, Canada and Mexico.  Stock markets are down, the economy is stagnant and the swine flu seems to be in the headlines daily.  Which brings me to ask this question.  Has the swine flu made this financial mess even worse?  We asked if the swine flu has had a negative effect on the tourism industry, and the answer is surprising.

Despite warnings against non-essential travel to Mexico from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Mexican tourism industry said recently that there has not been a significant change in their tourism numbers.  They claim that the biggest factor in their already struggling tourism industry was due to the negative publicity of violence associated with the drug cartel, and not the swine flu.  Mexican officias admit that there was an initial ’scare’ when the public didn’t know exactly what the swine flue was and how it was transmitted, but with the ongoing media coverage that inital ’scare’ is over and people continue to travel.

Mexico isn’t the only country that may have a tourism headache on its hands.  Swine flu cases have appeared world wide, potentially affecting tourism on a national level.  In our research, many countries are going to ‘wait and see’ how their tourism industry is affected.   November and December, which are the two biggest months for travel because of the holidays, will give us a better idea of how the swine flu has affected the tourism industry.

To help control the spread of swine flu during travel, the United States Customs and Border Protection said all of their personnel have received illness recognition training.  If a traveler exhibits symptoms of the disease, Customs and Border Protection must report the suspected illness to the CDC.

The World Health Organization urged countries not to restrict international travel or close borders, as such measures would not in themselves stem the outbreak.  Scientists have agreed that at this point, travel itself does not increase your risk of developing the flu.  They added that people who travel should wash their hands frequently and practice the same cleanliness measures as if they were at home.  Just because you are traveling doesn’t mean you don’t wash your hands.

Overall, within the United States, Canada and Mexico there has not been a huge decrease in travel and tourism due to swine flu.  Again, most countries are going to monitor November and December to receive accurate tourism numbers, but if we see decreased numbers it may be due to the economy instead of the swine flu.  As the general public becomes educated about the flu and understand the risks and take the steps and precautions, travel should not be avoided because of the flu.

SOURCE  http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/04/27/swine.flu.travel/

President Obama recently declared the swine flu virus a national emergency, but what exactly does that mean? 

The national emergency declaration,  by definition, means certain government functions are invoked and suspended during the state of national emergency, allowing for expedited care for those in need during the emergency.

This past June the World Health Organization upgraded H1N1 from phase five to a phase six pandemic, which is the highest level of pandemic. The public may be familiar with these declarations in regard to terrorism, but the H1N1 virus is the most recent pandemic resulting from a health risk to the public, unrelated to terrorism.

Obama’s declaration of a national emergency means hospitals are given the freedom to set up care sites outside of hospitals, such as in schools, parking lots and other available areas without the federal ‘red tape’.  If the hospital creates a health care site within 250 yards of the hospital, they qualify for federal reimbursement for the treatment of patients. The intent of setting up off site care locations is not only to slow the spread of the virus, but also to prevent overcrowding in the emergency room, which could free up space for other illnesses.

The declaration also allows hospitals to modify patient check-in procedures, minimizing paperwork which allows faster treatment to treat each illness.

An additional benefit is that changes and waivers to coverage may be made involving Medicare and Medicaid throughout the duration of the state of emergency. These changes and waivers may provide treatment to those who do not qualify under their current insurance.

The overall intent of the declaration is to give hospitals the freedom to fight the swine flu without federal paperwork, which ultimately slows the health care process.  This is particularly important when hospitals are dealing with a virus that is spread rapidly.

SOURCE  http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/10/27/swine-flu-emergency-what-obama-s-declaration-means.aspx